Refined thoughts on abortion.

Bringing life into the world is meant to be a thing of dignity. In light of this, the crux of my anti-abortion argument becomes a moral one. Advocates of abortion often use it as a means to perpetuate immoral lifestyles (whether they admit it or not). After all, why would a woman have responsible sex when all she has to do is terminate her pregnancy any time she gets pregnant? Why would a man consider sex an honorable thing if he never has to wrestle with the natural consequence of bearing children?

If you want bad behavior just subsidize it. We can deduce that an abortion subsidy (or payment) is immoral simply because of the result it brings about (more abortions and less responsibility). How can abortion ever be naturally good if the result of it is more immoral behavior and an unwillingness to accept the consequences of one's own actions?

If we were truly concerned about being dignified human beings we would accept the results of both the actions we choose and those we do not. For instance, if a woman is raped she can make the decision not to punish the baby resulting from her rape by aborting it. It is not the baby's fault, after all. It is a tough decision, to be sure, but it gives great value not only to the life of the unborn but to the giver of that life (the mother).

I say this to reveal in depth the motivation for the beliefs I hold. I belong to a way of life that is advocated by an innocent man who was willingly murdered in order to free me from the guilt of my own dishonor. He chose to give me dignity through His sacrifice though I did not deserve it. In this, His love towards me was even more amazing than the mother's love for a baby she chose to carry to term in spite of being raped. In my example, the baby did nothing wrong yet was saved. According to the innocent man, I was His murderer and yet He bestowed upon me (a guilty man) the same gift of life the mother bestowed upon her unborn child (an innocent). Thus, my argument is centered not necessarily in outlawing abortion, but specifically in revealing to the heart of man a dignifying love that is offered to all. That love is given through Jesus, the Son of God. His goodness is the true motivation for righteous living and in such living there is no need for abortion.

A conversation on church elders and their responsibilities (Part one)

I've been writing to a friend of mine for a couple weeks on the topic of elders. I feel like the last exchange we had was particularly good if you would care to read it. In it, my friend is discussing how we show grace to others and how we are to call out others (even elders) on their sin. What should the consequence for elders be when we do so? My response follows these lines of thought as well. Some thoughts are not fully fleshed out in this post so if you have any questions feel free to ask! Enjoy!

My friend writes:

I definitely agree that we can see Christ in others. I have been so blessed by the people God has put in my life, and I think the Lord speaks through people too. But, I think we can also get into trouble if we depend on others to show Christ's love, because we are so imperfect. That's why so many are turned away from Christianity...because of the hypocrisy. I do agree that elders are called to very important responsibilities but that does not mean they don't need the same grace we do. Yes, they should be awesome examples of what it means to live a righteous life, but does that mean if they aren't perfect they should be kicked out of their responsibilities?

It's kind of hard to talk about this so broadly because there are so many circumstantial situations, but I guess I struggle with calling people out on their sin because I have so much of my own, and most of the time I don't know the whole story. That's not to say I shouldn't at times, but I would rather error in grace and love and let God deal with convicting hearts. Again, this is a very broad comment I am making and sometimes, yes, we do need to stand up for what we know is right in order to protect and uphold a righteous church.

You asked to what capacity are they called to lead? Well I guess that is subject to debate which is why there are so many denominations today, and why it is neat that we can choose a church. Ultimately I think we need to ask ourselves, is it a salvation issue? So many little things can be argued over when no one really knows! Everything will be revealed one day in heaven.

My response:

Many people are turned off from Christianity because of the hypocrisy in the church. There can be no argument there. However, this is where the need for healthy elders is so important and why it is absolutely necessary to hold them to a higher standard of conduct than non-elders. They are to reflect Christ and be able to contend for the faith.

We are given qualifications on how to choose elders precisely because they are held to a higher standard to effectively represent the church and feed the flock. Do you know any elders who are forced to take that responsibility? They should accept the standard to which they are held because they are already holding it! That being the case, if an elder no longer meets the qualifications laid out in scriptures they should no longer be an elder. Otherwise, why would we need them (scripture and elders)?

Of course elders need the same amount of grace as other believers but that grace is not given in relation to the position they hold. It is given in the love we have for that person. Consider this for instance: Would you show the same amount of love to a new believer who committed adultery as you would show to an elder who committed adultery? Would you allow the elder to maintain his position after such sin?

In such a case, it is absolutely necessary to call people out on their sins. It is loving to do so and unloving not to. Remember, the church was called to cast from their midst the man who took his father's wife in order to eventually restore him to a faithful walk instead of condoning his sin within the body of God's visible church.

If you had little kids and an under shepherd were leading them what standard of conduct would you hold that man to? If you found out that he was/had been a sexual predator would you be comfortable having that man around your kids? If you approached that elder and he shrugged his shoulders and said, "We're all sinners" would you agree with that sentiment? I ask these questions in order to call you to figure out what you believe in. Don't be content to say that for these reasons churches have fractured into different denominations. Don't give room for people who shepherd you to excuse their sins. We may not be talking about a salvation issue concerning ourselves and those we call out on sin, but we are talking about a salvation issue for those who consider God and turn from Him because of the misconduct they see in His children.

Self-government or tyranny?

This comes a little bit late for the 4th of July but we don't have to celebrate the great ideas of this country founding on just one day a year!

I've been reading the Declaration of Independence and find it to be a wise historical explanation on the state of human nature. Take this quote for instance:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

What are "light and transient causes" concerning Governments? They are quickly passing things that have little effect on the personal welfare of recipients. What does this welfare include?

In this document, welfare is simply "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" protected by Governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" for the ultimate purpose that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Reading farther on in the document will evince the "long train of abuses" that the crown of England had placed upon the people of the Americas.

In truth, the document was written to espouse the virtues of self-government over that of tyranny. Why else would the government get its power only from the consent of the governed? The Declaration was written to declare that man had a right to be free from government that did not warrant continued existence because it no longer protected one's opportunity to advance through one's own hard work.

We live in a day though where people vote themselves benefits by burdening the backs of others. The taxpayer is forced to work harder to subsidize the livelihoods of those who don't work. We have allowed some to take power over us that, in order to administer their own pursuit of "happiness," they whittle away at that same right for us. We should be goal-oriented creatures that strive to work for what we need and desire. That is our right. It is not the Government mandated "right" to education, health care, retirement, and such. There is much to be said for earning that which is of value.

Tocqueville said of such a Government that it is a "tutelary power" that is "absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle." It would duplicate the "paternal power" that would "prepare men for manhood" but instead will "keep them irrevocably fixed in childhood" in that it bestows "their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs…"

Ultimately, a good government is given to protect the legitimate accumulation of wealth and private property through hard work; not the taking away of such to provide for those who vote themselves benefits without any of the necessary responsibility. Thus, our choices are clear: Will we suffer ourselves to greater increments of dispossession or will we fade slowly into the imposed slavery of a state that promises security at the expense of liberty?

Professor Paul Anthony Rahe defines our worth by saying that, "Human dignity is bound up with taking responsibility for conducting one’s own affairs." He states, "We can be what once we were, or we can settle for a gradual, gentle descent into servitude." Let us choose responsibility and strive to change institutions whose causes are not so "light and transitory" in our lives.