The first is the issue of human life or the sanctity of
human life.
As a reminder, we have defined justice in the following
manner: “Justice identifies the moral standard by which God measures human
conduct…[his own character as reflected in his moral will]…. Biblical justice,
therefore, is the
equitable and impartial application of the rule of God’s moral law in society…the
understanding and application of God’s moral law within the social realm,”[1]
with the understanding that this justice is what is best for all.
If, then, we are to interact with the matter of human life
in a way that is just, we must apply God’s moral law as found in his Word to
the subject. Yet, to do this in a way that does not by-pass contemporary
objections, we must deal with two main problems. We will look at one of them in
this post and the second in our next post.
1. Problem One: The Reputation That
Christians Are Partisan In Regard To And Unduly Focused Upon Abortion.
This first problem has to do with the view that many
non-Christians have toward Christians, a view that some Christians have come to
believe due to its prevalence. It is important to deal with this topic not only
because it can tend to stifle a Christian’s voice on the subject, but it also
suggests that Christians are unjust on this very topic. We will deal with each
part of this problem in turn.
A. Partisanship.
In a May 2012 blog post, “An Open Letter To Young,
‘Post-Partisan’ Evangelicals,”[2]
David French,[3]
who thought when he was in his twenties he would “fix” the supposedly horrible
reputation of older Christians who had gone before him and he would not be so
partisan, challenged those today with the same outlook. French explained that a Christian cannot take
a legitimate stand against abortion, for example, without then being thought
partisan. After all, with such a stance a person takes a specific side. This is
true not just with abortion, but with all the issues we are dealing with in
this series. French wrote:
But
I soon realized that my nonpartisanship had a steep price. I could be pro-life,
but not too pro-life. You see, if you’re too pro-life; if you talk about it too
much, then you can’t be post-partisan. One political party is completely
dedicated to legal protection of abortion on demand. The other political party
is completely dedicated to repealing Roe v. Wade. If you talk too much about
abortion, others will define you, and if you’re defined how can you be
independent?
French is correct. One way to avoid being seen as partisan
is not to take a stance, especially on issues in which you will be out-of-step
with the gate-keepers in our society. This, in fact, is what has happened with
many Christians. Because there can be much “heat” in issues like abortion, they
conclude that taking a position is being involved in that dirty thing known as
“politics” which turns people away from the gospel. So, it is avoided. After
all, we want people to like us and see us as loving so that maybe they’ll like
Jesus, right?
Hopefully, we now see the problem with this avoidance,
especially in light of our last post. Part of the outcome of being united to
Jesus Christ and transformed should be living righteously and so pursuing
biblical justice. This includes praying for, giving resources in behalf of,
advocating for, and voting in such a way that we can uphold the sanctity of
human life. We can do it in love, with grace, winsomely, without an unduly
partisan spirit, and justly. But do it we must.
B. Undue Focus.
It is not just partisanship Christians fear, but also the
label of being far more focused on culture war issues (such as abortion) than
they are on other issues, such as people in poverty. In response to this charge
David French wrote the following:[4]
As I decisively entered the “culture war” I
discovered something shocking: there aren’t that many of us. (What’s that? Are
you telling me that Christians aren’t obsessed with gays and abortion? That’s
what the polls say!) As I traveled
around the country and spoke at churches, Tea Party rallies, and conferences, I
realized that the number of Christians who truly fight the culture war is quite
small. How small? In 2011, I researched the budgets of the leading culture war
organizations and compared them to the leading Christian anti-poverty
organizations.
What did French find? In his post he focused on three
Christian relief organizations as compared to pro-family culture war
organizations:
How do these numbers
stack up with leading Christian anti-poverty charities? Let’s look at just
three: World Vision, Compassion
International, and Samaritan’s Purse. Their total annual gross receipts (again,
according to most recently available Form 990s) exceed $2.1 billion. The
smallest of the three organizations (Samaritan’s Purse) has larger gross
receipts than every major “pro-family” culture war organization in the United
States combined. World Vision, the largest, not only takes in more than $1
billion per year, it also has more than 1,400 employees and 43,000 volunteers.
Here is what French concluded:
In
other words, Christians are overwhelmingly focused with their money and their
time on the poor, not on culture war issues.
Then why are Christians portrayed differently? Because
the media is obsessed with the sexual revolution and demonizes dissent. If
news outlets focus on Christians only when engaged on culture war issues and
ignores the much more extensive work we do for the poor in Africa, in Asia, and
at home, then it’s no wonder the wider world sees us as politically-obsessed. Anyone
who believes that Christians are in control of their own public image does not
understand how public perceptions are created in this country. No one is in total control of their own image
and reputation. Not even the President —
and shame on me for not realizing that in my days of naive rage. (emphasis
added)
Throughout the last thirty years that I have been tracking
the society and the numbers, evangelical Christians have consistently been much
more generous givers of time and resources to help those in need than their
liberal counterparts or those who are not Christians. This does not mean that
we cannot improve. We very much can! It
does mean that there is a prevalent false narrative about Christians, one which
we have started believing ourselves and so to protect our own public image (or
so we think), we stay out of the fray. But again, as those redeemed by Jesus
Christ, those who love God and love others, how can we not pursue biblical
justice in behalf of the babies who are killed in our country and in behalf of
the women who are hurt through abortion?
Another form this narrative of undue focus takes is that
Christians are focused only upon the unborn children, but not those who are
born, nor upon their mothers. When we look at this more closely we find that
this too is false.
John Stonestreet, in his July 5, 2018 Breakpoint commentary,
wrote the following (and I quote him at length):[5]
I
recently received a critical letter from a Breakpoint listener who resurrected
some of these…[old] arguments for abortion. The letter claimed that abortion
must remain “safe, legal, and rare,” because there is simply no alternative.
Let
me respond: abortion is never “safe.” If it’s successful, someone dies: namely,
the child in the womb. And, it frequently leaves the mother with medical and
psychological consequences. One study in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that between 40
and 60 percent of women reported having negative reactions to their abortions,
including guilt, nervous disorders, sleep disturbances, and regrets.
And
the idea that abortion can be legal and remain rare is also a myth. In many
parts of the country, the so-called “right to choose” is used like birth
control. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
just in New York City, one in three babies is aborted. In total, over half a
million babies are aborted annually in the United States alone. If we’re
talking about the taking of innocent life, how rare is rare?
Another…[old]
abortion argument brought up in the letter we received is that financial
hardship or the immaturity of the parents justifies the termination of a
pregnancy. In other words, a baby born into tough circumstances would be better
off dead.
But
as my friend Scott Klusendorf points out, if financial hardship or immaturity
of the parents are sufficient reasons to kill a child in the womb, wouldn’t
they also be sufficient reasons to kill a child ouside of the womb? Nobody
thinks parents can dispose of their two-year-old because they can’t afford her!
That’s
why the central question when it comes to abortion would be the same one you
should ask if your ten-year old son yells from outside “Hey, can I kill this?”
Wouldn’t your answer be, “wait, what is ‘this’?”
If
the answer is indeed a human, then no circumstance, no matter how tough,
justifies that killing.
The
most persistent…[old] argument for abortion is that pro-lifers only care about
babies when they’re still in the womb—that we preach from our ivory towers but
we won’t get our hands dirty taking care of those little lives. Folks, that’s
nonsense.
Pro-life
pregnancy care centers provide mothers (and fathers) with counseling, training,
financial support, baby supplies, and other help. These centers now outnumber
abortion clinics at least two-to-one, maybe more.
And
Christians are more than twice as likely to adopt as their secular neighbors.
According to research published in the Almanac
of American Philanthropy, religious Americans are significantly more likely
to give to both religious and nonreligious charities than their secular
counterparts. And their favorite charities are those that provide basic social
services and healthcare.
Look,
is there more that we can do? Of course there is. But this idea that pro-lifers
don’t care about or seek to help children who are born into tough
circumstances—that we won’t put our money or our time where our mouths are—it’s
just not true.
Bottom-line, Jesus taught that his true follower will be one
who loves others and thus will seek to meet their needs and even save their
lives at great cost to themselves, and that is the opposite of walking to the
other side of the road, passing by, and ignoring them (Luke 10:25-37). Pursuing
biblical justice would include standing for life, for the unborn baby, for the
born baby, for the mom, and against abortion.
In our next post we will turn to the second major problem we
face in the issue of abortion.
Joyfully Pursuing Justice With You,
Tom
[1]
All but the bracketed clause and the last clause of this definition is taken
from Tony Evans, Oneness
Embraced: Reconciliation, The Kingdom, And How We Are Stronger Together (Chicago: Moody,
2011), 260.
[2]
Accessed at patheos.com/blogs/frenchrevolution/2012/05/23/an-open-letter-to-young-post-partisan-evangelicals,
on July 10, 2018.
[3] French
is an American attorney (J.D. from Harvard), journalist, and a senior fellow at
the National Review Institute. He is a veteran of the Iraq War and a major in
the United States Army Reserve. He is a past president of the Foundation for
Individual Rights in Education. He is also a staff writer for National Review.
Information taken from Wikipedia.
[4]
“Post-Partisan Evangelicals.”
[5] “Zombie
Abortion Arguments” (accessed at www.breakpoint.org/2018/07/breakpoint-zombie-abortion
arguments/).
No comments:
Post a Comment