Regardless of what Planned Parenthood (may have) Done

                There are many ways to skin a cat, and to best approach the question of abortion in general, and specifically(perhaps) Planned Parenthood, it is important to define and explain the two general approaches to addressing it. 

                One, there is the Christian/Biblical viewpoint that must be explained and defended.

                Two, the pluralistic/agnostic/scientific/sociological viewpoint that must also be explained and defended. 

                I would contend that these positions can, and do, point to the same conclusion.  And I hope to make a compelling case to that end. 

 

The General Christian Argument Opposing Abortion:

1. Murder is ALWAYS wrong. 


2. Life is defined by God


3. God is the one who breathes life into us and knows us in the womb


4. Therefore, willfully taking of an innocent persons life is murder and a sin against God

 

It may be difficult to “scientifically” define when a child in the womb moves from non-life to life, the very fact that we are currently unable to truly “know” at what point that threshold is crossed, our responsibility would be to err on the side of life.  If murder is a sin, and at SOME point there is a life that bears the image of God inside the womb, it is of great and unnecessary risk to accidentally, perhaps, murder a life because your “guess” on the timing of when this threshold has been crossed was incorrect. 

If you were to indiscriminately shoot at a building where people were inside, regardless of your claims to not intending to actual kill someone, you would still be culpable for murder if you did “accidentally” hit someone.  In the same way, it is the height of irresponsibility to play Russian Roulette with children in the womb hoping that it might not actually be a life at the time you destroy it. 

 

Therefore, the risk of murder is so great, and the knowledge, scientifically, is so limited, faithful Christians should indeed advocate for the elimination of abortion.

 

The General “Secularist” Argument Opposing Abortion:

1. Murder is always wrong


2. Life is defined by a few narrow parameters, generally speaking, heartbeats and brainwaves


3. Brain waves are an indication of life and an individual who is known and can be known


4. Therefore, willfully taking of an individuals life(those who can think and feel) is always wrong

 

With the general concept that brain waves are indication of life the secularist argument rests in the “threshold” of the time at which these are observable.  Brain waves are first detected at 6 weeks.  While a secularist argument has a more defined “threshold” moment, there is still one. 

Therefore, abortion past the time of brainwaves is the willful taking of a life. 

 

 

Possible Disagreements and My Response: (Christian views)

1. Rape


2. Incest


3. Life Endangerment


4. Well Being of the future life(poor mothers, bad home environment, etc)


5. We are a pluralist society we can’t advocate for our religious beliefs.

For each of my responses there is one foundational premise that I will state here, and not restate.  If we believe that God breathes life into us and knows us in the womb and He alone is the Author of life, regardless of the tragic circumstances surrounding any specific pregnancy, the life that DOES exist is an image bearer of God and the willful murder of that life is not justified by any degree of tragedy associated with its creation.   The argument against abortion are not reliant, or, related to, the reasons for the abortion.  

Rape: 

The Christian response to a victim needs to be “weeping with those who weep”.  And admittedly there are too many stories of victims who were not lovingly cared for in the aftermath of their situation.  Studies have shown that women who choose abortion after a rape are nearly 80% likely to regret the decision.  70% of women actually choose not to have an abortion, and not 1% of those have stated that they regret the decision. 

The sad reality is that many rape victims are not given the opportunity to know that there is  light on the other side.  While most who are led to believe that abortion will mitigate their suffering find that it increased it. 

While there are obviously those who had an abortion and are “glad” of it, it still doesn’t address the fundamental premise.  Is the value of an individuals life defined by the circumstances related to their creation define their value? 

I hope it is clear that creating an ethic that accepts that some lives are less valued than others by no fault of their own is a dangerous and completely unbiblical position to have.

 

Incest:

Much of this is similar to my response to the rape exception.   The additional point is related to WHY we would contend for abortion in the case of incest.  This is generally presented as a protection against severe defect due to close relatives. 

By accepting this premise we are allowing for differentiation of objective value being ascribed(by our own opinions—not Gods) upon lives who are “not” defective and those who “are”.  I hope that we would weep if we became a nation that began to advocate for the abortions of every child in the womb whose tests have shown defective genes.  The child who is deformed due to incest is no less valuable than the child who is deformed due to other reasons. 

 

Life Endangerment: 

This is obviously a much more difficult question to deal with.  I will say that historically, pre Roe, women who came into the hospital and were literally dying due to their pregnancy DID receive medical help to save their lives.  Doctors did not just sit there and watch them die because they were opposed to abortion.  Extreme, and TRAGIC, medical procedures have generally always been accepted as a necessity. 

A choice of who to let live is thankfully EXTREMELY rare.  To advocate for abortion in general when this accounts for an almost too small to account for percentage of total abortions is disingenuous.  I think a Christian can support the heartbreaking realities of these extreme events without it also including other forms of abortion.

 

Well Being of Future Life---Generally Related to Financial/Life Situation of the Mother

Luckily, for all of us, what is true today, is not guaranteed to be true tomorrow.  The tragedy of this position is that it is advocating for murder for the sake of financial benefit(in reductionist terms).  While it may feel too “hard” today, what if two days later they get a raise.  What weeping should there be?

This position also fails to take into account the literally millions of Christians and millions of dollars that ARE poured into private charities to support these young women and families.  My wife and I personally support and work with our local Pregnancy Crisis center.  They provide clothes, education, formula, parenting classes, babysitting, home placement, etc.  We have even personally offered our home to young women who had no where else to go. 

I am not exaggerating when I say that, due to my communities and connections, that we could find a place and resources for virtually any young woman you could send our way.  If someone’s argument is that they don’t know what to do, I would say, “Who have you talked to???”  In the dozen cities and towns I have worked in EVERY single one has places that provide everything I just mentioned. 

 

We Are a Pluralist Society:

It is true we cannot force our views on anyone, nor should we, this does not change the fundamental reality that a life is a life is a life.  Therefore, should a good society NOT defend and speak up for the most vulnerable lives?  When a culture begins to devalue ANY of its citizens lives for ANY reason, it will begin to rot from the inside.

 

Possible Disagreements and My Response: (Secular)

1. Life isn’t a brainwave


2. Murder isn’t always wrong


3. It’s better for society


4. “Viability” is a more appropriate barometer for life

 

Life isn’t a brainwave:

This would be in direct contradiction to nearly every other medical standard we hold to.  We know that in the womb children; dream, feel pain, laugh, think, learn, etc.  While the degree to which they can do that is not clearly defined by the “amount” of brainwaves, we do know that these are true neuro realities of the unborn.  And even if they can’t “learn” as much as a Three year old, or, a 33 year old, we obviously do not place value on an individuals life by their degree of relative intelligence. 

And if we do not use brainwaves to define life in the womb, by what scientific method shall we then use?

 

Murder isn’t always wrong

Obviously this is a rare argument.  But historically there have been individuals, and whole societies, who contend for the value of eliminating those with “less” value.  Every healthy secularist society rejects this notion.  Though we should always be on guard for the voices that try to slip in from time to time to advocate for such.

 

It’s Better for Society

This is in relation to generally 2 broad thoughts; 1- Better life for the mother/family therefore, better communities, 2- We don’t need more poor uneducated people. 

Communities where abortion is more frequent are NOT better off.  Not that I am saying they are doing poorly BECAUSE of abortion, but, it reveals that abortion is not a catalyst for healthier families and communities. 

This ultimately boils down to a value being placed on someone’s life by the value you perceive them providing for you, directly and indirectly.  To repeat an earlier point let us pray that this type of cultural ethic never gains prominence. 

 

Viability is a better barometer of life

The problem here for a secularist, and especially a Christian, is that this is a moving goal post.  What was viable 50 years ago is radically different to what is viable today.  As medical science continues to progress that “threshold” continues to move ever farther back.  To use the term, “extreme” measures, when evaluating legitimate life sustaining procedures is itself very unhelpful.  A child at 38 weeks could have complications in the womb that means extreme steps post birth are necessary.  Extreme steps that are similar to the steps for an extreme premature birth.  If the degree of effort necessary to sustain life becomes a defining characteristic, does that mean a 38 week child is no more a “life” than an 18 week old one? 

Once we accept that extreme steps to provide viability is not a satisfying standard to define life, we will conclude that is practically a completely unusable one.  And, as technology advances does that therefore change moral standards.  For example, it wasn’t murder to abort a baby at 30 weeks 50 years ago, but it is today….?  A moral standard is not dependent upon technology.  If technology defines morality, than morality means nothing at all.

 

So, those are my thoughts.  Where am I wrong?  Where am I right?  Let me know!

 

 

Is Mark Driscoll Bigger than the Cross?(aka, what Church should I go to)

What makes a good church?  Why should you go to "this" church instead of "that" church? 

The Gospel.

Let me be more clear.

The message that we are sinners.  Lost and dead in our sin.  Christ came and died in our place to pay the penalty for our sins.  Through his FINISHED work on the cross we can have life and this is the power of God.  And the cross PREACHED is alone the power that a church has to share.  (I Corinthians 1:18)

Everything flows from that.

Paul says in Galatians 1:8 that if anyone is preaching something OTHER than the Gospel of Christ crucified they are under a curse. 

So what about churches and people teaching things that you disagree with regarding secondary issues?  In Philippians 1 Paul shares about two types of people; 1) Those who preach Christ humbly, and, 2) Those who preach Christ for personal gain.  And how does he respond to these "false" teachers?  He rejoices that the Gospel is preached. 

So why doesn't he get more tough on these self-centered teachers?  I believe it is because of what he says in 1 Corinthians;  Only the cross has power.  Either we, in our clever words and window dressings, have the ability to change lives, or, the redemptive finished work of Christ on the cross changes lives. 

Let me illustrate this in a silly way.....

If I have a goal to teach someone how to read there are a number of different ways I can present it.  Some we could argue are better than others.  Some techniques might even be fairly absurd.  But even if I teach my son that the way to read is to hold a book in one hand while tugging on his ear with the other, does he learn how to read?  Yes.  We can all agree that my added ear tugging was unnecessary and ultimately unhelpful, but, if he does learn to read, he will probably realize that the ear tugging is superfluous to the process and eliminate it on his own.  Yet the essential and life changing goal has been achieved.  He can now read.  And he will be able to read for the rest of his life.

If Christ is preached, and the cross is visible, most, if not all, of the superfluous ridiculousness that people may add will eventually take a back seat.  Because it is not our power that changes lives, but the power of God. 

Does this mean we ignore absurdity?  No.  But we too often focus on the absurdity and not the power.  The way we criticize other churches is often done in such a way that we are subtly claiming that because they have added some "ear tugging" they aren't really alive in Christ.  If the central message of a church is Christ Crucified, than let us rejoice in the Gospel.  Which isn't the same as saying that we should all go to that church and participate in "ear tugging". 

In the course of the Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill saga(look it up yourself) a common refrain I hear is how "this" is the sort of thing that causes people to leave Christ.  Let me say that again.  When my son discovers that my "ear tugging" technique was stupid he will never read again........

What power do we preach?  Our own?  Or the Cross?  If we preach the Cross, regardless of the reasons or the technique, than our own failures and mistakes have no effect on the power of God.  Unless you believe that a single man, or church, can supersede the power of Christ. 

Say whatever you want about Driscoll and his innumerable problems, but he preached the Cross.  There are literally thousands of stories of people who came to the cross through the message of the Gospel that was preached.  There surely was a progressive growth of "ear tugging" secondary doctrines that began to bleed into the life of Mars Hill, but the cross was always preached.  And like Paul, I rejoice for the lives that were saved because of CHRIST! 

And we should also weep for the people who were hurt by the secondary issues.  This is a fine line that we must struggle to maintain.  But we can not lose perspective that while we have a responsibility to address sinful behavior(ala Paul vs Peter), we cannot begin a process of claiming that the power of salvation comes from any one teacher's perfect motivation and technique. 

When we look for a church to go to we must begin and end with the question, is the Cross preached?  If it is, than weigh carefully the secondary issues.  If it isn't, it is not a church.  Even if it gets secondary issues right.   

Reminder...preaching the Gospel does not give you a pass for sin....

Partially Seen, Fully True

"For now we see through a glass, darkly"-1 Corinthians 13:12

We do not know the future.  Regardless to what the tabloids and 1-800-pyschic commercials may tell you our ability to fully discern the future is pretty much impossible.  In the 13th chapter of Corinthians Paul is imploring his readers to live lives defined by sacrificial love.  And the motivation and encouragement for such love is the picture of the eternal hope we have from the receiving of the greatest sacrificial love that was freely given on the cross. 

But Paul uses this phrase to illustrate the reality; We can barely make out what that future looks like from our current vantage point.  Yet our hope in what we can see can be rooted in its being fully true.  While the absolute clarity of tomorrow's promise is dimly seen, the markers we pass along the way in the present point us towards the future moment when it will not be seen darkly, but in glorious light.

If we are indeed imprinted with the DNA of eternity as image bearers of God, then we will have an innate sense of seeing eternity through the dimly lit glass of our present.  And it would stand to reason that the experiences of our lives would leave markers and evidences of this eternal design.

Over the past few weeks we have been studying the book of Ruth at church and it concludes with a genealogy.  While genealogies are typically boring affairs and most of us fly right past them when we come across them in the Bible I think they serve two important purposes...

1- They place the narrative of Scripture in history.  The names mentioned are not just mythology, but traceable individuals and families that point to the reliability and historicity of Scripture.  While they are not always written to be an "exact" account of a family tree, they do not make up people to fill in the gaps. 

2-  Genealogies serve to illustrate the on going story and purpose of human life that extends beyond our finite personal mortal coil.  Dogs do not care who their great grand dog is, nor, do they care who their great grandchild dog is.  Nor do other animals.  Yet humans are intimately aware and find value in such family connections.  For good and bad we see and intrinsically desire an observable place on the timeline of eternity.

If we are indeed made in the image of an eternal God than this is logical.  And, it would be logical for Scripture as a reliable testimony to the character, person and nature of God, to contain elements that point towards these truths. 

If we are nothing more than a pile of accidental DNA than death, lineage, family, etc, would have little influence on our state of emotions.  The only value we would place on life, and ours specifically, would be for personal enjoyment and the impetus to procreate our DNA in some form.  And when those two standards(enjoyment and DNA passage) become limited, or, eliminated, it would be reasonable to no longer value such a life. 

But even at our societal worse we cannot fully embrace such folly. 

As much as we try to deny it we are powerfully affected by things that happen to people out of our sphere of relationship.  Genocide is heartbreaking.  Murder is shocking.  Death is feared.  But in a society that is hell bent to disassociate ourselves from the eternal nature of life we try to philosophically justify evaluating the value of life by subjective standards that diminish the beauty of life as a whole.

I recently wrote about two significant indicators of this cultural "evolution".  Society is trying to have its cake and eat it to.  We intrinsically sense a need to value life objectively, yet we try to justify valuing it subjectively when it suits some limited moment.  This is the fertile soil of a culture of death. 

Either ALL LIFE is of significant value that is not possible to be measured by some sort of "standard"

or

NO LIFE is intrinsically valuable and worthy of protection.  It is only subjectively so as long as the math lines up.....


We cannot know what the future holds because we see through a dimly lit glass.  There is no fool proof formula that proves that it all "works out".  But our internal selves, as affirmed in Scripture, point us towards the truth that life has a value that is impossible to measure.

When Ruth and Boaz got married they didn't do so because they were promised some great future if they would just do something difficult.  They did what was right and what honored God and life.  Through a dimly lit glass they chose life and a future knowing only that moving forward with God was the only way to see what would one day be on the other side.  They never saw what came of their marriage(King David and Jesus), and oftentimes neither will we.

But God does.

Just because you can't see the future, doesn't mean it doesn't exist

What Gives Life Value?

Utilitarian philosophy is influencing our culture much more than we probably realize.  In a very short nutshell---it is simply the idea that the value of choices, things, people, etc, are deeply tied to their "usefulness".  This is shaped by some evolutionary and naturalistic assumptions that measure choices by the tangible benefit they provide for the "species". 

As this thinking has subtly seeped into our collective conscience we have begun to accept and practice thoughts and behaviors that even 100 years ago would have been generally reprehensible.  As the modernity of the 20th century reached its zenith forced sterilization, abortion, locking mentally challenged people away for their entire lives, etc, began to become acceptable(if "hidden") practices.  If you want some more information just google, "Eugenics". 

You might argue that we aren't acting so brazenly anymore.  When was the last time you heard about someone being forcefully sterilized?  While it might be true that we don't have national programs actively designed to pre-emptively deal with these "unsavory" genetic wastrels, the internal philosophy that gave rise to such policies has become deeply entrenched in the way we approach our valuation of life.

In the past few months we have seen witness to two stories that publicly exhibit this mindest;

29 year old Brittany Maynard is choosing suicide due to receiving a terminal cancer diagnosis.

A mother has publicly stated that she wishes she had aborted her adult son with down syndrome.


Wait wait wait you say!!!!  How can I "judge" their decisions???  I haven't walked in their shoes!  I don't know their struggles!!!

You are right, I do not know either of these hurting women personally.  But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and, kills its young like a duck......it's a duck. 

What is on clear display in these stories(and the thousands of related ones we DON'T hear about) is that we have accepted a philosophical school of thought that measures value by extremely utilitarian standards.  For Brittany, her life loses value, and therefore, purpose, to continue on, when she reaches a point of no longer being "her".  For the mother of a downs child, her child does not contribute in a material way to her life and her family and so it would have been better to have killed him before he was born. 

Are we forcefully executing people society deems "unworthy"?  No.  But we have bought into a belief that life has a very limited value that it is subjectively evaluated. 

In the case of Brittany some people have argued that she should hold on because beautiful things can happen even at the end.  While this may be true, I think it is accepting the terms of debate established by the subjective morality proponents.  Namely, that life has value when it "accomplishes" something.  It is holding up another false measuring stick that compares and contrasts tangible benefits to tangible costs. 

Either life, and the living of it, has intrinsic and immeasurable value beyond our limited scope of observation, or, life is nothing more than a series of mathematical equations.  Once we as a society accept someone's subjective standard of what makes their life valuable, we have accepted that all of life is subjectively valuable.  And therefore, some life is more valuable than other lives. 

And, if we accept that premise, who is the final arbiter that decides which lives are of greater and more important value than others? 

When we accept the argument that "this" life is worthy to be eliminated, than the standard by which ANY OTHER LIFE can be potentially ended has been established. 

Life is an immeasurably complex, beautiful and eternally imprinted experience that can never be measured by limited contemporary standards.

This mother thinks she should have killed this son..........

What is Pro-Choice Choosing?

One of the most difficult subjects for us to address is death.  Regardless of your religious convictions, the finality of deaths final stamp of conclusion on an individuals journey on the finite mortal coil, it is always difficult to say goodbye.  A foundational philosophical and religious principle for life(and most governance) is the protection of life.  The most egregious crime that you can commit in civilized society is the taking of another's life against their will.

What is obfuscated in the constant rhetoric and argumentative back and forth in the abortion debates is the question of whether or not we are taking another's life "against their will".  Before you ignore that central question let me challenge you to honestly answer the question, "What is the moral, ethical and legal justification for extinguishing a human beings life without its consent?"  

This is the first question that we have to answer.  If the answer is there is never a point where it is justifiable to take another's life, then we have to move on to question two.  Hopefully you are still tracking at this point.....The second question is, "what is life?" 

Neither of these questions are adequately addressed in the context of this debate.  The tired refrain is couched in language about "choice" and "rights" that never delves into the more essential question of what is life, and is murder ever acceptable. 

Let me respond to the inevitable response to my appearing to be flippant about "choice" and "rights".  As already stated, civilized society recognizes murder as an unacceptable immoral act.  Second to murder, an intrinsic reality of a healthy society is to protect those who are weaker from having their rights trampled on by those who are more powerful.  Regardless of the reasoning and the arguments that could be made for the stronger abusing the smaller, justice demands the protection of the oppressed. 

I would hope that no one reading this would want to live in a society where a majority vote could decide what you are and aren't allowed to do and have.  We appropriately look back with shame on the era of slavery and Jim Crow laws.  The self-evident truths that all men are created equal demanded that regardless of one groups opinion, they couldn't willfully take away the rights of others.

When we breeze right past the questions of life and murder and jump right into a debate about rights and choices we are doing a great disservice to the weighty importance of the answers to these questions.

So, what is "life" anyways?  When Roe vs Wade passed, part of the ruling was based on the fact that they did not have an answer of when life began.  Sadly, instead of exploring that question more thoroughly, they lifted the ban and never revisited that essential question. 

In the ensuing decades what we now know about fetal development is light years ahead of where they were at that point.  A heartbeat is measurable by the 6th week.  By the 9th week from gestation all the brain functions necessary to sense and respond to pain are active.  Premature, and viable, births are happening at earlier and earlier stages.  Children born around the 20th week from gestation are surviving.  Albeit, it is a low rate of survivability, it is still happening. 

The inspiration for this post came from an article that my wife posted today about a woman who was about 20 weeks pregnant with twins and was offered money and adoption to not go through with an abortion.  She did it anyways.

This is heart breaking.  From a strictly scientific point of view, that is right at the point of viability.  Regardless of how you feel about abortion in general, two babies, who given just a few more days could have been delivered and given to a loving family who would have raised and cared for those children for the rest of their lives. 

Here is what I am convinced pro-choice is choosing.  It is choosing to define the value of an individuals life on the feelings of another about that life. 

This is a frightening path that we have started on.

If you want to argue about age of viability and super early abortions, that is one thing.  But the pro-choice movement does not only argue for those things.  It is defending the "right" to "choose" to devalue another viable human life simply based on the current location of that life. 

When we accept the premise that a medically viable life does not have a right to life based on someone else's "choice" than we have entered into frightening moral and philosophical territory.  As a society trumps individual values for the opinion of the majority, or the strong(mother) over the weak(unborn child) we have willingly accepted a mindset that creates the framework through which it becomes possible to justify even more immoral decisions.

Once we have accepted that some lives are expendable regardless of what medical science says about the viability of that life, we no longer have the moral "brakes" to stop with at the next stop on the path. 

While my religious convictions convince me of the intrinsic value of all life regardless of developmental stage, I am not arguing for that here.  From a strictly scientific point of view, either life has the right to live unmolested by others, or it does not.  There is no middle ground. 

So how do you define life?  Is all life worthy of defending and protecting, or, just some of it? 

21 week old live birth