Stand to Reason Blog

Abortion: We Must Continue to Ask One Question

I'm around like-minded Christians quite a bit, so I've got to be intentional to get out of my bubble.  And when I do, I am reminded that many Christians are not in touch with the wealth of resources, arguments and evidence for the Christian worldview.  I've begun blogging for Conversant Life so I'm cross-listing my posts there.  Last week I claimed abortion is the greatest social justice issue of our time.  Notice the dissent in the comments.  Of course, it’s a bold claim so more must be said.  Many of our STR readers will be familiar with the following pro-life material but many Christians are not.  Those of us who know the arguments must continue to train other Christians who don't. 

I am a pro-lifer for very particular reasons.  I am not pro-life because "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."  I am not pro-life because I want to fit in with Christians at my church.  I am not pro-life because I hate women who have abortions.  I am not pro-life because it fits with a particular political party's platform.  I am not pro-life because you have to be if you're a real Christian.

I am a pro-lifer because of the answer to one simple question:  What is the unborn?  Let me illustrate.  If my teenage daughter asks me, “Dad, can I kill this?” what question must I answer first before I can answer that?  

“What is it?”

If I turn around and she’s holding a spider she found in the house, no problem.  If she’s holding the neighbor’s cat, I’ll look to see if my wife’s within earshot and then tell her, “Sure, I can’t stand that cat” (I’m sorry, I’m sorry – I’m not a cat-lover).  But if she’s holding her kid brother who’s been pestering her, I’d have to tell her, “Lexi, put your brother down and slowly walk away.”  You see, I must first answer, “What it is?” before I can answer, “Can I kill this?”

If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary.  But if the unborn is a human being, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.  

So, is the unborn a human being?  Yes and here’s why:

(1) If the unborn is growing, it must be alive.  And if it has human parents, it must be human.  Living human beings, like you and I, have a fundamental right to life, don’t they?

(2) There is no proper justification for parents to kill their newborn children.  How about poverty?  Single parenthood?  Rough circumstances?  Of course not.  Parents of newborn children cannot kill their children for any of these or other reasons .  And there is no morally significant difference between the unborn and the newborn.  This can be demonstrated through the S.L.E.D. test.   Therefore, the unborn child’s life should be protected just like the newborn.  

Of course, there will be objections.  But carefully examine each.  Most will beg the question and simply assume the unborn is not human.  We’ve dealt with most of them:

• "I don't think that anybody has the right to object to abortions unless they're willing to take care of all of the unwanted children brought into the world if abortion was made illegal."
• “What about unwanted children?"
• “Women will be forced into back alleys and illegal abortions.” 
• “What about rape?”  (HERE, HERE and HERE)

There are other important questions to answer but this is the first and most important.  Before we discuss how to help women or what the legal ramifications might be, we must first get clear on the logic of the pro-life position.

Stem Cell News

Adult stem cells have produced another successful therapy:

Stem cells transplanted into early-phase multiple sclerosis patients stabilised, and in some cases reversed, the debilitating neurological disorder, according to a study published Friday.
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune disease that impairs movement and coordination, while causing muscle weakness, cognitive impairment, slurred speech and vision problems.

Certain drugs can retard or roll back symptoms during in the initial phase of the disease's spread.

But in the decade or more after onset, MS is characterised by gradual but irreversible neurological impairment. There is no known cure.

In clinical trials, a team of scientists led by Richard Burt of Northwestern University in Chicago essentially rebuilt the immune system of 21 adults -- 11 women and 10 men -- who had failed to respond to standard drug treatments.

First they removed defective white blood cells that, rather than protecting the body, attacks the fatty sheath, called myelin, that protects the nervous system.

The immune systems were then replenished with so-called haemopoeitic stem cells -- extracted from the patient's bone marrow -- capable of giving rise to any form of mature blood cell.

The technique is not new. But this was the first time it had been applied to young and relatively health individuals in the early, so-called "relapsing-remitting" phase of the disease. Participants had had MS for roughly five years.

After an average follow-up period of three years, 17 of the 21 patients improved by at least one point on a standard disability scale, and none had a final score lower than before the stem cell transplant.

Meanwhile, the new issue of Time magazine has a cover story on a scientist who, as the writer characterizes it, kept the stem cell research community together "during the dark days of the Bush Administration's stem cell restrictions."  Of course, the only restrictions were on Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; labs were free to continue ESCR with private funding all along.  And the story reports that, despite the "dark days," the featured researcher, Douglas Melton, actually developed techniques for creating stem cells with the flexibility of embryonic cells from other kinds of cells.  So research has continued and produced new sources of stem cells without the moral concerns of embryonic cells. 

And, of course, the article never engages the ethical concerns, only mentioning that that was behind President Bush's restrictions on Federal funds that constituted the "dark days" these researchers managed to survive.

And I have yet to see an article in one of the newweeklies, all of which have touted the unlimited promise of future therapies from ESCR in cover stories, similarly feature the actual therapies and results from adult stem cells such as the one above.

And here's an analysis of the misleading nature of the article.

The Tolerance Bargain

Last week Greg talked on the radio show about "the tolerance bargain."  I thought it was one of those insights, which he got from Del Tackett, that is incredibly helpful in making sense of discussions in the public square.  Sometimes you hear something that makes sense of what's been confusing you and you see it for what it is.  I think this is one of those observations.  And it's very helpful in understanding why we, as Christians engaging in public dialog, get run over, tossed to the side of the road, and roughed up so often when it seems very unfair.

In fact, it makes sense of the incredibly hostile response to Christians and others who took a public stand on Prop. 8 here in California that limited marriage to a man and a woman.

The tolerance bargain trades on the new notion of tolerance:  Make no judgments.  That's not the classic notion of tolerance, which actually makes rational judgments about beliefs, that there is a disagreement a prerequisite to tolerance because it's putting up with our differences graciously, not ignoring that there are any.  The classic notion of tolerance says, "I think you're wrong, but I respect you as a person."   The new notion of tolerance accepts all views as equal, none are right or wrong, just different. 

Christians and others who believe in truth and morality as objective facts to be discovered step into the public square and describe some views as wrong and argue for why others should agree with their point of view.  That's the nature of democracy.  But we are violating the new notion of tolerance because we find views we disagree with "wrong" and "false."  That's a rational judgment about a belief or claim. 

The "tolerance bargain" that seems to pervade our public square is to avoid making judgments: Don't judge me and I won't judge you.  In order to avoid being told I'm wrong, I'm not supposed to tell others they're wrong.  Of course, the essence of this bargain is to self-protection, avoidance of having to feel wrong or guilty or even make an argument for my opinion.  The core value of this new notion of tolerance isn't respect for others, it's regard for self.  And it seems to me a weak self that cannot accept disagreement.

That's not tolerance.  That's a societal contract to avoid mature, healthy discussion to try to find out what the facts of the world really are and how they should inform our public life.

Government Intrusion

Advocates of legalizing same-sex marriage and other experimental public policy argue that it is the true expression of tolerance.  However, many others have countered that such changes in public policy have real consequences that actually are intolerance, treading on other citizens' values.  Public policy actually makes demands on other citizens, not merely tolerance.  When laws are put in place, government isn't neutral anymore; laws give government the right to step in and exert it's power to mandate a certain view of family.

Here's a relevant example of that from the U.K.

Social services remove young children from grandparents and arrange adoption by gay couple

Social services have removed two young children from the care of their grandparents and arranged for them to be adopted by a homosexual couple.

The five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister were being looked after by their grandparents because their mother, a recovering drug addict, was not considered capable.

But social workers stepped in after allegedly deciding that the couple, who are aged 59 and 46, were "too old" to look after the children.

They were allegedly stripped of their carer's rights and informed they would be barred from seeing the children altogether unless they agreed to the same-sex adoption.

The distraught grandfather said: "It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother-figure.

"We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests.

"The ideal for any child is to have a loving father and a loving mother in their lives."

Withholding Conclusions

Christianity Today published this news piece reporting that Hank Hanegraaff of CRI and Gretchen Passantino Coburn from Answers in Action have concluded after three years of investigation and discussions with leadership and members of The Local Church that they are not a cult, as many have regarded them for three decades, and are in face orthodox Christians in their core beliefs.  AIA explains further the process that led to this conclusion.  One of the things that struck me is the importance they placed on engaging The Local Church in discussion and not to only examine their published statements.  Passantino and Hanegraaff's endorsement is also published here by the Defense and Confirmation Project, along with that of Dr. Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary.  Even this publication characterizes their endorsements as "testimonies" rather than arguments, which so far I haven't been able to find.  Hanegraaff and Passantino's joint reasoning has been promised to be published in the CRI Journal and I look forward to reading that when published.  Obviously, I can't evaluate their assessment until I know their reasoning.  So until then, I'll withhold judgment and be intrigued.  If Hank and Gretchen rethink something so momentous, I am very anxious to know why (not just that they did).  I hope it comes soon.  So far I haven't found anything more recent on the AIA or CRI websites.

Here are a few notable words of caution.  Cal Beisner is cited in the CT article asking for not only new orthodox statements, but also repudiations or past unorthodox theological statements:

"Merely issuing doctrinal statements that are orthodox so far as they go but do not explicitly repudiate the contrary statements of Lee is not sufficient," Beisner said. "As Francis Schaeffer insisted again and again, in our postmodern world we must not only say what we believe, but also must deny what we don't believe. The Worldwide Church of God set a good example in the 1980s, repudiating the heretical teachings of its founder Herbert W. Armstrong, and it is not asking the Local Church too much to do the same."

Dr. Alan Gomes of Talbot Theological Society examined some recent statements from the church about the Trinity and offered this conditional examination, which seems to indicate there is reason to be concerned about a modalistic view of the Trinity, which is not a Biblical view.

And Robert Bowman just published this post on this website taking a wait-and-see position.

Here are a few principles I think are helpful to remember at this point in this issue. 

First, all of these people are respected researcher/theologians and I listen carefully when any of them say something.  I've learned from all of them.  So what do you do when people you respect disagree?  In the end, it's always about the arguments and reasons.  So I'm waiting to evaluate what Hank and Gretchen have to offer.  And Dr. Gomes' recent conclusions are something to keep in mind.

Second, I think it's a good principle to engage people in discussion to find out what they believe.  I think it's a good thing that Gretchen and Hank have taken this to heart in their investigation.  However, individuals and organizations have to take responsibility for the words they publish and their words have to be taken seriously.  It is no fault of the investigator if conclusions are drawn only from published views.  After all, that is often where care and precision are practiced (especially in published works, rather than the web - though that should also be a good practice) through the time and editorial process taken before publication.  And that is how we learn most of what we know.  That's how we know what Hank and Gretchen have concluded and how we'll know their reasons.  We don't always have a chance to talk to someone.  That is a good though not necessary practice.

I look forward to the insights Gretchen and Hank have gained from their dialog with The Local Church, but it is still important for TLC to issue statements that are clear and unambiguous in their theology.  And if their past statements have been unorthodox or unclear and misinterpreted then Beisner is right that TLC bears the burden of repudiating what has been stated in the past in addition to making clear statements now.

Third, there is a difference between core doctrine and secondary doctrinal issues and practices.  Gretchen writes in her AIA article that some of their secondary doctrinal beliefs and practices are unfamiliar and at odds with American Christianity.  Concluding whether a group is orthodox or not is a serious judgment to make, and one the Bible does require us to make to separate the wolves from the flock.  So I appreciate the care that all of the people I've mentioned in this post take in drawing their conclusions. 

The Trinity is one of those core doctrines because it fundamental in understanding God, Jesus, and salvation, so it is imperative that churches state clearly what they believe.  There is ample theological and historical guidance in formulating a clear view.  That's why knowing church history is so important.  There's also a difference between not knowing the proper theological/Biblical view and formally repudiating it.  Certainly The Local Church is now, at least, fully acquainted with the correct theological/Biblical view of the Trinity and should be able to state their view in unambiguous terms so others can understand it and evaluate whether or not it's orthodox.  That is a fundamental responsibility of a denomination.  They should be able to state their theological view of the Trinity in terms that can't be mistaken for modalism.

So I am anxious and curious to read what Hank and Gretchen's reasons are.

Brave New Woman

A woman in England screened her IVF-created human embryos for a gene that is linked to breast cancer, implanted the only one without the gene, and "discarded" the other embryos.

Some hail this as a medical breakthrough, while others cite this as a first step towards eugenics. Me? It makes me want to watch my wife's favorite movie: Gattaca.

I’m certainly supportive of measures that prevent diseases, but not at the expense of "discarding" (aka killing) human beings that are more likely to develop them.

The report seems to try to assure the reader that this type of procedure is ethically sound because this screening/discarding occurs before conception. But they define conception as "when the embryo is implanted in the womb." Come on people! Is it old school to think that conception occurs when the sperm and egg meet?

Josephine Quintavalle of Comment on Reproductive Ethics properly echoed my thoughts when she said: "I hope 20 years down the line we will have eradicated breast cancer - not eradicated the carriers."

Some Encouragement from History

Those who love apologetics, who love speaking to those who disagree about Christ, are likely to meet with at least some opposition.  Things may even look hopeless to you at times.  Here's some big-picture encouragement from Foxe's Book of Martyrs (written in 1563).  This quote comes at the end of the section detailing the persecutions of Christians by the Roman emperors in the first few centuries after Christ:

I doubt not, good reader, but thou dost right well consider with thyself the marvelous working of God's mighty power; to see so many emperors confederate together against the Lord and Christ His anointed, who, having the subjection of the whole world under their dominion, did bend their whole might and devices to extirpate the name of Christ and of all Christians.  Wherein, if the power of man could have prevailed, what could they not do? or what could they do more than they did?  If policy or devices could have served, what policy was there lacking?  If torments or pains of death could have helped, what cruelty of torment by man could be invented which was not attempted?  If laws, edicts, proclamations, written not only in tables, but engraven in brass, could have stood, all this was practiced against the weak Christians.  And yet, notwithstanding, to see how no counsel can stand against the Lord, note how all these be gone, and yet Christ and his Church doth stand.

The Most Important Social Justice Issue of our Time

It's abortion.

I know, I know.  That's the least coolest thing I could've said.  If I really wanted to be a hip young evangelical, I would've said poverty or the environment or pointed to some need in Africa (and certainly, these are very important issues).  Recently, it’s been trendy to move away from “out-dated” and more volatile social issues like abortion or homosexuality.  Oh well.  I'm not much for being cool anyhow. 

Today marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in which seven Supreme Court justices gave us license to kill growing human fetuses in a mother's womb.  Oooh, sound harsh?  There should be nothing controversial about that last phrase because it accurately describes abortion.  "To kill" is accurate because the fetus is alive biologically, so whatever it is, we're killing something that is alive and growing.  That's supposedly the problem, right?  "Human fetuses" is accurate because it’s in the fetal stage of development and it has human parents.  Human parents are only capable of procreating something human.  And of course, "mother's womb" is accurate because that's its location.

Why is this the most important social justice issue?

 Well, we must first get clear on justice.  There are two primary types of justice:  retributive and distributive.  Retributive justice has to do with when and why punishment is justified.  This kind of justice demands the guilty are punished and the innocent go free.  Distributive justice has to do with the fair distribution of resources.  If humanitarian aid is being given to one of group people over another because of ethnicity, it violates distributive justice.  (Side-note:  Oftentimes, the issues we associate with “social justice” should not fall under this category, strictly speaking.)

Fundamental to the issue of justice is the issue of rights.  A right is simply a just claim.  The proper source of rights is our Creator.  Jefferson summarizes in the Declaration:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Yes, the issue of abortion is a human rights issue.  Human beings have a fundamental right to life.  This right is our most basic human right.  Without this, all other rights are irrelevant.  This right is God-given.  When it is violated, we are obligated to act. 

On my view, the unborn child is fully human (of course, I have an argument for this view) and therefore, has a right to life.  Abortion kills that life.  Therefore, justice demands that we act.

It happens everyday.  It happens in our country.  It happens right under our noses.  Almost 4,000 each day.  Almost 1.3 million each year.  Innocent human beings killed each year is the greatest injustice in our country today. 

And that’s why abortion is the most important social issue of our time.

Bones on Faith

I happened to turn on the television the other day just as this exchange was taking place between two characters, Hodgins and Brennan, on the show Bones.  The two were trapped in a buried car with very little air left:

H:  If the ransom was paid, we'd be out by now.  Why prolong the inevitable?

B:  Booth will find us.

H:  You have a lot of faith in Booth.

B:  No, faith is an irrational belief in something that is logically impossible.  Over time I've seen what Booth can do.  It's not faith. 

Brennan has a popular misunderstanding of the word "faith."  Faith is opposed to sight, not to rationality, logic, or knowledge.  Ironically, she was giving an excellent demonstration of faith, though she misunderstood the word.  She couldn't see Booth coming to save her, but she had knowledge about Booth through previous demonstrations of his abilities that led her to trust in his ability to save her in the future.  Her belief that Booth would save her was not illogical--there's nothing about such a belief that defies logic.  But it was unseen--that is, he had not yet saved her.

In the same way, we trust God to fulfill His promises based on what we know of His character and power.  Faith is looking back to what God has done in the past "so that we may know" He is God, and then "coming to God, believing that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."  We have an assurance of things that are, as yet, unseen because over time we've seen what God can do.  This is faith.

A Little Lesson on Prayer

I just spent 4 days speaking in Alaska but instead of enjoying God’s beautiful country, I was trying to survive a severe case of the flu, trip to the ER and a red-eye flight home while sick.  I’m finally feeling better but the experience got me thinking about prayer. 

During the trip, the church I was working with was praying fervently for my health.  Family and friends back home were praying.  There were probably 100, maybe even 200 people praying for my short-term health, so I could complete my ministry work.  Did God answer their prayers?  I have two reflections:

(1) Our knowledge of how God answers prayer is very limited.  Did God heal me completely?  No.  It’s taken me an entire week to largely recover.  Did God answer (in the affirmative) the prayers whatsoever?  I don’t know.  How could I?  Maybe God kept me from getting any sicker.  Maybe he ensured that I would have enough strength to make it through the teaching times.  Maybe he wanted me to struggle physically for a short while.  I don’t know.  That God hears and answers prayers is clear (Matt. 7:7-11, 21:22; Mark 11:24; John 14:13-14, etc.).  How He does so is not. 

(2) Prayer is not merely a means to an end but an end in itself.  Even if God granted no grace to me physically, were all the prayers in vain?  I don’t think so.  Implicit in the act of prayer is an admission of dependence.  Prayer says, "I can't do this without you."  The more one prays, the more one gets in touch with the truth of our utter need for God.  I’m reminded of Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane:  “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”  For Jesus, an affirmative answer to his request is not the final end.  Rather, it’s submission to God’s will.  And prayer seems to be part and parcel of that process.  Ultimately, voluntary submission requires trust.  I will only submit to whom I trust.  So then, prayer is an act of trust in God and is an end in itself.  And thus, no prayer is in vain.

The "what" and "how" of prayer is mysterious in many ways.  Yet we must never stop praying.  Here are 10 tips to help your prayer life.