The Sanctity of Life: Abortion and the Human Conscience

"The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good 
conscience and a sincere faith."-  1 Timothy 1:5

 

Today, thousands of churches in the US are celebrating what has come to be known as "Sanctity of Life Sunday". President Ronald Reagan designated January 22, 1984 as the first National Sanctity of Human Life Day. That day was chosen to coincide with the 11th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that legalized abortions in the nation. Beginning in 1984, coinciding with the 11th anniversary of the ruling, the third Sunday of January was designated as Sanctity of Human Life Day, the closest Sunday to the original January 22 date.

This morning, I was blessed to hear our pastor Ryan Fullerton preach a great sermon on the human conscience, particularly as it applies to abortion. This post is almost entirely based on the sermon he preached this morning. I know there will be some reading this who have had an abortion, and others who have been involved in an abortion decision. Others still might be considering abortion and some could never see themselves getting an abortion. This post is meant to proclaim again the necessity of continuing to speak for the unborn and the power of the gospel in renewing consciences and giving new life. 

A clear conscience is the softest pillow. The Bible teaches that every person was created with a conscience as a barometer of morality and right living. However, this gift was not untouched by sin. As a result there is such a thing as a bad conscience and we cannot rely on our own Jiminy Crickets perfectly to tell us how we ought to live. We cannot just follow our hearts. The conscience of many has been seared when it comes to abortion in the US and even more so in Canada. In the last 35 years, there have been over 3,000,000 (reported) abortions in Canada. That's roughly the population of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, PEI, and Nova Scotia combined. The truth is that the Canadian conscience in general is not appropriately stirred when it comes to the issue of abortion. 

The Confused Conscience (Romans 2:14-15)
We have all experienced a conflicted and confused conscience. We all lack the clarity we need to make all the proper moral decisions we are forced to make daily. When it comes to abortion, the confused and conflicted conscience has resulted in the deaths of millions around the world. Nicole's testimony was recently published in New York Magazine as part of a series of testimonies in an article entitled "My Abortion". Listen to her conflicted and confused conscience:

"It was this past spring. The due date’s coming up—I’m dreading it. I wanted to keep it. My boyfriend always had football practice, so he couldn’t go to the doctor appointments with me. If he’d gone, he would’ve felt differently. But he said, “No way.” I wanted to show him that I loved him enough to do it for him. When I was thirteen weeks, we made an appointment at the closest clinic in Kentucky, four hours away, but the night before, we decided not to go. At two in the morning, he called and said, “Get dressed.” I said, “I don’t want to go.” We both cried the whole way there. I don’t think abortion is killing, but I’d always been against it. When I told him the credit-card scanner at the clinic wasn’t working, he asked if I was making it up. We went to get $1,000 from a gas-station ATM. I was hysterical, and he said, “Okay, you don’t have to go back.” I was so happy. Then he said, “We drove all this way. Stop crying, act like a woman.” I was angry, but I was so sleepy and tired of fighting. When I had the ultrasound, I asked for the picture and a nurse said, “Seriously?” A month later, he said he regretted it too. When I cry about it, I cry alone. He thinks it would make me sad to talk about, but I don’t want our baby to think we forgot. I’ve never heard of anybody else having an abortion here." [italics mine] 

The Defiled Conscience (1 Corinthians 8:7)
We have all heard the stories of mass murderers and criminals. However, many of us have also been disturbed by their incredibly clear consciences. They are actually convinced that they did nothing wrong. There is no regret, no remorse, no guilt. It takes a great deal of sin to get our conscience that hard and calloused, but the path towards this dead conscience is a conscience that is repeatedly defiled. It is fascinating how much shame and guilt we can feel even if we don't think we should. We can be intellectually convinced that our actions are morally permissible, but we might still experience the defilement of a conscience. Take for example this testimony entitled, "I Am Pro-Choice! Why Do I Regret My Abortion?": 

It was a very early, first-trimester abortion, but nevertheless, I was pregnant and I chose not to continue the pregnancy even though deep down I desperately wanted a child. I made this choice based on my relationship with the baby’s father, who dropped me off at the clinic and I never saw again, despite having a three-to-four-year, on-and-off relationship. He promised me marriage and more children when we were ready for it, i.e. 5 or 10 years from now.His last words to me were, “Don’t worry, I’ll be back.” But that never materialized. I am only 25 (24 at the time of the abortion), but I am now convinced I missed my only chance to have a biological child. Is that crazy? I haven’t dated, least of all had sex with anyone, since that day. It feels like a part of me died that day and will never return. I am no longer upset about the end of our relationship (good riddance!) but I am truly disturbed by the entire experience. I have nightmares about my experience at the clinic, though I know they followed every medical and legal step to the T. I wish I could forgive myself and move on, but I just can’t. I wake up every morning and it is the best minute of my life before the knowledge of what happened returns to me and the cycle of sadness and regret begins all over again. I am a liberal woman and as pro-choice as you can be! Which is even more upsetting! Can you please offer me advice on moving forward with my life and freeing myself from this unending cycle of regret?

The Clean Conscience (Hebrews 10:22)
So what now? The only hope for the misery of a guilty conscience is the death and resurrection of Jesus. You can't deal with your unsettled conscience by trying to be a better person. Turn to the Lord, he died to cleans the conscience and the guilt that leads to death. He died so that defiled consciences could be purified. Taste his sweet conscience-cleansing grace! 

What are the implications of understanding and believing in the sanctity of human life? It's not simply about abortion. It's not simply about thinking carefully about the method of birth control we choose to use (although that is a very important implication too!). Greed, sexual immorality, convenience, financial stability have all led to abortions. It is true that having less children might make your life more convenient. It is true that the raising of children does not come without many hard days and nights. Much in the same way, choosing to speak for the unborn will not be easy, convenient, or appealing most of the time. Genetic disorders are no legitimate excuse for abortion. Neither is teenage pregnancy, rape, or financial situation. How then should you and I live in light of these truths? Here are some suggestions:

1) Do not think yourself too high or too low to speak against abortion
2) Do not think yourself too high or too low to speak positively about all children
3) Financially support and volunteer at a "Women's Pregnancy Center"
4) Increase your political activity
5) Cultivate a culture in which every child is welcomed

When Men (and Women) Are Told to "Act Like Men"

"Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love."

-  1 Corinthians 16:13-14

Act Like Men.

These three words have created quite a buzz over the past couple of weeks, especially in Southern Ontario. A few months ago it was announced that a conference would take place in Hamilton, ON featuring Mark Driscoll, James MacDonald, Matt Chandler, and Greg Laurie - Act Like Men Conference. There was a lot of excitement in my circles about the conference and, sure enough, about 8,000 men gathered this weekend to worship and learn from these speakers on this issue.

Right at around the same time, another group of churches and individuals were feeling more and more uneasy about the conference and the message they felt it was trying to spread. They organized a counter-conference, also in Hamilton, with the goal of presenting different evangelical perspectives on gender roles and biblical masculinity. The Act Like Men? Broadening the Conversation on Men, Women and the Church was organized as an "anti gender discrimination" conference and held last weekend. Coincidentally, and in a totally unrelated manner, my pastor in Louisville (several hundred miles away from the ALM Buzz...) preached through 1 Corinthians 16:13-14 this morning, as the next text on our series on 1 Corinthians.

Needless to say, I have been thinking about these three words a lot over the past couple of weeks. For some people, these words have been a reason to gather with great anticipation and excitement with other men and worship. For others, these words have been almost offensive and discriminatory. (See blog posts by organizers and participates here and here) So what are we to make of this verse and these words? 

When Paul wrote these words to the church in Corinth, he was indeed addressing the whole church - including the women. As Dr. Westfall rightly pointed out in "ALM?", from this passage, we gather that Paul wants women to "Act like men" too. So what did Paul have in mind when he told the church to "act like men"? In Paul's days, it was a male characteristic to be bold and courageous. Paul is not saying this view was the right view to have or the wrong view to have, it simply was the case. Paul is making an appeal for men and women in Corinth to not be afraid, to be strong. He adds to that, "be watchful, stand firm in the faith, be strengthened". It would have communicated a similar exhortation as someone saying "be watchful like a watchdog" or "be strong like a lion" today. It probably would not have been offensive to say such a thing to a woman or to a man. 

That seems to be what Paul had in mind, but there is much more baggage in these three words today. The concept of biblical masculinity has been distorted by being pushed too far off both ditches on the road. Some people have (quite pathetically) taken biblical masculinity to be synonymous with dominance, exploitation, and license for abuse. In other more subtle ways, biblical masculinity has been exclusively associated with meat, sports, and hunting. Men like myself who enjoy activities such as reading and playing violin have to raise our eyebrows and question this definition of manhood. On a more personal note, I think that some of the well-meaning people who have put so much energy into the "ALM? Conference" sought to take a stand against this kind of understanding of what it means to be a man. I would have too, except that I HIGHLY doubt that the ALM conference was organized to encourage this distortion. I did not attend the conference, but that is not the impression I get from the promo video:

"You're not going to sit on your death bed and think about how your business is doing or how much money you made. You're going to think about God and you're going to think about your family!"

- G. Laurie

"My church will be served by me. My wife will be loved by me. My family will be led by me!"

- M. Driscoll

"Let sound biblical theology call you again and again out of a life of compromise, out of a life of self, out of a life of short-sighted self-serving!"

- J. MacDonald.  

I could be wrong. But this conference was not organized to get guys to be more competitive. It was not organized to get men to play rougher sports or put away their origami. It is not calling men to grow more chest hair or to grunt more frequently. The speakers are looking to inspire husbands to love their wives. To inspire men to serve their churches. To inspire men to put away greed and self-fulfillment and think about their families. Is this really what is upsetting some people?

My guess is no. But then why so much resentment against these men and this conference?

Nurturing love (1 Thess 2:7) and courageous boldness are both characteristics that ought to be present in both Christian men and Christian women. Christ himself displayed both and if you and I are in Christ, these things are for us to display as well. However, some characteristics are best emulated in either males or females. There is no masculine parallel to a mother tenderly nursing and caring for her infant. Paul simply looked to that exemplary characteristic and sought to display it as well. Similarly, there's a time for toughness and courage, and Paul calls women to exercise this "manly" characteristic as well.

Jesus was a man. He demonstrated tremendous conviction, courage and boldness as he led his disciples, rebuked the Pharisees, and took the full wrath of God on the cross. He was a man. But this man also washed his disciples' feet, and did "spiritual laundry" in Ephesians 5:26-27. (thank you Dr. Westfall for pointing that out!) While it is true that Jesus and Paul displayed both stereotypical "male" characteristics and "female" characteristics, it is not as though God is doing away with his original creation of roles and gender in the New Testament.

Why an "Act Like Men" Conference? Again, I am not sure about all the details of the conference. However, it seems like the speakers and organizers are aware of a pattern of weakness, laziness, and ignorance in this area in men. Although both men and women are called to be courageous, to be strengthened, and to be watchful, this conference is simply gathering the men and trying to equip them to do just that as men, and not as women. Some find a conference about equipping men to lead their churches and to lead their families something that should be countered and opposed. Paul certainly did not shy away from specifically and distinctly calling men, husbands, and fathers to lead. Throughout the Scriptures, God has maintained and highlighted the distinct roles of men in women even when these are overlooked or distorted.
    

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" - separately and distinctly, in the image of God. 

For some more thoughts on these issues I recommend the following blog posts:
"When Men are Too 'Manly'" - James Dwyer
"1 Corinthians 16:13-14" - Ray Ortlund

Baby 59 - The Moral and Sentimental Antithesis to our Pro-Choice Obsessed Culture

Baby 59 made headlines all over the world earlier this week when a video of his rescue began to circulate. The newborn baby boy, named after the incubator number where he spent the first couple of days of his life, was rescued from a toilet drainage pipe after residents of the apartment building heard cries coming from the plumbing. Initially, authorities thought the baby had been abandoned and said they would be treating the case as one of attempted homicide. However, local authorities have now concluded that the baby was trapped by accident after reports coming from the mother insisted that she went to the shared bathroom when she felt abdominal cramps. She explained that the baby slipped into the sewer pipe and she was unable to free him. It was the mother herself who sounded the alarm for the rescue team to come. She was present during the rescue that lasted well over two hours and explained that she wanted to raise the child herself but had no idea how to do it.

I have found the images and videos from the baby's rescue to be some of the most deeply heart-wrenching and emotionally disturbing I have seen in a very long time. British columnist Jonathan Jones writes, "Some pictures are moving because they make you sympathize with victims of violence. This one exerts a terrible psychological hold because the baby's release from the pipe is a macabre travesty of birth". He then goes on to describe his own emotional response to the images, "For me this poor baby is a figure of ultimate abandonment, a child whose early hours were spent in a filthy claustrophobic tube, with injuries that include a broken skull, fighting for life – and crying, successfully, for help – in the darkness and dirt."

Ultimate abandonment, filth, broken skull, fighting for life, crying for help - that was the state of this Chinese baby when the world first heard of him. The images and sounds that were witnessed can hardly be imagined. I cannot think of one person that was not, at that moment in time, waiting patiently and hoping that somehow this baby could survive.

There was, however, another person present at that rescue who needed help, who needed care and who needed support. It is hard to imagine what the mother was going through. Single, alone, and afraid, she watched as local authorities cut the pipe open to reveal her baby boy still attached to the placenta. Whether or not her story is completely true and regardless of whether or not more details about her circumstances will come up later, there is a sense of sympathy for the mentally and emotionally paralyzed mother.

Nevertheless, at that moment, all efforts were on the baby, all eyes were on the baby, all hopes were on the baby, all prayers were for the baby.

It is hard to imagine that any person at that moment would hesitate to do everything within their power to save the baby's life. We know, however, that in our culture that is exactly what takes place. The moral and natural priorities exhibited in the rescue of Baby 59 to savea baby's life regardless of any circumstances or desires stand in stark contrast to those of our nation, where a mother's choice trumps the decision to keep her baby alive.

To this day, Canada remains the only country in the developed world where there are no laws regulating abortions. In our nation, a mother can legally abort her baby at any point in time during her pregnancy - including up to the delivery itself. It is not a crime for a doctor (or anyone else for that matter) to kill the baby as per the mother's instructions as long as the child is not yet fully born. While there are different provincial and medical policies and regulations whereby a doctor might lose his or her license to practice if such an event were to take place, they would not be charged with a crime.

According to Stats Canada, there were 377,213 live births in Canada in 2010(1). In that same year there were also 64,641 abortions reported nationwide(2). That's more than 1 abortion for every 7 births! However, since the court struck down reporting requirements in 1988, it is difficult to know how accurate these figures are - they are obviously reflective of only a fraction of the abortions that took place.

It is hard to rationalize or imagine an alternate conclusion to the baby's rescue in China. The authorities could have stopped and asked the mother what she wanted to do with the baby prior to beginning the rescue, and she might have said "I'm not ready to have a baby", or "the baby is really sick", or "the baby is an inconvenience to me at this time, please kill it". The rescuers might have then heeded the mother's instructions and proceeded to remove the crying baby from the pipes and done as the mother had asked.

That alternate video would have undoubtedly sparked a warranted debate and protest against what had just happened. The truth, however, is that this alternate story would not be very different from what happens in our city, in our hospitals, in our clinics, in our own backyard every single day - legally, quietly and privately.

This alternate ending to Baby 59's life is not unlike what Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist representing Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, argued should happen to a live baby of a "botched" abortion. When asked what Planned Parenthood would want to have happen to a child that is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, she responded, "We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician". You can watch the shocking response she gave on behalf of Planned Parenthood during the Civil Justice Subcommittee's consideration of the "Infants Born Alive Act" just a few weeks ago by clicking here. 

The fact that any decision that is made regarding a baby's life should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician is exactly what Canadian laws seem to endorse and support. A mother in Canada can give any or no reason at all for wanting to abort her baby at any point in her pregnancy. While she might find it hard to find a reputable doctor to do so later on in pregnancy, it not something that is illegal and many times it is deemed "understandable". That veto over a child's life in the form of a choice is precisely what pro-choice advocates believe the priorities are. They believe the decisive verdit in determining whether a baby should live or die should come down to a choice, and not the baby's. But that is precisely what we don't see or could imagine seeing when we watch the video of this baby's rescue. When it comes to Baby 59, it is simply unfathomable to think that there could have existed any reason or circumstance given by the baby's mother that would have changed the outcome of the rescue.

Maybe it was the video. Maybe it was actually seeing a baby fighting to survive the only way it knows to fight - through tears and wailing. Maybe we don't really believe that choice trumps  life. Maybe Gregg Cunningham was right, "Injustice that is invisible inevitably becomes tolerable. But injustice that is made visible inevitably becomes intolerable".

(1). Stats Canada, CANSIM, "Table 102-4503: Births and total fertility rate, by province and territory", Statistics Canada, 2013, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/hlth85a-eng.htm

(2). CIHI, "Induced Abortions Performed in Canada in 2010", Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2010, http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/pdf/internet/TA_10_ALLDATATABLES20120417_EN

Why Holding to Traditional Marriage is Not Like Being Angry at Someone For Eating A Donut Simply Because You Are on a Diet

A little while ago, one of my friends on Facebook posted a picture up of someone holding a sign that read, “Claiming that someone else’s marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you’re on a diet”. (If this was you, and you happen to be reading this, then thank you for posting it, getting me to think, and for inspiring this post! :D). Needless to say that I found the picture/sign intriguing and I was thinking about it for quite some time. Here are some of my thoughts:
 

Analogies like these are helpful in understanding and communicating one’s personal views and personal understandings of important issues such as marriage and religion. However, it is important to rightly interpret these catchy phrases, as well as their implications. The reason there is such a “punch” in a quote like this is because it takes something as relevant and debated in North America today, namely how one understands marriage on the basis of religion, and brings it down to the a level of a reaction that is silly and possibly pathetic. Being angry at someone who is enjoying something (a donut), presumably because of your own self-imposed restrictions (a diet) is silly and selfish. A parallel is drawn in the quote between the silliness and irrationality of the donut-luster and the disagreement that many faith-based (and non-faith based) people have to the marriage of same-sex couples.

I think that this is an unfair and severely broken comparison, however, and I want to explore three  of these problems in this post. 

1. The difference in reaction:

Notice first of all the difference in what is being compared – a “claim” to “being angry”. The quote suggests that simply claiming that an idea is contrary to one’s religious beliefs is equivalent to being irrationally angry. While it is true that some people get angry when they are confronted with ideas or circumstances that are contrary to their beliefs, it is untrue to say that having an opinion on a matter is the same as being angry - a person can certainly defend his or her opinion in an angry or inappropriate manner, but the opinion itself cannot and should not be equated with anger. If all opinions and the dispensation of opinions were equated with anger, we would have to approach every radio show, newspaper, website, and conversation with fists raised. The reality is that many people are angered when confronted by ideologies contrary to their own and this is not unique to marriage, religion, or to Christians for that matter. From a Christian point of view, just because the Bible teaches that homosexual activity is sinful, that does not automatically make every Christian angry, by default, towards homosexuals. A more accurate analogy (though still faulty in at least two ways) would be, “claiming that someone else’s marriage is against your religion is like claiming that eating a donut is bad for your diet” – this statement begins to lose some “punch” because it is now fairly comparing two different opinions.

2. The difference in definition:

The second way in which the donut analogy breaks down is in the casual way that the word “marriage” is used. Marriage, like every other word, has a definition. Marriage was first defined in Genesis as the union by God of Adam and Eve. Even without that biblical definition, a Google search or a dictionary definition of marriage will read something like this: “the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife”. The donut analogy breaks down because it implies an alternative definition and meaning to marriage (assuming that the implication is about same-sex marriage) that simply has not been the traditional understanding of marriage. While some may argue that definitions change, which is true, the majority of secular societies around the world and in North America still define marriage as the exclusive union between one man and one woman. In other words, one of the things defenders of traditional marriage are doing is simply echoing the restriction of marriage inherent in its definition.  In speaking of same-sex marriage then, a more reasonable analogy would be “claiming that two same-sex people should not get married is like claiming that vegetarians should not eat fish”. It's really not a very ludicrous statement at all.

3. The difference in morality  

The third reason this analogy breaks down is because the morality and ethics of marriage are eliminated and ignored by being compared to the neutral choice of eating a donut. Marriage is an institution that is deeply moral. Subjects such as adultery and polygamy are so deeply ethical and so profoundly attached to marriage, that we are forced to deal with the reality of the moral issues surrounding marriage. Once again, speaking from a Christian worldview, committing adultery, being involved in any sexual activity outside of marriage, and having sexual relations with people or a person of the same gender all fall under sexual immorality, as they are contrary to the natural and the perfect plan of the God who created them. The Bible of course doesn't say anything about marrying someone of the same gender because that wouldn't be marriage as defined by God.
 

Now, at this point someone (maybe quite irritated) might say something like, "who are you to decide or make any claims to who people can and can't marry and what they can and can't do with their bodies and sexuality?". To this I would answer that I am not in fact deciding or making any new claims on who one can and can't marry and what they can and can't do with their bodies and sexuality. The burden of defence does not fall with those who hold to a traditional vew of marriage but it falls on those who, only on the grounds of their own opinion and desire, are fighting to change the morality of homosexuality and are fighting to change the definition of marriage. In other words, people who are irritated when they hear that Christians are opposed to same-sex marriage (or homosexuality in general), are guilty of the same thing they are falsely accusing Christians of - namely, making their own opinion a universal and definite claim on a moral issue. Christians themselves don't make any decisions on what is moral or not moral based on their own opinion, but rather they follow an objective, unchanging set of standards. Homosexuality always has been, and always will be immoral, and that standard will never change for Christians.
 

Anyone who argues for the morality of same-sex marriage has to wrestle with the fact that they themselves are the ones that are seeking to make a revolutionary moral claim based on personal opinion and nothing else. The reality is that the argument that "two people who love each other should be able to get married" simply does not hold any water as an argument to legalize or moralize same-sex marriage. After all, should a 9 year old and a 30 year old who love each other, a 40 year old mother and her 16 year old son who love each other, and a 20 year old and three or four other 20 year olds who all love each other... should they all morally and legally be permitted to be married if they want? Why not?! The moral implications of two people getting married simply cannot be tossed aside and reduced to the level of a pastry consumption choice. Christianity has an objective and unchanging moral standard while secular society will continue to reform, change, disagree, and be inconsistent in moral issues because their claims don't have a unchanging and objective foundation. In reality then, claiming to hold to traditional marriage, is as normal, rational, and respectable as claiming to value and defend all human life, including unborn infants - but that'll be for another post!