The Hypocrisy of Abortion

Just read this article on abortion. I don't want to say the abortion argument is old or stale, because the fight against the taking of life can never get old. Nevertheless, the arguments are out there, the evidence is out there, but people won't listen. It shows how hypocritically inconsistent our society is. Here are a couple inconsistencies this article pointed out:

1. We say that a woman should have rights over her own body, but we disregard the rights of the unborn child.

2. We charge people with two counts of murder, and we mourn and record to separate deaths in the event of a death or murder of a pregnant mother, but we do not consider the unborn baby to be worthy of life when it comes to abortion.

3. Doctors and scientists are constantly coming up with new ways of treating premature babies in order to save their lives, even when they are extremely early, while we tend to think that the earlier the better when it comes to abortion.

4. The law holds dead beat dads accountable - forcing them to fulfill some of their parental duties, but fathers have no say over whether or not their partner can/should have an abortion.

5. Our society (rightly) condemns racism, yet it seems as though abortion clinics have a significant target market: minorities. A large number of abortion clinics are located in low-income, minority neighborhoods.

At the very least, abortion advocates need to admit to these inconsistencies. How are they explained? Am I misunderstanding them? Is there a reason why we consider unborn babies to be life in some instances and not others? Or are we really just that hypocritical? I think a little honest societal self-examination would reveal that abortion is really just a matter of convenience. Babies take up a lot of time and resources and commitment. So our country is pro-life when it's convenient.

What is the pro-abortion answer to these inconsistencies? I suspect there isn't one.

If You Erase Hell, You Don't Have a Gospel

Francis Chan has joined the conversation about hell, spurred on by Rob Bell's "Love Wins." In the book, Chan apparently looks at the scriptural view of eternity and "the things we've made up." Take a look at the video introduction that Chan gives. It's pretty good. Chan has said some things in the past that haven't sat well with me, but he's also said a lot of stuff I agree with. Most notably from this short clip, when talking about things like hell or eternity, Chan says that people often say things like, "I could never believe in a God that..." or "My God doesn't..." fill in the blank. Chan notes that when people say things like this, they're actually subverting God's knowledge with their own reasoning. In other words, they're saying that they know better than God (or, as Ray Comfort would say, they've fashioned a god in their own image - one that is acceptable to them). But, like Chan says, God's thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are his ways our ways. So when something like hell doesn't seem to make sense, we need to remember that that's to be expected for a lot of theological topics. God simply doesn't think the way we do (you can read the Relevant Magazine interview with Chan here).

I first heard of Chan's literary endeavors by way of the Huffington Post. John Shore, their religion blogger, wrote this post completely slamming Chan "and his ilk" for their views on hell. Shore says that in reality, all anyone who talks definitively about hell is doing is fear mongering. They're just trying to get their way by using fear. Shore says that most people who reject Christianity do so because of the doctrine of hell - they can't believe in a God that would submit anyone to eternal punishment. Shore further argues (using "flawless logic") that, since Christians can't have certainty on an issue like hell, and since a Christian can be wrong about hell and still go to heaven, and since the doctrine of hell turns of so many would-be believers, then "evangelicals should shut-up about hell."

There are an immensity of flaws in Shore's so-called "flawless logic." First, it assumes that John Shore's understanding of hell is universal. He makes conclusions based on what he believes and applies them to everyone. Admittedly, this is hard to get away from in any argument, considering we all have our own beliefs and think and operate out of them. Even conclusions I draw about hell (as you will see further down this post) are based on my own beliefs (but I think I have good reasons for believing them). So to ever insist that your thinking is "flawless" is arrogant and almost certainly incorrect, to say the least.

Secondly, it presupposes that a person can be wrong about the existence of hell and go to heaven. This is a significant theological presupposition. Can a person not believe in hell and still rightly believe the gospel? My first inclination would be to say that no, a person cannot be truly saved without believing in hell. To not believe in hell and eternal punishment for sin would be to not fully understand the gospel. If Jesus came to earth to die and save sinners from God's wrath and eternal punishment for sin (which, admittedly, is my own theological presupposition, but is one that is shared by orthodoxy and history), then believing in hell is part of believing the gospel. If there's no hell, then why do I even need to be saved? For a better life? For inner peace? Nope. None of those things pan out (using flawless logic, of course). And what do I need to be saved from? Why do I even need a Savior? A little bit of logical thinking through scripture and the logic of the gospel demands that hell be a reality. The gospel doesn't work - nor is it worthy of believing - if there is no hell.

Thirdly, Shore implies that Christians should preach a palatable message to the masses, rather than something that might turn them off. According to Shore, since people are so turned off by the doctrine of hell, we shouldn't say anything about it. Well, the problem with this is that the gospel, by nature, turns people off. Again, I think I have orthodoxy, tradition, and history - let alone scripture - on my side here. Nowhere in the Bible is the gospel described as something that is easy to accept. It essentially tells those who would believe it that they've pretty much been wrong about everything in their life up until now, and that they are worthless sinners, deserving of eternal punishment. Who wants to hear that? That's not much of a warm and fuzzy! The good news though, of course, is that Jesus came and died to take the punishment you deserved so that you could live forever with God. But in order to believe that good news, you first have to admit to and believe the bad news. Believing the gospel takes an inhuman amount of humility, so no, it's not easy to hear, and yes, it absolutely turns people off. But to tweak the message to make it easier to receive is to distort the meaning of it. Yes, people are turned off by hell. That's kind of the point.

Another thing that got me about Shore's article is that it did exactly what so many people criticized conservative evangelicals for when Rob Bell's book came out. There were an incredible amount of Bell supporters that blasted anyone who dared critique Bell, his book, or his ideas before the book actually came out. There were people accusing others of attacking the man without engaging in edifying debate, and not hearing him out before condemning him. Well, it looks like that rule only goes one way, considering Chan's book won't come out until July. Hey liberals: since you're so concerned with hearing people out before they're criticized for their ideas, I'd like John Shore's head on a platter, please. Oh wait, that's not going to happen.

I wish that someone would write a book talking about the essential nature of the doctrine of hell to the overarching message of the gospel. That's what we need to understand. Actually, such a book probably already exists, but it most certainly wasn't written by a hipster in Christian pop culture, so it will therefore get absolutely no attention. That's a shame. But we don't really need Rob Bell, Francis Chan, or anyone else to write a book for us about hell. God already took care of that. Let's read that book and come up with some ideas about hell. What we read should cause us to think seriously about hell. What I like about Chan's approach is that it takes this topic seriously. He says that if there's even a possibility of hell, we've got a lot of thinking and praying to do, which I think is a good suggestion.

Why We Do Family Nights

Desiring God posted this article from 1983 by John Piper. It's called "Toward a Theology of Church Picnics." In the article, Piper explains some of the theological reasons for getting together as a church outside of regular church hours just for hanging out.

While I didn't articulate them to the church as well as Piper does in this short article, these are the exact reasons why we hold a Family Night ministry at Riverview.

The theme verse for our Family Nights (at least this summer, and perhaps on into the future) is 1 Thessalonians 3.12 - "...and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all..." In my opinion, the only way you can really "increase and abound in love for one another" is if you spend time with people and get to know them. Yes, Sunday mornings offer a bit of this kind of interaction, but not really enough. A lot of the interaction that takes place between people between Sunday School and the service pretty much takes place on the surface.

I think just getting to know each other is a huge part of our ministry at Riverview. The more we know each other, the more we love each other, the more united we become in Christ. So yes, there are some pretty deep theological reasons for having a church picnic.

Everything Dies

Had an interesting experience today with the Ferguson. Our eldest cat, Bartholomew, made a rare appearance on the main floor of the house this morning. I was getting dressed, and Ferg saw him come into the room. He seemed excited, and he went to play with Bartholomew (which usually tends to be kind of rough), and I said, "Be careful with him, he's sick. He's going to die soon."

While I don't know this for certain, I'm pretty sure that Bartholomew is on his last legs. We've noticed that over the past month or so, he's slowed down a lot. And he's lost a ton of weight. He used to be an absolutely gigantic cat - not just in girth, but in height too. Very lion-like (especially when shaved like this). Now he's just skin and bones. He spends most of his time on a chair in the basement, just taking it easy and sleeping. Other than that, he doesn't appear to be in any pain, and he's in good spirits. He still comes up to me and wants to be petted, and he still purrs like crazy. If he were suffering at all we'd definitely take him to the vet, but for now everything seems to be OK - he's just slowly going down hill, which is to be expected with a cat his age.

Anyway, we have been talking about Barth's impending demise for a few weeks now, even around the kids. We haven't held anything from them. That's why I unabashedly told Ferg, "He's sick. He's going to die soon." It's nothing different than what we've told him the last few weeks. But this morning, something must have clicked in Ferg's head when I said this, because he got an incredibly sad look on his face, and the tears slowly started to fall. I gave him a hug, and then he went to see Mom and give her a hug too. Rather than get into a sin and death talk, we just decided that for now he should know that things eventually die. And we made sure to let him know that this is part of the way God has made the world. Things die (and pretty soon, we'll begin talking about why they die). He seemed to be able to accept that.

Eventually the tears went away, the cat went back down into the basement, and everything was hunky dory again. It's interesting to see how much kids can understand.

Cosmic Treason

Todd Friel has a great illustration to flesh out the severity of sin. He says that the severity of sin is dependent upon the one against whom the sin is committed, and the consequence for the sin follows likewise. In other words, when one offends someone with very little authority, the consequences are less severe. But when one offends someone of a higher authority, the punishment is greater. His illustration follows thusly:

If I lie to my child, what can he do to me? Nothing. He's a child! If I lie to my wife, what will happen? I might sleep on the couch. If I lie to her again, she might leave me. If I lie to my boss, I could get fired. If I lie to the government, I could go to jail.

In each circumstance, the offense is the same, but the severity of the sin (the level of offense taken) changes based upon whom the sin was committed against.

The same is true with God. We often times will justify "small" sins by saying they are no big deal. When we do this, we put God int he place of our "child." It's not a big deal, and he won't care. And why would he get angry about such a small thing? But what we're missing is who and what God really is: the Creator of the universe and absolute Moral Lawgiver. to him, all sin is detestable and deplorable, no matter what size (or how insignificant we might think it is).

I "like" Desiring God on my Facebook page, and they quite frequently post quotes from several reformed theologians and pastors throughout history. Today's quote from Jonathan Edwards was quite relevant, and I though, profound: “Any sin is more or less heinous depending upon the honor and majesty of the one whom we had offended. Since God is of infinite honor, infinite majesty, and infinite holiness, the slightest sin is of infinite consequence. The slightest sin is nothing less than cosmic treason when we realize against whom we have sinned.”

"Cosmic treason." Wow. When see God for who he is, as Edwards says, "of infinite honor, infinite majesty, and infinite holiness," sin is a big deal. And it shows us all the more how glorious the gospel is. God forgave me of cosmic treason.