Mother Teresa once made a startling statement about war and peace in our world. She said, “The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion because it is a war against the child, and if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another.” (cited by Smith and Stonestreet in Restoring All Things). As men who are created to protect our families and to exercise dominion over the culture, how can we best persuade the rising generation and those who surround us to protect human life by ending abortion? This episode gives some historic background and practical suggestions.
Today we begin a new, 5-week series to become King David’s mighty men of valor who are described as men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do. (1 Chron 12’32). These men joined other supporters of David’s kingship. A few verses later we read, All these, men of war, arrayed in battle order, came to Hebron with a whole heart to make David king over all Israel (vs 38). OUR nation needs men of valor who UNDERSTAND THE TIMES—that there is a war going on in our culture—a battle for God’s truth, who are committed to David’s son, King Jesus, as he spreads his kingdom of righteousness over the planet. This battle is not against flesh and blood, and it is worth repeating that our enemy is not the one holding anti-biblical views. Rather, the one espousing mistaken views is being held captive by our mutual enemies, Satan and sin—who have blinded their minds. Although their understanding is darkened by their sinful nature, we also know that, as those made in God’s image, the moral law of God is written on their heart. So, no matter what the say outwardly, their inner conscience is our hidden ally as we seek to wisely point others to truth.
The battle to protect our wives, kids, and others from destructive lies is fought in the world of IDEAS. Not only does the 2 Corinthians 10:4 description of this spiritual warfare use four words that have to do with thinking correcting—arguments, opinion, knowledge, thought, Paul’s more familiar description of spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6 also stresses thinking accurately.
- The belt of TRUTH is the very first weapon mentioned.
- The breastplate of RIGHTEOUSNESS refers to the right way to shape culture.
- The shield of FAITH is believing what is true about God’s nature despite circumstances that say otherwise.
- The sword of the Spirit GOD’S WORD is TRUTH itself.
The spiritual battle we are called to wage is over worldview, because the way humans live is determined by our worldview. Whether we realize it or not our worldview understanding shapes our actions and interactions with others in everyday life. It consists of our deeply held beliefs about God, morality, man’s purpose, and the nature of reality. Because worldviews shape every aspect of life, Christ-followers are called to compete in the world of ideas to win other’s over to God’s revealed wisdom about life. That is our creation mandate--to exercise dominion. Just as God intended his image-bearers to bring life to the world by ruling over it as He would, He intends redeemed humans to join his work in bringing new life to the world (Ibid).
As we seek, through common grace, to win others over to the biblical worldview, some key verses from Proverbs give wisdom about HOW to do so:
- There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing (Prov 12:18).
- Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body (Prov 16:24).
- The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, but the mouth of fools spouts folly (Prov 15:2).
- The wise of heart is called discerning, and sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness (Prov 16:21).
- The heart of the wise instructs his mouth and adds persuasiveness to his lips (Prov 16:23).
This episode examines the biblical worldview concerning the unborn.
CREATION TRUTH: EVERY HUMAN HAS INESTIMABLE WORTH AS ONE MADE IN GOD’S IMAGE
From its earliest days, Christianity has stood for the dignity of every human being and for equality of worth before God, in sharp contrast to most pre-Western cultures. In Christ, Paul tells us, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female (Gal 3:28-29). This emphasis on moral and spiritual equality led Christians to be the first people anywhere in the world to pass laws against slavery (Rodney Stark, Victory of Reason). Despite Christianity’s black eye when it came to American southerners, slavery was condemned as sin by Thomas Aquinas, condemned by four popes, and ended in Britain only after a 25-year campaign by Evangelical Christians, among them, William Wilberforce. Marin Luther King, Jr. based his call to justice on natural law theory dating at least as far back as Aquinas. In the words of author’s Sunshine and Padgett, “King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail is based on just these arguments, anchored in the Christian tradition that recognized both our equality and intrinsic dignity and the importance of an objective moral foundation for Law” (Glenn Sunshine and Tim Padgett, The Imago Dei and Creation). They continue with more about history. In an era in which infanticide was mandated by law for the handicapped and allowed under any circumstances, Christians saved babies from death, bringing them into their own households and petitioned the government to end this legalized murder. Similarly following the Jews, they also opposed abortion since it was the taking of a human life made in the image of God.
In Western culture the logic of our creation in the image of God led eventually to the idea of universal human rights. This was a uniquely western concept built on theories of unalienable rights developed by medieval Christian theologians. No other culture, religion, or civilization has advanced a comparable idea because none have a worldview foundation for it. Even honest atheists like Jurgen Habermas point out that the modern secular ideas about human rights have their origins in the Judeo-Christian tradition. And yet, with all the emphasis on human equality and individual rights in our culture, here is a tragic fact about abortion: the number of its victims is historically unprecedented.
Nazi concentration camps hosted the extermination of seven million people. Communist and other totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century massacred one hundred million in various gulags and death camps. The Black Death plague of the fourteenth century may have killed two hundred million people. Add all these together, then double the number, then double it again and you approach the number of innocent children exterminated in the past century by abortion. (Warren Cole Smith, John Stonestreet, Restoring All Things). John Stonestreet and Warren Smith explain abortion’s history this past century: The Soviets first legalized abortion in 1919. Nazi Germany followed in 1935. The United States legalized it in 1973. China’s “one-child policy,” only recently and slightly modified is mostly responsible for the thirteen million abortions that take place each year…Nearly 60 million unborn children have been aborted in the United States alone since 1973’s Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision (Ibid).
The upcoming Supreme Court rulings, not to mention the 2022 elections, are bound to lead to a lot of discussion in our culture. Advances in pre-natal medicine and sonogram technology have eroded some of the support for Roe v Wade.
HOW CAN WE WINSOMELY ARGUE TO PROTECT LIFE?
Here is a series of questions each of us might be asked, with some thoughts about what a winsome, persuasive response might look like.
A. “What do you think about the court’s decision?” If the subject comes up, and you can step into the conversation, I personally believe the starting place should be grace: “I am pro-life—I believe the baby in the womb needs to be protected. But more importantly, I am pro-forgiveness. My faith, Christianity, offers forgiveness to every woman who has had an abortion and later regretted it and every man who has pushed his girlfriend, daughter, or wife into an abortion, and wishes he hadn’t.” Every one of us has made decisions that we regretted afterwards, especially choices we made in our youth. Many, many Christians have had abortions or pushed someone into one. The offer of Christ to all who ask for it is full and complete forgiveness. Jesus’ cry from the cross was, “Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” If God forgives those who put his Son on a cross, he can forgive abortion. And he does.
B. “To have an abortion is a woman’s private choice about her body.” When you hear this argument, you might want to ask, “Do you think the right to your own body is absolute? Does a husband have the right to put his hand in the space occupied by his wife’s face? When a human is angry does he have the right to wrap his hands around a gun and squeeze the trigger in whatever direction he chooses? Does an angry mother have the right to squeeze her hands around her child’s windpipe, choking her to death? Does a man have the right to use his body to rape a woman?” The right to do what I want with my body is limited; I have NO RIGHT to make decisions about my body THAT INJURE OTHERS. Claiming that abortion is a woman’s private choice completely ignores the rights of the unborn. No one would ever cite privacy as a good reason to kill toddlers, teenagers or adults. When this argument is made, it might be helpful to say, “You know, I actually agree with you. You are right that an abortion is a private choice between a woman and her doctor. You are right that the government should stay out of her private decisions. You are right that pro-lifers should not question her private choices….IF….. the unborn are not human beings.” Pro-lifers agree that women should be allowed to make a lot of private choices. But killing an innocent human being is not one of them.
C. “Pro-lifers just want to force their religious views on everyone else. They don’t really have a good reason to oppose abortion.” First, state the case against abortion. Here is the case.
- Premise 1: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
- Premise 2: Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
- Therefore: Abortion is wrong.
If you state this case, you will likely hear the argument that an unborn fetus is not a human person. Keep in mind, however, that this is not an argument; it is an unproven assertion. So, ask, “What traits make a human person?” They might answer self-consciousness, to which the logical question is, “Does that mean an unconscious person is not a human person?” They might say, “The ability to live outside the womb on his own makes him a human person,” to which the logical response is, “Does that mean the elderly woman who needs a caregiver is not a human person?”
As the conversation continues you might point out that the science of embryology establishes that from the earliest stages of development, you and I were distinct living and whole human beings. Embryos are not part of a human being like the liver or heart; embryos are separate, distinct beings, whole, living members of the human family who HAVE NOT YET MATURED. Differences in size, level of development, and degree of dependency don’t make them less human. Though less developed and more dependent than an adult, no one believes a 2-year-old is less human than an adult, or his life less valuable. They are simply at two different stages of development. A part of a woman’s body, like a liver or heart, unlike her baby, doesn’t develop into a distinct, whole, human being as an embryo does. Science proves an embryo is way more than a body part, like a liver or heart.
Also, we may need to lovingly help another see that dismissing this argument because it is religious is very different from refuting it. Arguments are either true or false, valid or invalid. Calling an argument “religious” is a way to dodge the argument, when one can’t refute it. Pro-lifers aren’t “imposing their religious views” any more than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. imposed his religious views on America when he rooted his opposition to segregation in biblical values. Rather than imposing, we are proposing a more just and better way, in the hope that we can persuade our fellow citizens to protect the most vulnerable in our society.
D. “If you ban abortion, women will be forced into back-alley abortions that are medically unsafe.” One response to this argument is to ask, “Which do you think is a greater good in society, saving the lives of innocent, defenseless babies or helping adult women avoid bad health care?” Any woman losing her life in a botched abortion is one too many. But the historic fact is that in the 1960’s just prior to the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, Mary Calderone, Planned Parenthood’s own Medical Director, said, that the death rate from illegal abortion was so low, it was not worth worrying about. Why? Because 90% of abortions were performed by doctors in good standing in their communities, not back-alley butchers with coat hangers. We must help others stop and think about this argument. It is saying that because some people die as they attempt to kill an innocent human being, the state should make this killing process safer and legal.
E. “I don’t like abortion, but I don’t think it should be illegal. We shouldn’t use the federal government to impose our religious beliefs on others.” In response, we might ask, “What would you say to one who says, ‘I don’t like slavery, but I don’t think it should be illegal?’ or ‘I personally am opposed to rape, but I don’t think it should be illegal,’ or ‘If you don’t like spousal abuse then don’t beat your spouse, but there shouldn’t be a law against it.’” Anyone who would say those things is failing to grasp that slavery, rape, and spousal abuse are WRONG. Slavery, rape, and abuse are not wrong because people generally grew to dislike them; they are wrong because they treat a human being as an object, or piece of property to be used or discarded. Whether one personally likes slavery, sexual assault, or spousal abuse is beside the point. They are wrong. We wouldn’t say, “slavery, rape, and spousal abuse are right for YOU, but not for ME.”
Laws are designed to limit those things that are wrong. If abortion doesn’t intentionally kill a human being, then no one should care about reducing the number of abortions. However, if abortion does intentionally kill an innocent human being, that is all the reason necessary to support laws against it. Suppose a politician justifies racial discrimination, by saying that although he is personally opposed to racism and hopes that it will be reduced, it would be wrong to impose his views on anyone who disagrees. Any politician who said that would be run out of office and rightfully so. In fact, any society that merely reduced racial discrimination without taking steps to prevent whites from treating blacks unjustly would be a deeply immoral society. In the same way, if abortion is a moral wrong that victimizes members of society, the laws should oppose it.
Many of these ideas about winsomely arguing to protect life, come from the Colson Center’s online video series, What Would You Say, which I highly recommend. As I mentioned last week, America’s special forces are known for their intense training and preparation ahead of their mission. May the men of Christ’s church, similarly, give time and thought to preparing how we might speak winsomely and persuasively into discussion about abortion that will be coming our way in the weeks ahead. And may this podcast help them in this preparation!
For Further Prayerful Thought:
- How can you “train” to remember how to phrase wise, persuasive arguments when abortion and the pro-life movement come up in discussions around you?
- Which statement about abortion do you hear the most often?
- Which of the five winsome, persuasive arguments stood out most to you?
