Saturday, October 27, 2012

How Should We Think of Abortion in Cases of Rape, Incest, and The Safety of a Mother?

Al Mohler has a thoughtful article on "the Mourdock moment" in which he discuss the controversial comments made by US Senate candidate Richard Mourdock in regards to abortion. The whole article is worth a read and points out how the media twists things and how we must be careful to communicate the pro-life position in a way that is forthright but also well explained.

Near the end of the article, Dr. Mohler address the common exceptions many pro-life candidates argue for. It is a brief and helpful treatment of the topic and one which we should all think through.

The three exceptions most often proposed call for abortion to be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. These are the exceptions currently affirmed by Mitt Romney in his presidential campaign. What should we think of these? 
First, when speaking of saving the life of the mother, we should be clear that the abortion of her unborn child cannot be the intentional result. There can be no active intention to kill the baby. This does not mean that a mother might, in very rare and always tragic circumstances, require a medical procedure or treatment to save her life that would, as a secondary effect, terminate the life of her unborn child. This is clearly established in moral theory, and we must be thankful that such cases are very rare. 
Next, when speaking of cases involving rape and incest, we must affirm the sinful tragedy of such acts and sympathize without reservation with the victims. We must then make the argument that the unborn child that has resulted from such a heinous act should not be added to the list of victims. That child possesses no less dignity than a child conceived in any other context. 
How should we think of these questions in light of our current cultural and political context? We must contend for the full dignity and humanity of every single human life at every point of development and life from conception until natural death, and we cannot rest from this cause so long as the threat to the dignity and sanctity of any life remains. 
In the meantime, we are informed by the fact that, as the Gallup organization affirmed just months ago, the vast majority of Americans are willing to support increased restrictions on abortion so long as those exceptions are allowed. We should gladly accept and eagerly support such laws and the candidates who support them, knowing that such a law would save the life of over a million unborn children in the nation each year. 
Can we be satisfied with such a law? Of course not, and we cannot be disingenuous in our public statements. But we can eagerly support a law that would save the vast majority of unborn children now threatened by abortion, even as we seek to convince our fellow Americans that this is not enough. 
We must argue for the dignity, humanity, and right to life of every unborn child, regardless of the context of its conception, but we must argue well and make our arguments carefully....

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Politics and Abortion

Amy Hall, writing at Stand to Reason blog, gives her take on how she wishes a pro-life candidate would respond to the question of how his religious views influence his take on abortion. I think she is on to something.

Saying that life begins at conception isn’t a controversial statement. It’s a question of science. Ask any embryologist and he can tell you that what’s growing in the mother’s womb is a whole, living, human boy or girl at his or her earliest stage of development, with his or her own unique DNA that will remain the same through all stages of development, from conception to death.
What’s controversial is that I think every human being is valuable simply because he or she is a member of the valuable human race. I don’t think human beings have to earn their rights by having certain characteristics like the “correct” race, or gender, or size, or ability, or age.
In other words, it’s the fact that I think we ought to be upholding universal human rights that’s the controversial position.
Now as a Christian, I do believe it’s my duty to protect the natural rights of human beings—to protect universal human rights—because human beings are the kind of being that’s valuable. But one doesn’t have to be a Christian to agree with universal human rights. There are many people of other religions, or no religion, who also want to uphold universal human rights.
The idea that we’re all created equal and equally possess unalienable rights regardless of our differences (race, size, age, ability, etc.) is a founding principle of this nation. Sadly, in the past, we allowed the government to define some human beings out of the human family by requiring they have certain preferred characteristics (like white skin) in order to qualify for protection.
Our failures in the past to hold our government accountable to our professed principle of unalienable rights for every human being led to serious human rights violations. I don’t want to repeat that same mistake. Instead, I would like to hold us to that founding principle.
You asked for a personal answer, and I agree that there are many emotions involved on all sides of this question. But I don’t want to confuse the issue by giving the impression that this is a matter of personal preference. Regulating subjective preferences is not the role of government, so answering as if the abortion issue were merely personal wouldn’t clarify what’s at stake. The issue of human rights is a public issue, and the protection of the lives of human beings is an area of public life that requires the government’s involvement.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Naturalism

“If we think we came into existence simply by accidental process, then we may feel accountable to no one. Yet such freedom is lonely. It is purposeless. And it is false. It is the freedom that ignores evidence of design in the world, that rejects the idea that people are special to God, and that clones human beings only to grow spare parts with them and then discard them. This is what we call naturalism. Naturalism is the philosophy that says, since God did not make us, we are only as special as we want to think of ourselves as being. So we kill babies in the womb and old people in nursing homes for our own convenience” (Mark Dever, The Message of the Old Testament: Promises Made, pg. 69).

Monday, October 8, 2012

Dual Citizenship and Our Political Involvement

As Christians, we are citizens of heaven first and foremost. Yet, we are also citizens of whatever earthly location the Lord has sovereignly placed us. So, what does this mean for our political involvement?  Justin Taylor has some helpful thoughts at his blog here.  He says,
We are dual citizens, responsible and active members of both God’s spiritual kingdom and earthly kingdom. And if we seek to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and strength—and to love our neighbor as ourselves—then we should care to some degree about politics and elections and the role of government in our land.
He goes on to say that some of us care too much about politics. Taylor says, "We all are tempted to idolatry and we all need to be warned against it. 'Some trust in chariots and some in horses [and some in political candidates], but we trust in the name of the LORD our God' (Ps. 20:7)."

But some of us care too little. We should care about voting and the direction of our earthly nation because as Christians everything we do (including voting) is to be done to the glory of God. Also, we are to care about the good of our neighbor. "If you have to choose between evangelism and politics, choose evangelism. Saving an eternal soul is more important than fixing a temporal need. But most of the time, we don’t have to choose."

His summary is helpful. "There are more important things in life than politics. It’s easy to become an idolatry. But it’s also easy to be too apathetic."  

So, let's be praying for the upcoming election and let's be thinking about how our heavenly citizenship should impact the way we exercise our role as a citizen of our country.


Monday, October 1, 2012

Joyful Grief: Thoughts on Losing My Grandpa

This past week we made the ten hour drive to Lake Charles, LA for my grandpa's funeral. He is a Christian, and he made his calling and election clear by his life of faithful service to the Savior. Here a few thoughts about death and my grandpa.
  1. We live in a fallen world. It sounds obvious, but unless we realize that fact we will be surprised by the trials and difficulties we face. Or, on the other hand, we will assume death is normal. It is an event that happens all around us, but it is not normal. It is a part of life in a fallen, sin-cursed world, but it is not how it was originally made nor is it how it will one day be. Death is an enemy.
  2. The sting of death has been removed by Jesus Christ. In Jesus perfect life, substitutionary death, and glorious resurrection, death has been swallowed up in victory for those who are in Him. There is no second death, eternal death, for those in Christ. Only those who are in Jesus, by faith in his work on their behalf, have such hope. Only those who have been born again will not face death twice. My grandpa was a godly man, but what secured his eternal destiny, and in fact made him a godly man, was that he recognized he was a sinner and trusted in Jesus. I am thankful for his legacy of faith in Jesus Christ. I pray God will give me grace to finish the race well too.
  3. My grandpa is with the Lord at this moment.  He trusted in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of his sins and the hope of eternal life. Now he sees that this hope was not in vain. He is absent from the body but present with the Lord. I am so happy for him even as I am sad to not have him here pretending to give me "wet-willies" (they were always dry-willies) and speaking with a Cajun accent.
  4. Even though he is with the Lord, he awaits his glorified body. As wonderful as this intermediary state is for him, there is still a grand finale coming when the Lord will raise up our bodies. We will not live as disembodied spirits forever. We will be physically raised, and our resurrected bodies will not be subject to the decay and cancer that ravaged my grandpa.
  5. To paraphrase Paul Tripp, "Christians should be the saddest and most joyful people on earth." We are the saddest because we not only experience the pain and destruction of living in a broken world but because we know how glorious it was originally made. The naturalist just assumes this "normal." We know it is not. Even though we have deep sorrow, we are also the most joyful people on earth because we know the Redeemer. We know the One who has come to remove sin and reverse the curse. We have a hope that cannot be shaken. Nothing will separate us from the love of Christ. Therefore, we do not grieve as those who have no hope. 
That is the nature of my grief. A sad, hope-filled, joyful grief.