“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
Matthew 7:15 (ESV)

 

The bathroom debate has resurrected some very old questions about women’s rights.[1] Once upon a time, women fought for separate bathrooms from men. The reasons were obvious. Privacy, modesty, prudence, and the unfortunate fact that men have a worse record for physical and sexual violence. It’s not in women’s best interests to get stuck in a bathroom with a strange man, if she can help it. But in recent years, the common-sense solution of “separate bathrooms” has come under fire. The Trump administration has introduced a new level of pushback, but the bathroom debate is still far from settled. I have to wonder, however, if we could let the air out of this inflated debate by asking one simple question.

The Question Trans-Activists Can’t Answer

If we ask the right question, we can show that trans-activists aren’t very serious in proposing trans-inclusive bathrooms. Of course, trans-activists probably think they’re serious. We don’t have to question their intentions here either. Good intentions can’t redeem bad policy anyway. So, for the sake of argument, we can grant good intentions – compassion for marginalized people, commitment to justice, loving your neighbor, human rights, etc. But when activists push for trans-inclusive bathrooms they have to answer this important question. Otherwise, they haven’t really thought through the issue. So  they aren’t very serious. That question is simply this:

How do you police against the predators?

When I say “predators” I’m not talking about all LGBTQ folks or “trans-women” generally. I’m talking about would-be sex criminals: the voyeurs, rapists, pedophiles, criminal opportunists, and even “autogynephilic” men (males who derive sexual arousal from imagining themselves as women). Predators really exist. We can expect some predators to trespass into women’s restrooms as long as naïve policy allows them to. Predators are liable to spawn as long as the systems in place give mischievous males unfettered access to potential victims. In this way, predators are a reliable “test case” for progressive bathroom policies.

Trans vs. Trans-Acting?

We cannot rationally assume that every man who would use a women’s bathroom is a “trans-woman” (biological male who ‘identifies’ as female). Sure, he might be a classic transgender case who poses no real threat to women. But, he could instead be a cross-dresser who likes to sneak a peek at the ladies. He could be a flasher or a sexual harasser he gets a kick out of exposing himself or behaving rudely with women in the restroom. He could be a pedophile, taking mental pics of naked girls, to fantasize about them later. Or he could be a rapist who’d gladly wear a dress if it means open access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. Or he could be a clinically sick teen boy using performative gender to corner his “girl crush”, alone, so  she can’t reject him if she tried. History, criminal psychology, and a healthy dose of realism, attest that these are all live possibilities as long as biological males are legally allowed in women’s restrooms.

Maintaining separate bathrooms has, traditionally, been the common-sense solution for reducing those threats. No solution is 100% perfect here. But, realistically, keeping biological males out of women’s restrooms and locker rooms is a good start for policing against perverts and predators. Dropping that wall of separation means reducing our practical ability to protect women from predators. Bear in mind, we still have active laws against flashers, sexual harassers, and peeping toms. But, if it’s legal to do all of that now, as long as you “trans-act”, then our bathroom policies have given perverts and predators an escape clause in our legal code.

Sheep, Goats and Wolves

It would be nice if every “trans-woman” was just an innocent, lost sheep. Maybe they just need a little care, understanding, and a little guidance, to bring them into the fold. Then God could redeem their own unique gender-expression and sexual identity however He sees fit. Perhaps if the church did a better job caring for “widows and orphans,” i.e., fatherlessness, we wouldn’t have as much transgenderism going around (James 1:27; Exod. 22:22; 1 Tim. 5:5). Undoubtedly, there are some lost sheep out there that fit this profile.

The debate over trans-inclusive bathrooms would be a lot simpler if we were only dealing with the proverbial lost sheep. But, realistically, our policies must also account for goats (fakes and frauds). And we especially need to watch out for the wolves (predators and criminal opportunists). We cannot reasonably assume every “trans-woman” is a “lost sheep.” Instead, we have every reason to expect some of them to be wolves in women’s clothing.

The next time someone offers a policy proposal where trans-women can use the women’s restroom, you can ask them how that policy will police against predators? It’s a fair question. We used to police against them by, first, separating bathrooms according to sex. But, if biological males are now allowed into women’s restrooms, how do we expect to replace that policing power now that the perimeter defenses are down?

Remember the Wisdom of Separate Bathrooms

The ugly answer seems to be that trans-inclusive bathroom policy was never intended for women’s safety, but rather for men’s convenience. Males who identify as female are the target audience here, even if biological women are left in the lurch because of it. When inclusive-bathroom policies unwittingly carry a pack of savvy predators, as stow-aways, then as soon as they’re dropped on women’s restrooms, that’s like airdropping a pack of wolves into the sheep pen. Women deserve better. Moreover, it doesn’t do trans-activists any favors when their own policy is readily hijacked by criminals and predators. We do well to preserve separate bathrooms.

References: 

[1] A “quick fix” solution here is to make only “single-stall” bathrooms. That option can work in some cases, but it’s often impractical for stadiums, locker rooms, health clubs, large businesses, and so forth. The bathroom debate isn’t that easily solved.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 


Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

A disturbing trend is rising. People are calling for Trump’s assass1nation.[1] Political discourse has shifted from divisive and shrill, to radical and violent. Meanwhile, there have been four confirmed attempts on the president’s life, one of them missed by mere inches. This is getting out of hand.

 

Ironically, the same people calling for violence against the elected president think they’re fighting for democracy. Apparently, people can avoid the courts, evade elections, derail due process, and bypass all the checks and balances of this constitutional democratic republic, and somehow they’re still “pro-democracy.” How does that work?

“The same people calling for violence against the elected president think they’re fighting for democracy”

Firebombing Car Dealers . . . Bad.

Now I don’t think Donald Trump is the best or the worst. He’s neither demon nor angel. And he’s definitely not the Messiah. As a Christian conservative, I have mixed feelings about him. But, I pray for him in office, just as I prayed for Biden and Obama before him. I believe in civic engagement, voting your conscience, and so forth. My view on Trump isn’t pollyanna or apocalyptic. I’ll give him credit when he’s right, and critique when he’s wrong. He needs the Constitution and the courts to keep him in-check and level-headed. Every other presidence had needed that same check-and-balance system. So, when I go on Facebook and X, and see people calling for his severed head, it’s a little startling.

I’ve been trying, and failing, to convince anti-Trumpers that regardless of their views on Trump, domestic terrorism is really bad and we shouldn’t support it.[2] You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to recognize that “killing is bad.” But, those same people argue instead that firebombing a car dealership is “pro-democracy,” erecting a guillotine outside a Trump rally is just “good clean fun,” and that we should be cheering for assassination attempts against Trump. Folks, this is not okay.

Of course, radicals are going to do what radicals do. We can expect veiled threats of violence in the wafting smog of hot air from loud-mouth critics, social media incels, and guerilla radio pundits. Till Christ returns, we can expect as much. That’s bad, of course. But, there are loud-mouth fools on the political right, left, and middle. As long as it’s just talk, then we might not need to sound the alarms just yet. As long as they stay on the fringes, they aren’t the political “base” of their party. But the fringe isn’t so “fringe” anymore.

“The fringe isn’t so ‘fringe’ anymore.“

The Fringe is now the Base

The radical edge of the Democrat party is quickly becoming the core of the Democratic party. We’ve seen a lot of this shift in real time, over the last 12 years or so. There’s Occupy Wall Street (2011-2012), BLM (2013). Antifa (2016), George Floyd riots (2020-2021), not to mention the disorienting rise of radical Trans-activism (2016-2023) and the Covid chaos of 2020. And that’s not even counting “old-school” terrorists like Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). To be sure, the right wing have their issues too, and I don’t doubt that – if pushed – radical elements on the right could resort to violence too. Domestic Terrorism and violent extremism is not just a “left-wing” problem, even if that’s where some of the loudest support is right now. The point is the mainstream left is starting to sound and act like domestic terrorists.

The “left” has pulled hard left since at least 2012. The “radical fringe” of progressive radicals, neo-marxist revolutionaries, and anarchists isn’t “fringe” anymore. They’re mainstream.

The Conversation Has Changed

If you’ve been tracking the tone of political discourse in the last few years, you’ve seen a swelling violent undercurrent. Political discourse is losing the humility, sophistication, and mutual respect it once had. People now talk at their political opponents like they’re instructing imbeciles, house-training a puppy, or even rebuking a demon. The conversation has changed, for the worst.

I’ve been monitoring this trend, in part, because of my background in logic and debate. I taught logic and debate at the high school and college level. I’ve organized and participated in several formal debates. I celebrate respectful, intelligent, civil discourse. I honestly don’t trust people who agree with me on everything, because that means someone’s lying. We all have disagreements. That’s normal and healthy. And we can’t mature very well, socially, unless we learn how to respectfully engage over contentious topics and dialogue through our disagreements. That’s a big part of adulting.

For all the risks and drawbacks that come with that aspect of free speech, it’s critically important that we have the freedom to disagree or we lose one of the most basic tools for warding off tyranny and correcting injustice. Not to mention, as a Christian, free speech means people like me have the freedom to confess and share our faith with others, preaching, teaching, and shining God’s light into a dark and dying world.

In recent years, however, civil dialogue has been drowning in the undertow of angry tirades, ignorant screeds, paid propaganda, and deliberate misinformation. And with the rhetorical swell, there’s been a rise in violence. We aren’t just dealing with a “few outliers” anymore, or the occasional random crazy person. Trump has already survived a near-miss assassination attempt, so we know it’s not just idle threats either. Mainline and establishment lefists are calling for political violence (i.e., literal domestic terrorism).

Rationalized Violence

People don’t just support violence because they like being the bad guy. That’s not how sympathy for the devil works. Instead, people want to feel like truth, goodness, and justice is on their side. So, they argue that this violent act is a necessary evil for the sake of some greater good. That necessary evil might not seem palatable at first. But with a little desensitization, ordinary men can become killers; peaceful pedestrians can be made to cheer for crimes against humanity.[3] That desensitization can be as simple as media streams constantly comparing Trump to “Hitler,” calling him a “Fascist,” “Dictator,” and “Autocrat.” And social media algorithms can populate our news feed with alarmist click-bait and conspiracy theories casting Donald Trump as the devil incarnate. The perspective shift can be so gradual you don’t even notice your own moral drift. Domestic Terrorists start looking like “Freedom Fighters.” Soon you’re imagining how the world would be better off without him.

At that point, it’s easy to rationalize violence. If Trump is as bad as his critics are saying, then assass1nation sounds entirely justified. If you’re creative enough, or deluded enough, then you can make any sort of violence sound plausible. The pandemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome has gotten that bad.

Even if Trump were to save America $10 trillion dollars of government waste, drain the swamp, secure the borders, save thousands of lives through healthcare reform, convict thousands of violent gang members and fentanyl smugglers – every one of those “wins” will be interpreted in a conspiratorial way to make Trump out to be a racist, elitist, megalomaniacal dictator and all those “wins” are just bribing people into compliance with his demagoguery.

Government Overreach Across the Aisle

Now to be fair, Trump is certainly more aggressive in office than Biden was. But, every potential overreach from Trump is being challenged in the court system – as it should be. And the outsized power of executive orders, in Trump’s hands, stems from the Obama and Biden-era precedent, where both of them expanded the power of the Executive office. Trump is still working within their established order. Not to mention, we have recent memories of Obama earning the title “the Deporter and Chief,” and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer all talking tough about strong borders. Meanwhile, the deep state shenanigans of USAID, FBI, DOJ, and CIA, were operating at full force under Obama and Biden. We could also talk about government overreach in the form of DEI programs, activist judges, vaccine mandates, and more. Government overreach has never been a uniquely Republican phenomenon. If you’re on the progressive left, and you don’t fear government overreach till it’s coming from the other guys, then it’s not authoritarianism you dread, it’s conservatism.

If you’re on the progressive left, and you don’t fear government overreach till it’s coming from the other guys, then it’s not authoritarianism you dread, it’s conservatism.

Worldview Factors

One reason domestic terrorism is easily rationalized among progressives is because many on the left have already committed to a flexible view of truth, language, and reality. For example, the popular left-wing perspective known as Critical theory tends to oppose and question any hard facts, asserting instead that everything is a social construct. Instead of factual knowledge, it’s all perception and interpretation. Unfortunately, those can be stretched to make anything fit.

When your grasp of language, factual truth, and subjective bias are all entirely framed by social constructs, then truth doesn’t matter much anymore. You can make any behavior seem justified through word games, propaganda, and emotional manipulation. I’m sure, Ring-wingers have their self-serving biases too. But, social constructivism is a common theme among modern leftists, and it offers no safeguard against radicalism, violence, or domestic terrorism.

A lesson from 1984

This truth-issue reminds me of one of the most chilling details in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. When the protagonist, Winston Smith, is arrested and interrogated by a “Big Brother” agent, the agent eventually admits that truth doesn’t matter to him. For him, power is all that matters. Truth and falsity are just tools to be used, as needed, to collect more power. There’s no ultimate accountability for our actions, there are just winners and losers. Righteousness is irrelevant because any demon powerful enough to “win” can rewrite the history books afterward and make himself the hero. He doesn’t have to be a hero – that’s a truth-claim. He just has to win. Then he can invent the hero part.

Historically, reality has been the final arbiter between competing forces. People disagree about scientific theories? Let reality decide. People disagree about what “woman” means? Let reality decide. People disagree about American history since 1619? Let reality decide. But now a deeper deception has crept in. It whispers that no one really knows the truth. It’s all social constructs. It’s all relative. Perception is reality. Underneath it all, everything is really about the age-old struggle between the “haves vs have-nots”. These relativist themes tie together a whole batch of theories common to left-wing politics: postmodernism, critical theory, Marxism, Neo-Marxism, nihilism, absurdism, anarchism, critical race theory, queer theory, and more. From that adjustable platform, you can rationalize any amount of distortion, lying, deception, propaganda, and yes, even violence. All of that can be rationalized for the sake of securing more power for your side.

Let’s Call it What it Is

Ultimately, when it comes to actual political violence, we need to call it what is: Domestic Terrorism. And terrorism is a poor man’s authoritarianism. When people resort to terrorism they are using fear and violence to force their political agenda on others. That’s what we’re dealing with in all the “assass1nation idealization.” That’s what we’re dealing with in the fire-bombings on Teslas dealers. That’s what we dealt with in the BLM riots of 2020-2021. That’s what we dealt with in the attempts on Trump’s life.

People may think they’re just rooting for “the good guys” through pragmatic means, but when folks are quick to violence at the expense of courts, elections, and the democratic process, they are not fighting FOR democracy, they’re fighting for terror. The “means” has become the “ends”.

A Poor Man’s Authoritarianism

It’s like when a team of bank robbers get their way through fear and intimidation. For all we know, they may have suffered terrible injustice, maybe they are poor by no fault of their own, or they lost their jobs for bogus reasons. We don’t know. But regardless of the injustice done to them, they are still terrorizing innocent people in that bank. In that way, terrorism is a poor man’s authoritarianism. It’s a method of getting your own way, even if no one votes for you, likes you, or agrees with you.

“Terrorism is a poor man’s authoritarianism.”

As Christians we need to be especially discerning in these confusing times. Scripture encourages us to weigh both sides of a matter, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17; ESV). And Proverbs 6:17 warns us that, God hates “haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.” We need an extra dose of wisdom these days. It’s all too easy to be deceived by our own latent bias. It’s not enough to just “do the right thing” either. We must do it the right way or else it’s not the right thing.

Leftists cheering for violence is nothing new. And it’s not unique to the Left either. But, the degree of foolishness and delusion behind it might be a new peak. Meanwhile, Christ-followers must honor the sanctity of human life at every turn, even when it means loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44).

References: 

[1] I don’t have exact numbers. We probably won’t have any credible surveys on this any time soon, since threatening the president’s life is a federal offense. You can see some of these threats replayed at Trump’s impeachment trial here. Christian author and political moderate, George Yancey has been writing about this alarming trend calling it “assass1nation idealization.” And conservative commentator Allie-Beth Stukey has been calling out democrat politicians and pundits for advocating for violence. The Trump administration also compiled a list of violent threats against Trump from Democrat politicians sometimes veiled, and sometimes overt.

[2] I’m not speaking of most or all people on the political left, but only a sample of folks on the left. For the record, there are radical revolutionaries on the right wing too.

[3] Regarding evil possibilities from “ordinary men,” see Christopher R. Browning, Ordinary Men (2017). See also, Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (2006).

Recommended Resources:

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

 


Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

We have all heard about the “Dark Ages” between 500 AD and 1500 AD.  Some common descriptions include:

  • “There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages.”[1] – Ruth Hurmence Green (1915-1981, a notable atheist with the publication of her book The Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible).
  • Joseph Lewis in An Atheist Manifesto claims that “If you do not want to stop the wheels of progress; if you do not want to go back to the Dark Ages; if you do not want to live again under tyranny, then you must guard your liberty, and you must not let the church get control of your government. If you do, you will lose the greatest legacy ever bequeathed to the human race—intellectual freedom.”
  • Jeffrey Taylor, a correspondent for Atlantic Monthly and NPR’s All Things Considered states on com, “There is a reason the Middle Ages in Europe were long referred to as the Dark Ages; the millennium of theocratic rule that ended only with the Renaissance (that is, with Europe’s turn away from God toward humankind) was a violent time.”
  • Even as recently as Catherine Nixey’s book The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World states emphatically that “This is a book about the Christian destruction of the classical world. The Christian assault was not the only one – fire, flood, invasion, and time itself all played their part – but this book focuses on Christianity’s assault in particular” (xxxv). (See below for several extensive reviews and critiques of Nixey’s book.)
  • The diagram below, which has circulated on the internet, claims to demonstrate that the Middle Ages caused a tremendous hole in learning and advancement caused by Christianity.
  • Anne Fremantle in her study of medieval philosophers, The Age of Belief (1954), wrote: “of a dark, dismal patch, a sort of dull and dirty chunk of some ten centuries.”
  • Voltaire, the French Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher, who attacked the church, described the period as one when “barbarism, superstition, and ignorance covered the face of the world.”
  • Rousseau declared that the era following the fall of Rome caused “Europe [to] relapse into the barbarism of the earliest ages.  The people of this part of the world . . . lived some centuries ago in a condition worse than ignorance.”
  • The great Roman historian Edward Gibbon called the fall of Rome the “triumph of barbarism and religion.” The famed scientist Carl Sagan also attributes a millennium gap [during the Middle Ages as] a poignant lost opportunity for the human species.”

Some other memes likewise blame Christianity for the so-called “Dark Ages” stunted growth.

Unfortunately, this derision of the Middle Ages as a “darkened period” continues into contemporary descriptions.  Such perpetrators include Bertrand Russell, Charles Van Doren, and William Manchester.

One Among Many Myths About Christianity

Like the myth that the church hindered science, or that everyone in the middle ages believed the earth was flat, or that Galileo was thrown in jail for promoting the heliocentric model of the universe (which you can read about in my previous posts linked); the term “dark ages” is a pejorative term to deride the period as backwards, ignorant, and dismal.  Given that the Christian church was the most influential institution in the Middle Ages, to reference that period as the “Dark Ages” is, in essence, to slander Christianity.  Who, in their right mind, wants to associate themselves with “incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and an almost impenetrable mindlessness” as Manchester does in his A World Lit Only by Fire.

The Problem with This Myth

The problem with this myth is that it is so contrary to the facts.  If the “dark ages” were so unproductive and backward, how does one explain the proliferation of inventions and developments during this time period?  A simple listing of inventions, discoveries and developments demonstrates that the Middle Ages were anything but dark:

  • The collar and harness for horses and oxen enabled them to draw very heavy wagons, with increases in speed
  • The 8th century invention of iron horseshoes protecting the feet of horses by greatly improving their traction in difficult conditions
  • The swivel axel (9th century) was made large transport carts much more maneuverable
  • The invention of the horse-drawn furrow plow increased food production
  • The watermill was invented in the Middle Ages
  • The mechanical manufacturing of paper instead of being done by hand and foot
  • Wind power was harnessed to mill, grind, and pump water
  • Eyeglasses were invented in 1284 in northern Italy
  • The mechanical clock, a 13th-century invention, for centuries existed only in Medieval Europe
  • The blast furnace (12th century)
  • Spinning wheel (13th century)
  • The agricultural revolution of the three-field system
  • Chimneys (12th century)
  • Universities (1088 AD) [2]
  • Quarantine (14th century)
  • Musical Notation (11th century)
  • Western Harmony
  • Local Self-Government
  • Chartered Towns

Also, perpetuated about the “dark ages” is the loss of literary concern.  Stephen Greenblatt in The New Yorker (promoting his book The Swervedeclares that:

It is possible for a whole culture to turn away from reading and writing. As the empire crumbled and Christianity became ascendant, as cities decayed, trade declined, and an anxious populace scanned the horizon for barbarian armies, the ancient system of education fell apart. What began as downsizing went on to wholesale abandonment. Schools closed, libraries and academies shut their doors, professional grammarians and teachers of rhetoric found themselves out of work, scribes were no longer given manuscripts to copy. There were more important things to worry about than the fate of books.

In truth, the Middle Ages “did have a thriving literary and intellectual culture in which monks played a crucial, creative, and engaged role.” (source). Here is a small list of literary, historical, and philosophical masterpieces written during the so-called “Dark Ages”:

  • Alexiad, Anna Comnena
  • Beowulf
  • Caedmon’s Hymn
  • Book of the Civilized Man, Daniel of Beccles
  • The Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer
  • Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius
  • Decameron, Giovanni Boccaccio
  • The Dialogue, Catherine of Siena
  • La divina commedia (The Divine Comedy), Dante Alighieri
  • First Grammatical Treatise, 12th-century work on Old Norse phonology
  • Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (The Ecclesiastical History of the English People), the Venerable Bede
  • The Lais of Marie de France, Marie de France
  • Mabinogion, various Welsh authors
  • Il milione (The Travels of Marco Polo), Marco Polo
  • Le Morte d’Arthur, Sir Thomas Malory
  • Poem of the Cid, anonymous Spanish author
  • Proslogium, Anselm of Canterbury
  • Queste del Saint Graal (The Quest of the Holy Grail), anonymous French author
  • Revelations of Divine Love, Julian of Norwich
  • Sic et Non, Abelard
  • Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, anonymous English author
  • The Song of Roland, anonymous French author
  • Spiritual Exercises, Gertrude the Great
  • Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas
  • The Tale of Igor’s Campaign, anonymous Russian author
  • Tirant lo Blanc, Joanot Martorell
  • The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, John Mandeville
  • Troilus and Criseyde, Geoffrey Chaucer
  • Yvain: The Knight of the Lion, Chrétien de Troyes

A host of others can be mentioned but just check out this wikipedia article on “Medieval Literature.”

Ad Hominem

The fact of the matter is the term “dark ages” is a form of the ad hominem argument.  In short, it’s name-calling.  Until one can demonstrate that the middle ages was backward and made no technological, societal, or intellectual advancement (which is not possible given the prolific advancement during this time as shown above), the term “Dark Ages” is just a term of derision, void of any substance.

One more telling point to demonstrate that the Middle Ages were much more advanced than even our current modern and contemporary age. In the Middle Ages, a peculiar institution fell into disfavor but tragically was revived in the modern era: slavery.  This very fact shows that the Modern Age is [arguably] much darker than the Middle Ages ever were. While slavery never disappeared, it was nothing like the transatlantic slave trade or modern slavery.

As Anthony Esolen, professor of English at Providence College says at the end of the video below:

“Instead of the ‘Dark Ages’ as it is popularly called.  The Middles Ages might better be described as the “Brilliant Ages.’”

Additional Resources on the Middle Ages

Quick Quotes from the Experts:

  • “Nevertheless, serious historians have known for decades that these claims [that the Middle Ages were dark] are a complete fraud.  Even the respectable encyclopedias and dictionaries now define the Dark Ages as a myth. The Columbia Encyclopedia rejects the term, nothing that ‘medieval civilization is no longer thought to have been so dim.’ Britannica disdains the name Dark Ages as ‘pejorative.’ And Wikipedia defines the Dark Ages as a ‘supposed period of intellectual darkness after the Fall of Rome.’ These views are easily verified.” (Rodney Stark, How the West Won. ISI Books, 2014)
  • “Let’s set the record straight. From 962 to 1321, Europe enjoyed one of the most magnificent flourishings of culture the world has ever seen.  In some ways, it was the most magnificent.  And this was not despite the fact that the daily tolling of the church bells provided the rhythm of men’s lives, but because of it.” (Anthony Esolen, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization, p.132)
  • “It’s not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked up these strange ideas from websites and popular books. The assertions collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one – just one – scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any.” (Tim O’Neill “The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews ‘God’s Philosophers’” Strange Notions)
  • “Western civilization was created in medieval Europe. The forms of thought and action which we take for granted in modern Europe and America, which we have exported to other substantial portions of the globe, and from which indeed we cannot escape, were implanted in the mentalities of our ancestors in the struggles of the medieval centuries.” (Cambridge University historian George Holmes’ Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe)

Books:

Articles:

Videos:

Book Reviews:

  1. The Swerve: How The World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt

Greenblatt’s Pulitzer Prize winning (and National Book Award, MLA book award, amongst others) The Swerve (2011) tells “a literary detective story about an intrepid Florentine bibliophile named Poggio Braccionlini, who, in 1417, stumbled upon a 500-year-old copy of [Lucretian’s] De Rerum Natura [On the Nature of Things] in a German monastery and set the poem free from centuries of neglect to work its intellectual magic on the world.” (source) While the literary side of the story is commendable (Greenblatt is a Shakespearean expert), it is the historical matter that is problematic. Greenblatt’s view of the Middle Ages continues to it as a dark and shallow intellectual vacuum in which the Renaissance (and later the Enlightenment) overcame its backward and regressive mentality.  Greenblatt declares in his The New Yorker article “The Answer Man: An Ancient Poem was Discovered – and the World Swerved”:

“Theology provided an explanation for the chaos of the Dark Ages: human beings were by nature corrupt. Inheritors of the sin of Adam and Eve, they richly deserved every miserable catastrophe that befell them. God cared about human beings, just as a father cared about his wayward children, and the sign of that care was anger. It was only through pain and punishment that a small number could find the narrow gate to salvation. A hatred of pleasure-seeking, a vision of God’s providential rage, and an obsession with the afterlife: these were death knells of everything Lucretius represented.”

Unfortunately, Greenblatt hasn’t kept up with modern medieval historiography.  Both Jim Hinch, in the Los Angeles Review of Books, and Laura Miles, over at Vox, point at his errors.

  1. Why Stephen Greenblatt Is Wrong — and Why It Matters” by Jim Hinch | Los Angeles Review of BooksDec 1, 2012

Apparently, Lucretian was not as obscure in the Middle Ages as Greenblatt represents.  Hinch writes that “Cambridge classicist Michael Reeve pointed out five years ago in The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius, scholars have long detected ‘Lucretian influence in north-Italian writers of the ninth to eleventh century, in the Paduan pre-humanists about 1300, in Dante, and in Petrarch and Bocaccio.’ Greenblatt cites the Cambridge Companion numerous times in his endnotes. Did he read it?” Obviously not.

Greenblatt’s caricature of the (read the quotes with sarcasm) “Dark Ages” as living life as if God is a cosmic kill joy is puzzling to Hinch as well: “Equally untrue is Greenblatt’s claim that medieval culture was characterized by ‘a hatred of pleasure-seeking, a vision of God’s providential rage and an obsession with the afterlife.’ I know Greenblatt has read Chaucer. He’s quoted from him in numerous books. Has he forgotten the ribald pleasure-seeking in The Canterbury Tales? What about the 13th-century French courtly love epic The Romance of the Rose? The twelfth-century Arthurian romances of Chrétien de Troyes? I find no rage in Dante’s complex vision of human morality and providential grace in the Divine Comedy. Nor do I detect an ounce of asceticism in the ravishing unicorn tapestries in the Cloisters Museum in New York. Or in the rose window in Chartres. Or in the Sainte Chapelle in Paris. Or in the gracious courts of the Alhambra.”

It seems Greenblatt is a good literary scholar, but a terrible Medieval historian, according to Hinch.

  1. Stephen Greenblatt’s The Swerve racked up prizes — and completely misled you about the Middle Ages” by Laura Saetveit Miles | VoxJuly 20, 2016

Laura Saetveit Miles, professor at the University of Bergen in Norway, declares that

The Swerve doesn’t promote the humanities to a broader public so much as it deviously precipitates the decline of the humanities, by dumbing down the complexities of history and religion in a way that sets a deeply unfortunate precedent. If Greenblatt’s story resonates with its many readers, it is surely because it echoes stubborn, made-for-TV representations of medieval “barbarity” that have no business in a nonfiction book, much less one by a Harvard professor.

In a very revealing moment in Miles article on The Swerve she declares the book as dangerous:

“When I finished, I put down The Swerve on the table, and the academic side of my brain kicked back in. I had let myself read it as fiction. Yet it was supposed to be not fiction. When I thought of it as a scholarly book, and thought of all those thousands and thousands of people out there who read it and believed every word because the author is an authority and wins prizes, I realized: This book is dangerous.” [emphasis added]

Why is it dangerous? Because it is worse the Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code:

“Every page of The Swerve strives to present the Renaissance as an intellectual awakening that triumphs over the oppressive abyss of the Dark Ages. The book pushes the Renaissance as a rebirth of the classical brilliance nearly lost during centuries mired in dullness and pain. (In Greenblatt’s Middle Ages, bored monks literally sit in the dark when not flagellating themselves.)

This invention of modernity relies on a narrative of good guys (Poggio, as well as Lucretius) defeating bad guys and thus bringing forth a glorious transformation. This is dangerous not only because it is inaccurate but, more importantly, because it subscribes to a progressivist model of history that insists on the onward march of society, a model that all too easily excuses the crimes and injustices of modernity.

But history does not fit such cookie-cutter narratives. Having studied medieval culture for nearly two decades, I can instantly recognize the oppressive, dark, ignorant Middle Ages that Greenblatt depicts for 262 pages as, simply, fiction. It’s fiction worse than Dan Brown, because it masquerades as fact.”

  1. Book Review: The Swerve: How the Renaissance Began” byJohn Monfasani | Reviews in History July 2012

John Monfasani, professor of history at the University at Albany, State University of New York damning declares that “Greenblatt has penned an entertaining but wrong-headed belletristic tale.”

  1. A World Lit Only by Fire: the Medieval Mind and the Renaissance by William Manchester

Manchester begins his scathing history of the middle ages by claiming that

“The densest medieval centuries – the six hundred years between, roughly, A.D. 400 and A.D. 1000 – are still widely known as the Dark Ages.” (Manchester, 3) William Manchester does admit that modern historians have abandoned that phrase but the “intellectual life had vanished from Europe” and declares in the very first paragraph of the book: “Nevertheless, if value judgments are made, it is undeniable that most of what is known about the period is unlovely. After the extant fragments have been fitted together, the portrait which emerges is a melange of incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and an almost impenetrable mindlessness.”

The wikipedia entry about the book states that,

“In the book, Manchester scathingly posits, as the title suggests, that the Middle Ages were ten centuries of technological stagnation, short-sightedness, bloodshed, feudalism, and an oppressive Church wedged between the golden ages of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance.”

Technological stagnation

Short-sightedness

Bloodshed

An oppressive church

Between the golden age of Rome and the Renaissance.

Nothing really new about this negative report about the so-called “dark ages.”  The only problem is that other modern historians have dismissed and criticized the book because of its gross errors, misinformation, and out of date understanding of the era.

Jeremy DuQuesnay Adams, professor and Altshuler Distinguished Teaching Professor of Medieval Europe of SMU and Ph.D. from Harvard (Manchester has an BA and MA in English, no training in history or a history degree), grudgingly reviewed the book. In Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies, Adams remarked that Manchester’s work contained “some of the most gratuitous errors of fact and eccentricities of judgment this reviewer has read (or heard) in quite some time.” He begins the review by lamenting:

“This is an infuriating book. The present reviewer hoped that it would simply fade away, as its intellectual qualities (too strong a word) deserved. Unfortunately, it has not: one keeps meeting well-intentioned, perfectly intelligent people (including some colleagues in other disciplines – especially the sciences) who have just read this book and want to discuss why anyone would ever become a medievalist.”

Adams goes on to point out that Manchester’s assertions about clothing, diet, and medieval person’s views of time and sense of self ran counter to the conclusions of established historians of the Middle Ages of the 20th-century.

An example of his errors is with the famed Pied Piper. Manchester claims that the Piper of Hamelin was  “was horrible, a psychopath and pederast who, on June 24, 1484, spirited away 130 children in the Saxon village of Hammel and used them in unspeakable ways. Accounts of the aftermath vary. According to some, the victims were never seen again; others told of disembodied little bodies found scattered in the forest underbrush or festooning the branches of trees.”

Over at The Straight Dope we learn that “Manchester doesn’t footnote this passage” and that their own “research suggests that Manchester got some of the details wrong–among other things, he appears to be off about 200 years on the date.”

  1. Review of A World Lit Only by Fire” Kirkus Review, May 20th, 2010.

This review reveals that Manchester, by his own admission, did NOT master any scholarship on the early 16th century, which ” dooms him to retelling the same old stories recounted countless times before.”

In the book’s “Author’s Note”, Manchester says, “It is, after all, a slight work, with no scholarly pretensions. All the sources are secondary, and few are new; I have not mastered recent scholarship on the early sixteenth century.

So, Manchester, who has no formal training in history, not a medievalist, admits to not using primary sources as well as not mastering any recent scholarship of the early 16th century, has penned a propaganda piece (at best) of the middle ages. Again, another myth that the middle ages were dark.

  1. The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World by Catherine Nixey

The Darkening Age by Catherine Nixey is one of the latest publications (2017) propagating the dark ages myth.  Nixey studied classics at Cambridge and taught the subject for several years before becoming a journalist on the arts desk at the Times (UK). Her book, The Darkening Age, no surprise, focuses on “the Christian destruction of the classical world” (xxxv).  Her prologue characterizes Christians as “destroyers, . . . marauding bands of bearded, black-robed zealots” whose “ . . . attacks were primitive, thuggish, and very effective.” She goes on to say that “these men moved in packs—later in swarms of as many as five hundred—and when they descended utter destruction followed” (xix).

Some of the reviews and reactions to Nixey’s book can be listed:

  • The esteemed historian of Late Antiquity of Oxford University, Dame Averil Cameroncalls Nixey’s book “a travesty” condemning it as “overstated and unbalanced.”
  • Lecturer of Medieval history at Exeter University, Dr. Levi Roach, stated that Nixey’s book “does not seek to present a balanced picture (…) this is a book of generalizations. (…) Nixey (…) is unwilling to see shades of grey” in his evaluation at Literary Review titled “At Cross Purposes.” He goes on to state in the article that, “to characterize late-antique Christians as ‘thugs’, as Nixey repeatedly does, it perhaps defensible, to call them ‘primitive’ and ‘stupid’, as she also does, is not. All to often Christians are cast as the aggressors, even when, as Nixey acknowledges more than once, they are responding to prior attacks.” And “Perhaps most worryingly, in embracing this line of argument [i.e., over-generalizing] Nixey ends up endorsing the long-debunked view of the Middle Ages as a period of blind faith and intellectual stagnation (which she again, problematically equates with one another.)”
  • Tim O’Neill, over at his website History for Atheists, give a long, detailed analysis of Nixey’s book and concludes, “Good history books, including good popular history, should give the reader a greater insight into the period and the subject. They should make the reader better informed and, in doing so, make them wiser. They should deepen understanding, so that anything else read on the subject from that point tends to add layers to that depth. Watts’ book [The Final PaganGeneration] does this. O’Donnell’s book [Pagans: The End of Traditional Religion and the Rise of Christianity] does this. Duffy’s book [The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580] does this. Nixey’s book does not. Anyone reading Nixey’s book is likely to come away thinking they know and understand more but will actually have learned things that would have to be unlearned or corrected later. Nixey’s is not a good history book. It is, as Dame Averil said so pithily, ‘a travesty’.”
  • Review of The Darkening Ageby Catherine Nixey” by Tim O’Neill. History for Atheists November 29, 2017
  • When History Turns Anti-Christian” by Bryan Litfin. The Gospel CoalitionApril 5, 2019
  • Book review, ‘The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World’ by Catherine Nixey” by Joshua Herring. The Acton Institute December 22, 2017
  • Blame the Christians” by Averil Cameron. The Tablet September 21, 2017
  • At Cross Purposes” by Levi Roach. Literary Review November 2017
  • Reactions to and Reviews of Catherine Nixey’s The Darkening Age” by Cornelis Hoogerwerf. What is Written October 22, 2017

References: 

[1] [Editor’s Note: These quotes are presented as is. If any source information is lacking, that’s how it was presented in the original.]

[2] [Editor’s note: The University of Bologna, established in 1088, is widely considered the first and longest-running university in the world. The University of Al-Quaraouiyine in Fez, Morocco, a Muslim institution, is sometimes credited as the first but it’s disputed whether that school was a “university” (marked by free inquiry, freedom of thought, and free speech) before Bologna was established. Nevertheless, it too is a medieval creation. So Steve Lee’s thesis is unchallenged either way.

Recommended Resources: 

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)   

Debate: Does God Exist? Turek vs. Hitchens (DVD), (mp4 Download) (MP3)

Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

 


J. Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy. He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano. With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary. He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal. Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter. He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”). He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Gsq4BN

In Part 1 of this series on abortion, we discussed that abortion has been practiced for millennia. It is nothing new although the means of destroying a child in the womb have varied. We also briefly looked at why abortion has been a human preoccupation throughout history. For philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, they firmly believed it was to ensure that the best progeny would be born and eventually be leaders of the state. It was also because they feared possible overpopulation. For these reasons and several others, they thought abortion was justified.

 

Contrary to these pro-abortion views was the Christian view. Throughout the history of the church, abortion has been viewed as a wicked, sinful act, specifically because it was considered murder (i.e., the unjustified taking of an innocent life). The early church (second through fifth centuries) was known for its condemnation of abortion. From the early Christian document the Epistle of Barnabas to the theologian Augustine, Christianity viewed abortion to be murder, and as such, it should never be performed.

The Epistle of Barnabas

The earliest extant reference to abortion in Christian writing is the Epistle of Barnabas. Most scholars have dated this letter between the late first to early second centuries. The letter was viewed by many church Fathers, like Origen and Clement of Alexandria, as being associated with the Apostle Paul’s colleague Barnabas. Although it is uncertain whether the letter was penned by Barnabas, it was often included in some early copies of the Bible. Jerome, known for the Latin Vulgate translation, commented that it was valuable for instruction and edification but is not canonical.

The Epistle of Barnabas condemns abortion clearly. “Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring an abortion,” it says.[1] “Nor, again,” it continues, “shalt thou destroy it after it is born.” We see here a clear command not only to avoid abortion but not to kill a child by exposure after birth, which is in contradistinction to Aristotle and other Greek philosophers.

Barnabas does not end with this simple command but goes on to explain why abortion and exposure are not permitted. It states, “Thou shalt not withdraw thy hand from thy son, or from thy daughter, but from their infancy thou shalt teach them the fear of the Lord.”[2]  In other words, the duty of Christian parents is to raise their children in the instruction of the Lord, not kill them (“withdraw they hand from they son, or from thy daughter”).

Tertullian

One of the earliest church Fathers, Tertullian, lived and wrote in the mid-second to early third centuries. Many of his writings are extant. One of the most well-known is his Apology in which he defends Christians against unfounded accusations from Roman culture.

In a section where he expounds upon the sin of murder, he explains, “Murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance.”[3] Clearly, Tertullian is referring to abortion as his language of the fetus being in the womb when destroyed suggests. And if there is any doubt about his reference, he makes it clearer when he states, “To hinder birth is merely speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.”[4]

Athenagoras

Writing at about the same time as Tertullian is Athenagoras. In the midst of Roman persecution under Marcus Aurelius, Athenagoras writes his Apology, also known as A Plea for the Christians. In a similar manner as Tertullian, Athenagoras defends Christians from unfounded accusations, like murder (!).

In part of his response to such a ridiculous idea, Athenagoras asks, “And when we say that these women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder?”[5] In effect, Athenagoras attempts to undercut the accusation of murder by explaining that Christians do not even practice abortion. How does this undercut the accusation? Because abortion is murder, and the person who commits such an act will have to give an account to God.

He further explains the reason why abortion is murder. He says, “For it does not belong to the same person to regard thy very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it.”[6] Furthermore, Christians are “not to expose an infant,” that is to say, give birth to a child and expose it to the elements to die. The reason? “Because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it.”[7]

The Didache

Probably the next earliest Christian writing to refer to abortion is the Didache (Greek, “teaching”), also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. It is unknown when the document was written, but we know it must have been before AD 300 since the church Father Eusebius of Caesarea quoted it in the early fourth century, and it is the basis for some of the fourth century document Apostolic Constitutions.[8] The Didache primarily provides instructions on church practices (like baptism and communion) and moral guidelines.

Considering that the Didache constitutes moral teachings, it is not surprising that it includes instructions on the teaching of children and catechumens. What may be surprising to some, however, is the clear prohibition of abortion. It states, “Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.”[9] Note that the command isn’t merely to not kill a child who is born (“begotten”) but specifically a child not born yet (“abortion”). Moreover, it considers such action as murder as all the previous writings.

Augustine

One of the greatest Christian theologians and prolific writers, Augustine, did not leave the subject of abortion untouched. Amid a discussion on marriage, he chastises those who marry for the purpose of having sex only and finding children undesirable.

One reason Augustine chastises this action is because it may result in the conception and birth of unwanted children, who will then be left for dead via exposure. “Having also proceeded so far,” he reasons, “they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will.” This leads to “[hating] to nourish and [retaining] those whom they were afraid they would beget.” Such an “infliction of cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten,” he continues, “unmasks the sin which they had practised in darkness,” i.e., the sin of marrying for purely sexual gratification.[10] The end result is leaving the child for dead.

But Augustine also argues that the sin of marrying for sexual gratification alone, or “cruel lust” as he refers to it, often results in the practice of abortion. In particular, it entices women to ingest abortifacients. “Sometimes,” opines Augustine,

“this lustful cruelty, or, if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born.”[11]

Because of this, those who marry ought to align their desires and passions with God’s intent for marriage: the propagation of children. To do otherwise, opens the gate to the sin of killing a child in the womb (abortion) or even infanticide. Those who practice such things are “flagitious,” Augustine says.[12]

Summary

From Parts 1 and 2 on this brief survey of abortion, we see (1) abortion has been practiced for millennia—it is nothing new and certainly not unique to our modern world, and (2) Christians from the earliest centuries have viewed abortion (and infanticide) as murder, and therefore it is a sin and ought not be practiced. The Christian view of abortion throughout the history of the church is consistent and clear. In Part 3, we will continue the discussion of abortion as it relates to contemporary arguments and objections.

References:

[1] Epistle of Barnabas, XIX, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 1:148. All references to The Ante-Nicene Fathers hereafter will be ANF.

[2] Barnabas, XIX, in ANF 1:148.

[3] Tertullian, Apology, IX, ANF 3:25.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Athenagoras, Apology, 15, ANF 2:147.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] See the good short article on the Didache in the Britannica Encyclopedia here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Didache

[9] Didache, II, ANF 7:377.

[10] Augustine, “On Marriage and Concupiscence,” I:17; accessed at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm

[11] Ibid.

[12] [Editor’s Note: Flagitious is a 19th century English adjective meaning “criminal, villainous.”]

Recommended Resources: 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (BookMP4 )

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3Mp4)

 


Peter J. Rasor II is presently the Senior Pastor of Lilburn Christian Church in Lilburn, GA and is an adjunct professor of philosophy at Grand Canyon University (GCU). He previously served as Assistant Professor of Philosophy at GCU (2015-2023). He is co-author of Controversy of the Ages (2017), author of the fantasy novel The Plague of Kosmon: Rise of the Seer, and has a multiple-authored forthcoming book An Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Guide to the Things that Really Matter (Zondervan; 2025). He holds a ThM in theology and PhD in philosophy from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY) and a MA and MDiv from Cincinnati Christian University.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4hQcZje

It is always a temptation in an industrial and technological society such as America to fall into what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery.” This is the belief that the present ideas and practices are superior to, or could never have been imagined by, those who went before us. This is no less true concerning the practice of abortion. Many believe abortion is a relatively new idea and that those who preceded our advanced age could never have imagined having the means to abort a human person in the womb. They did not, after all, have the biological and medical knowledge we have today. Right?

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. Abortion, or some equivalent practice, is just about as old as humanity. Those in antiquity may not have had the technology or medical practices to insert chemicals into a child in utero to kill her or even the means to pull off her legs, head, and arms and then vacuum out her parts from the womb. Nevertheless, they had their methods of performing abortions, and they had similar reasons for doing so as some do today.

The Long History of Abortion

Abortion has had a long history, dating back thousands of years. The earliest reference to the practice, notes ethicist John Jefferson Davis, seems to be during the time of the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung (ca 2737-2696 BC).[1] Evidently, some kind of oral abortifacient was recommended to kill a child in utero.

Others promoting abortion (both the child in utero and disposing her after birth, i.e., infanticide) included the two Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, in the third and fourth centuries BC. Both argued that abortion was a necessity in certain instances for the benefit of the State. Plato, for example, believed that the State was to be governed by the most intelligent and knowledgeable philosophers, and one of their duties was to regulate births of those who benefitted the state and dispose of the infants who were born to “inferior breeds.” In Nazi-like eugenic reasoning, Plato stated, “The offspring of the inferior, and any of those of the other sort who are born defective, they [i.e., the governing officials] will properly dispose of in secret, so that no one will know what has become of them.”[2]

In fact, the State was to oversee every aspect of the marital and sexual relationship of every citizen. Once men and women were past their “prime” for begetting children, Plato desired that the State regulate men to have sexual relations with whomever they wished (outside familial relations) as long as they did not “bring to light anything whatever thus conceived.”[3] If they were unable to “prevent a birth,” they were to dispose of the child.

Aristotle, like his mentor Plato, effectively agreed. The “lawgiver’s duty” was to develop children in the best physical way possible. To do this, he was to consider who ought to get married and when they ought to have children. Like Plato, Aristotle believed husband and wife ought to conceive children during their prime for the best chance of conceiving a strong, physically healthy child. In what sounded like an anticipation of some Americans’s view of abortion, Aristotle argued, “Let it be lawful that no cripple child be reared.”[4] If a crippled child was born, then she was to be abandoned.

Aristotle, also like many Americans today, worried about population size. To control human population, Aristotle contended that if “a copulation takes place and a child is conceived,” then “abortion should be procured before the embryo has acquired life and sensation.”[5] In an attempt to establish an ethical guideline, he concluded, “The presence of life and sensation will be the mark of division between right and wrong here.”[6]

Abortion Is Nothing New

As can be readily seen, abortion (and infanticide) is nothing new. It has been around for thousands of years. It seems to be one of the preoccupations of sinful humanity. To summarize the longevity of the practice, comments from John Rasmussen can serve as a good summary:

“Abortion was, then, a familiar practice in the ancient Mediterranean world. One of the most learned of Greco-Roman gynecologists, Soranos of Ephesus (c. A.D. 98-138), discussed two main categories of abortion. Abortion was practiced through an abortifacient (phythorion), which would destroy what had been conceived, or through (ekbolion), which would expel what had been conceived. . . . The conventional Roman attitude toward the fetus and infant was strikingly callous. Seneca referred to the drowning of abnormal or weakly children at birth as a commonplace and as a reasonable kind of action (De Ira, 1.15). Philo noted that it was not unusual for parents to strangle their infants, drown them with attached weights, or expose them in deserted areas to wild beasts and carnivorous birds.” [7]

We may ask at this point, why is it important to consider that abortion was practiced in antiquity? Primarily because it helps us understand how a Christian ought to view abortion. How so? Precisely because if abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, we would expect to find Christians responding to and interacting with the topic. And this is exactly what we find. In part 2 of this series, we will briefly look at what some of the early Christian Fathers and teachers had to say about it.

References: 

[1] John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004), 139.

[2] Plato, The Republic, Book V, 460, c in Plato: The Collected Dialogues including the Letters, ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Bollingen Series LXXI (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 699.

[3] Ibid., 461, c; 700.

[4] Aristotle, The Politics, Book VII.16, trans. T.A. Sinclair, Penguin Classics (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1962), 294.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] John A. Rasmussen, “Abortion: Historical and Biblical Perspectives” Concordia Theological Quarterly 43 1979:19, 21.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4 )

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

 


Peter J. Rasor II is presently the Senior Pastor of Lilburn Christian Church in Lilburn, GA and is an adjunct professor of philosophy at Grand Canyon University (GCU). He previously served as Assistant Professor of Philosophy at GCU (2015-2023). He is co-author of Controversy of the Ages (2017), author of the fantasy novel The Plague of Kosmon: Rise of the Seer, and has a multiple-authored forthcoming book An Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Guide to the Things that Really Matter (Zondervan; 2025). He holds a ThM in theology and PhD in philosophy from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY) and a MA and MDiv from Cincinnati Christian University.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4hSpsmx

My sixth grader ran through the front door sounding slightly short of breath. “My teacher is teaching a unit on world religions,” he huffed. “He’s going to teach us about Islam, Christianity, Egyptian gods and who knows what else!” As a fifth grade teacher I was aware of the California standards for fifth grade but this surprised me. World religions was part of the sixth grade standards? Low and behold, written into the California content standards for sixth grade social studies is the requirement for students to learn “ancient civilizations, religion, slavery, and delving into Hammurabi’s laws, sections of the Torah (first five books of the Bible), and Confucius.”[1]

 

My surprise wasn’t because I was worried about him learning opposing worldviews. I was surprised the curriculum took the students deep into these world religions. I wondered how the teacher would present the information to the students. Will he be unbiased? Biased?  My son went forward with the unit, even taking a field trip to an Egyptian museum in Sacramento. It was an eye-opening experience that led us to deeper conversations about the Christian worldview in comparison to opposing worldviews.

Curriculum Change?

A few months ago, Texas became the latest state to integrate religion into their elementary school curriculum, joining states like Oklahoma and Louisiana.[2] As expected, the reaction to the news has caused a split of, let’s say, cheers and boos. But what I’ve seen is the revelation of false assumptions about worldviews in public education that I’ll address in this article.

  1. Assumption #1: Many people assume that religion and worldview hasn’t been taught prior to this decision.
  2. Assumption #2: Many people assume the public education system has always been neutral and must remain that way. I’ll explain why that’s not possible.

Worldview Integration

What Texas did was add an optional curriculum that infuses biblical stories and concepts into their lessons. It’s hardly teaching worldview, but I won’t split hairs. Schools do not have to adopt this curriculum but the Texas State Board of Education sweetened the deal by offering $60 per student if they do. For a teacher on a budget equivalent to that of a college student, that’s tempting. Consequently, this brought cheers from those who desire to see Christianity brought back into the public education system and boos from those who want to keep it out. It’s rare that anyone is neutral on whether or not religion should be taught in public education.

I want to pose something to think about for the cheerleaders and the boo hoo-ers of this decision. First, everyone needs to calm down because I don’t think it’s as simple as threading some Bible verses into a social studies unit and expecting you’ll get a student who thinks biblically. When it comes to biblical integration, we need to consider the three I’s of worldview formation:

  1. The instructor
  2. The instruction
  3. The integration

 

  1. Have you considered the instructor?

When it comes to education, and in this case, worldview development, it’s not only about what is being taught, it’s also about who teaches it. Every teacher has a worldview and just because she teaches some Bible verses from a teacher’s guide does not mean it will result in a student with a biblical worldview. As Martha MacCollough states in her book Undivided: Developing A Biblical Approach To Worldview Integration,

“Teacher and student must integrate their worldviews together, cooperatively measuring truth and reality by the standard of God’s word. If the teacher’s worldview does not align to the worldview behind the production of the curriculum, the program is fragmented, not cohesive. In other words, it lacks integrity or wholeness.”[3]

  1. Have you considered the instruction?

Teaching bible lessons is one thing; teaching students how to apply them is the necessary connection to worldview development. Therefore, MacCullough goes on to say that,

“Biblical worldview integration in an academic setting must be understood as a function of the curriculum.”[4]

In a public education environment this isn’t possible because the worldview behind the public education system is scientific naturalism. Again, a unit sprinkled with some Bible verses in elementary school is competing with Darwinian evolution in tenth grade science. And although according to The Texas Tribune the Texas Board of Education did add language that allowed students to pushback on evolutionary science, it’s still not a cohesive framework that provides integrity in worldview formation.

  1. Have you considered biblical integration?

To integrate means you “combine one thing with another so they become a whole.” In order to effectively teach from a biblical worldview so the result is a student with a biblical worldview, you must have a teacher with a biblical worldview, teaching a curriculum produced from a biblical worldview, across a school wide program with a unified philosophy of education. If that sounds a lot like the children’s book If You Give A Mouse A Cookie, it should.[5] An effective and cohesive program is going to set off a chain of events that puts everyone on the same page for worldview development. Otherwise, it’s not truly biblical integration. It’s just, as I said above, some Bible verses added into social studies content.

Addressing The Assumptions

From a biblical standpoint, the Bible is clear about whose responsibility it is to teach children about God and it’s not the school. But let’s not be so naive as to assume religion and worldview isn’t taught in school already. Darwinian evolution is taught to tenth grade science students every year and there isn’t one state in the United States where it isn’t. Where are the boo-hooers? Oh, they’re only upset if it’s content they disagree with.

Let’s get this straight: no one is neutral. Everyone is passionate about their passionately held beliefs and that’s to be expected. One side will always boo and the other side will always cheer; it’s just dependent on who gets their way.

So, for all of the Christian parents and educators out there where a biblical worldview is not only the correct framework for Christian education but is also expected, this is what I suggest: teach all of it. Teach Islam. Teach New Age. Teach Mormonism, Progressive Christianity, and competing worldviews. But do it on the foundation of biblical truth and teach kids why we shouldn’t be afraid to test the claims of all religions, including their own. After all, isn’t that what we want if we’re confident that what we believe is true? So no, the public educations system shouldn’t teach Christianity in school because they don’t have the framework for it to be effective. The reason my son’s 6th grade unit was enjoyable is because he was testing the claims of other worldviews in comparison with Christianity because we made sure it turned out that way. The school did not. Outside of that, we didn’t expect much else from the public education system by way of a Christian education. And neither should you.

New Course For 7th-9th Graders!

Are you looking for curriculum to help your 7th-9h grader test the claims of major worldviews and religions? Check out our brand new course Expedition To Reality beginning on February 24th at OnlineChrstianCourses.com. This is an 8 week course that builds on the foundation of the core tenets of Christianity while learning about Islam, New Age, Marxism, Progressive Christianity and more. Join the expedition before it’s too late!

Sign-Up Now for the New Course:
Expedition to Reality
Starting February 24th

References: 

[1] https://www.scoe.net/media/ykyfx3ri/parent_overview_hss_6-8.pdf

[2] https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/education/states-push-incorporate-religion-school-curriculums/; https://www.texastribune.org/2024/11/19/texas-sboe-bible-christianity-curriculum/

[3] Martha MacCullough, Undivided: Developing A Biblical Approach To Worldview Integration (Colorado Springs, CO: Purposeful Design Publications, 2016), ch. 1

[4] Ibid.

[5] Laura Numeroff and Alicia Bond, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie (New York: Harper Collins, 2015).

Recommended Resources:

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

 


Shanda Fulbright is a credentialed teacher and has a certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, a certificate from the CrossExamined Instructor’s Academy as well as several certificates from Online Christian Courses. She hosts Her Faith Inspires podcast where she takes cultural issues and aligns them to biblical truth. You can read her blogs and find out more about her at shandafulbright.com.

In the mid-1990’s a Theology professor at Duke Divinity School, named Richard Hayes, wrote a book called The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. It made waves in the Evangelical world because it was the first time a relatively liberal theological scholar took a definitive stance on the biblical sexual ethic. For decades conservative Christian scholars and pastors have cited Hays’s work in this book as evidence that scripture speaks clearly on issues concerning human sexuality and morality.

There were other, more conservative, names that had come to the same conclusions as Hays prior to and after his book was published. However, the very fact that someone of his pedigree, hailing from such a scholarly institution as Duke University, so unequivocally stood on the orthodox understanding of scriptures concerning sexuality was seen as a sort of ace in the hole against the arguments of affirmation theology.

In his 1996 book Hays said this:

“Thus, in view of the considerable uncertainty surrounding the scientific and experiential evidence, in view of our culture’s present swirling confusion about gender roles, in view of our propensity for self-deception, I think it prudent and necessary to let the univocal testimony of Scripture and the Christian tradition order the life of the church on this painfully controversial matter. We must affirm that the New Testament tells us the truth about ourselves as sinners and as God’s sexual creatures: marriage between man and woman is the normative form for human sexual fulfillment, and homosexuality is one among many tragic signs that we are a broken people, alienated from God’s loving purpose.” (The Moral Vision, pgs. 399-400)

But Wait, There’s More

Recently, however, Richard and his son Christopher, a professor at Fuller Seminary, published a book called The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality within the biblical story. In it, Richard and Christopher lay out an argument for repudiating Richard’s previous work and leaning into affirmation theology. This seismic shift was heralded as a possible inflection point in the Evangelical Church’s defense of the biblical sexual ethic.

The book’s premise relies on understanding that God changes his mind throughout the history of scripture:

“Although these stories (OT stories, particularly Moses) are told as if God is ‘learning on the job,’ the portrait they create is consistent with a recurring image of God throughout the Bible. Even where judgment seems to narrow the scope of blessing, there are signs of the wideness of God’s mercy. God’s plan for the world is broader than some think.” (pg. 48)

God’s changing of mind and widening of his circle of inclusion is used throughout the book to support the claim that the next step in this widening work is through the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people and their lifestyles:

“Those who do not conform to traditional expectations for sexual orientation should be the next to be explicitly included, as an extension of this ancient and traditional process.” (pg. 4)

In this book review, I will look at what it seems Richard and Cristopher intended to accomplish, the arguments in the book, and, as always, what the book does well and what it does poorly.

Purpose of the Book

Some might believe that the purpose of this book is to change conservative minds, but this is not the case. Richard and his son seek not to change staunch conservatives but to give hope to those in the middle or to the left on the issue of sexual identity and Christianity. The book is also meant to serve as a salve on the wounds of those who have felt alienated by the church’s traditional position on human sexuality. Thus, this is not an academic book, unlike Richard’s first work in 1996, but is, instead, a book focused on empathy, shifting the narrative in the conversation, and extending an olive branch to people either firmly in the affirmation camp or those that are on the fence.

At the outset, Richard and Christopher do not hide the ball as far as that is concerned:

“The reader will find few footnotes” (pg. 4).

“This book also starts from the recognition of the harm that modern conservative Christianity has done by fighting battles that God doesn’t call us to fight” (pg. 5).

“… after I suggested we write this book, he asked me, “who is the intended audience?” And I said, “Maddie.” That’s my daughter, whom we have raised to appreciate the strength that comes from diversity and who can see very clearly that the future will have no patience with debates over human rights for those whose sexual orientation does not conform to ‘traditional’ standards” (pg. 16).

Clearly, this book is not intended to convince me. And it did not, as that was not its aim.

What this book does well

Care for the LGBTQ+ Community to Come to Jesus

The book strikes a tone of love and care for people in the LGBTQ+ community. It shows a care for their eternal souls and is seemingly meant to serve as an apologetic for them to come to faith in Jesus Christ even if they have been hurt by the theology and/or actions of the Church in the past.

“…but the book is also for those who are already convinced that LGBTQ people are just as good as straight people but who are unsure about God and Christianity… To them -perhaps to you- we say: You’re not crazy to think you and yours are created equal and loved equally by God” (pg. 16).

I appreciate the heart of two individuals who desire to see all come to faith in Jesus Christ and seek to remove any unnecessary obstacles from their path. The question becomes though, what is necessary and unnecessary for the gospel? I have often said that homosexuality and LGBTQ lifestyles are the one sin the church has often told people they need to solve prior to coming to the cross of Christ. This is wrong and harmful. In that much, I agree, but going the extra step to affirm certain lifestyles because otherwise it would cost too much for people to follow Jesus, that is a bridge too far.

Jesus himself said we need to count the cost (Luke 14:28-33), so it is not readily apparent that the obstacles of a biblical sexual ethic should be glossed over. That being said, I believe Christopher and Richard’s heart for people not of the faith is on full display throughout the book. They have clearly been impacted by the stories of pain told to them by people in those communities and I resonate with that.

“A gay acquaintance tells the story of when he was first coming to grips with his sexuality as a grade-schooler, and his Sunday school teacher gave the class a coloring sheet with a little messy kid on it and the words, ‘God don’t make no junk.’ Most of the sheets probably wound up in the trash fairly soon, but he hid his under his bed. He would take it out occasionally, when we needed a reminder that he had been created as he was, and he’s never forgotten it. No one forgets when the church manifests the love and joy that God feels toward creation; nor do they forget when it doesn’t” (pg. 36).

“My own experience of participating in a church where gay and lesbian members were a vital part of the congregation’s life and ministry has caused me to stop and reconsider what I wrote before” (pg. 10).

“The more we have listened to friends, to our fellow Christians, and to respected voices in the culture more broadly, the more we have been compelled to recognize a tidal wave of evidence that same-sex attraction and partnering is, for some people, hardwired into their identity. And, at the same time, we recognize that the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are abundantly present among our LGBTQ friends. That being so, we find ourselves compelled to say, along with Peter, “Who are we that we can block God” (pg. 213-14).

These personal experiences (Christopher shares, at length, multiple experiences of students at Fuller early in the book) seem to be the impetus for such a change of mind. Experience is of seminal importance throughout the book, and reading scripture through the lens of experience seems to be the preferred method. The desire is admirable, the empathy understandable, but the theology and methodology is flawed.

Unity of the Church

Another thing that seems to bother both Christopher and Richard is the division over this issue. In multiple spaces throughout the book, both authors indicate a desire to move beyond these debates and to the more important matters of the law of Christ. They see the fracturing within the church, rightly, as a bad thing. The divisiveness over such issues seems paltry and unnecessary to them.

Ultimately, it seems one of the goals of their book is to encourage people to let go of division and arguments so we can move forward much like the early church did with food sacrificed to idols.

“The repetitive arguments about the same set of verses, and the meaning of specific words, have reached an impasse; they are superficial and boring” (pg. 2).

They find exegetical arguments counterproductive to the unity of the church on these issues and thus, they do not make many, if any, throughout the book:

“We believe that this debate should no longer focus on the endlessly repeated exegetical arguments about half a dozen isolated texts that forbid or disapprove of same-sex relations. (The regularly cited texts are Gen 19:1-9, Lev 18:22, 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 1:10, and Rom 1:18-32). In this book we have not revisited them. It is relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively, even if they do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today. But drawing conclusions based only on these passages would be like basing a biblical theology of slavery on Exod. 21:2 (which assumes one can buy a slave) and 1 Pet 2:18 (which tells slaves to be subject to their masters), or a theology of immigration on Ezek 44:9’s exclusion of foreigners from the sanctuary” (pg. 206-207).

“As a practical matter, it is difficult to see how strong differences over same-sex marriages could be maintained within an individual congregation, or even in some cases within an individual denomination. But it is not impossible to imagine that different Christian congregations might hold different norms and practices on this question while still acknowledging one another as members of the one body of Christ – just as Catholic and Protestant churches already do with respect to their different standards on clerical celibacy and women’s ordination” (pg. 216).

While there are certainly issues with these assertions, and certainly I do not agree that exegetical arguments concerning what is and is not a sin are pedantic in any way, I can appreciate the heart for unity behind the words. But unity in sin should not be the goal. This leads us to what this book does poorly.

What this Book does poorly

The entire argument is incredibly flawed

The most glaring issue with this book is that the argument is blatantly flawed. In fact, in arguing for the widening of God’s mercy to be extended to a certain group both Hays men fail in properly defining the word mercy and why mercy is needed in the first place. Not only that, but both men indicate that the passages of scripture outlawing such sexual activity do, in fact, say and mean what Richard claimed they did in 1996.

At one point Richard Hays quotes long passages from his previous work and then concludes said section with this statement:

“As a judgment about what these very few biblical texts say, that statement still seems to me to be correct” (pg. 8).

So, it is not that the interpretation of said scriptures are incorrect, but that God has simply changed his mind and widened his mercy beyond these passages. In other words, because of God’s ever-expanding mercy these passages no longer carry moral weight for how we view sexuality.

How do we know this to be true? Well, basically, because it seems to be true according to Richard and Christopher Hays and that if it isn’t true then our position is “harming” people:

“This book also starts from the recognition of the harm that modern conservative Christianity has done by fighting battles that God doesn’t call us to fight” (pg. 5).

“Any religious tradition that makes its peace with harming people is to be feared” (pg. 5).

These statements of seeming theological fact are devoid of scripture and devoid of clarification. For instance, who is to say that fighting the battle against sexual sin is a battle that God doesn’t call us to fight either personally or societally?

If the passages themselves retain their meaning (as Richard seems to believe) then it would be paramount to explain how 1 Corinthians 6:18 or 2 Timothy 2:22 mesh with this perspective as well as Ephesians 5:1-13. It certainly seems, from these and other scriptures, that the declaration that Christians ought not fight battles against sexual immorality of this kind is not based in proper hermeneutics.

Adding to that is the question of harm. What does it mean for a religious tradition to “harm people?” How has conservatism done so? Could it not also be the case that affirmation into sin could harm people even if said affirmation feels good and freeing to them in the moment? These are questions that Richard and Christopher never ask.

As for proper exegesis of specific texts, it seems that both Hays see these academic exercises as unnecessary. There is a “deeper logic” of the biblical story in their minds, but this logic is based on nothing other than experience and emotion as far as I can tell and makes leaps based on how one perceives certain threads of scripture and God’s changing of mind through the Old and New Testaments.

“Exegetical debates can become red herrings and distract us from the character of God” (pg. 12).

This is a particularly troubling quote as it assumes that one can adequately understand the character of God without proper exegesis. How do we KNOW God’s character at all without debating the proper exegesis of certain passages? It would seem we can import our idea of what God SHOULD be like, but we may never arrive at who he truly is without it.

For an answer to how God moves in history according to the Hays men a quote from the middle of the book will help the reader:

“Paradoxically, such conservatism proceeds as if God were dead, or were at least done with the world. If God were done with us, then we could simply add up the sum of the texts and arrive at the right answer, once and for all. (This, I’m afraid, is not too far from what Moral Vision did in regard to homosexuality, although it seems to me that my father was always uneasy about the answers” (pg. 92).

Many assumptions are made in this text. One, that conservatism proceeds as if God were dead. Nothing could be further from the truth. To understand what they mean by this, one has to grasp their argument that God changes and widens his scope of acceptance throughout history.

“The idea that God does not foresee and control everything, and feels pity and regret even concerning his past judgments, is troubling for some theological views, but if we take the Bible seriously, it is hard to deny” (pg. 86).

I may agree this seems to be a problem if one embraces [classical theism], but it is not a problem if one embraces middle knowledge or even open theism.[1] Whether the Hays duo are Open Theists I do not know (though much of their argumentation hints that this may be the case). I believe a robust understanding of God’s middle knowledge makes sense of the passages alluding to God’s changing of mind. Also, even if one is a theological determinist there are certain exegetical tools at one’s disposal to explain how an unchanging God might seem to “change his mind.”

Of course, it is ridiculous to say conservatism proceeds as if God were dead. Conservatism proceeds as if God were actively conforming us and others to his good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12).

There are many literary devices one might use to explain God’s interaction with humanity over time. For instance, when Jonah finally agrees to preach to Ninevah and the people repent God relents of his promised destruction. The question: did God really change his mind; it seems as if he did.

But the lesson of Jonah is that God is perfectly consistent. He will relent from deserving punishment if repentance occurs regardless of who the people are and how we feel about them (Jonah 4:2). God WOULD have destroyed Ninevah had they not repented but he relented because they repented. Since God knows all things then he knew they would repent but for them to repent they must hear of God’s impending judgement, thus, God sends Jonah. Does this point to fickleness on God’s part or a change of heart or character? No, exactly the opposite. God knows how we will respond based on his foreknowledge of our decisions and he knows how he would have responded if we had done otherwise.

But no such robust discussion on God’s character occurs in this book. The underlying assumption of the book is that human sexuality is as innate as race and thus “sexual minorities” are just as relevant to the expanding of God’s inclusion as the inclusion of Samaritans and gentiles:

[Block quote] “A reader working through the whole book of Isaiah has heard earlier that ‘[The LORD] will assemble the outcasts of Israel’ (11:12). Now, God is going to gather more – not just the outcasts of Israel, but other nations as well. God is going to enlarge the tent. Those who were once forcibly excluded from it are now meant to be ushered in” (pg.105).

“It bears repeating: Scripture reflects that God’s grace and mercy towards the whole world was always broader than one might expect. It also says that God may change his mind and his approaches to the world to broaden it further. So, faithfulness to God means sometimes doing the same” (pg. 108).

“A constant theme of these stories is that Jesus does not reject Israel’s scriptures; instead, like the prophets before him, he insists on reinterpreting them in light of the conviction that love and mercy lie at the root of God’s purposes . . . Here we should pause to reflect: Should this contrast of perspectives inform the church’s present conflicts over sexuality?” (pg. 151).

The theological gymnastics employed to reach these conclusions throughout the book are phenomenal. At one point they state that human sexuality has become a Romans 14 issue:

“The ‘strong’ ones today are the liberated advocates of unconditional affirmation of same-sex unions; they are tempted to ‘despise’ the ‘weak,’ narrow-minded, rule-following conservatives who would impose limits on their freedom. And the ‘weak’ ones today are the devout, strict followers of what they understand to be God’s law given in scripture; they are tempted to ‘pass judgment’ on the sinful laxity of the ‘strong’ who condone same-sex unions” (pg. 200).

What is their basis for this? Well, it is their reading of the “stories of scripture” through the lens of emotional harm rather than fleshly and spiritual harm.

Logical Leaps in Correlation

“The stories we’ve summarized in the foregoing chapters disclose a deeper logic, a narrative pattern in which God’s grace and mercy regularly overflow the prohibitions and restrictions that exclude and condemn fixed classes of human beings – even when those prohibitions were explicitly attributed to God in earlier biblical texts” (pg. 207).

One of the most damaging aspects of the book are logical leaps made without argument. The Hays duo consistently make claims of harm without defining what it means to harm someone with theology and how affirming uncomfortable or upsetting truth could be harmful even if upsetting.

“To say it one more time, our vision is this: The biblical narratives throughout the Old Testament and the New trace a trajectory of mercy that leads us to welcome sexual minorities no longer as ‘strangers and aliens’ but as “fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.’ Full stop” (pg. 207).

But this trajectory of mercy does not include affirmation of sinful behaviors in any sense. There is no acceptance of the worship of idols, there is no acceptance of fornication, of theft, of bearing false witness or greed. In fact, where mercy is extended in scripture, by Jesus or otherwise, with it comes an expectation of life change and repentance. From the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) there is not a single example of God’s mercy widening so far as to include explicitly listed sins against God such as sexual immorality, something that Richard Hays even indicates is still considered sin if one simply reads scripture for what it says:

“It is relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively, even if they do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today” (pg. 206).

The idea that Christians overcame slavery despite its supposed affirmation in scripture is leaned on as proof in the book as well:

“We could fill a whole book with discussion of such examples, but the general point is clear: Christians across time have found the Spirit-led freedom to set aside biblical laws and teachings they deem unjust, irrelevant, or inconsistent with the broader divine will. It is not hard to see how the prohibition of same-sex relations could fall into the same category” (pg. 212-213).

But even if that were the case, this is not a story of the broadening of mercy but of the restricting of behavior based on a better understanding of God’s ultimately revealed character in the scriptures and the Imago Dei held by each human through exegesis. Time and again the same leaps in reasoning are used to justify the newly held position.

God opening up worship to Eunuchs – embracing “sexual minorities”

God including gentiles in the promise – embracing “sexual minorities”

God embracing Samaritans in the covenantal promise of Christ – embracing “sexual minorities”

On this last example they do not go into detail on John 4 when Jesus does open up the plan of inclusion to Samaria but at the same time tells the woman at the well that the Samaritans are wrong, that she is in sin, and that future worshipers will worship in spirit and TRUTH.

[Block quote] “There is a powerful analogy, a metaphorical correspondence, between the embrace of LGBTQ people and God’s previously unexpected embrace of foreigners, eunuchs, “tax collectors and sinners,” gentiles, and people with conflicting convictions about food laws and calendrical observances” (pg 214).

But the issue with the above quote is that being a foreigner and eunuch is not inherently sinful and that God does not embrace “tax collectors and sinners” without changing them. Zacchaeus changes his lifestyle (Luke 19), so does the woman caught in adultery. The embrace of mercy is not without the expectation of shedding the shackles of sin even if it is a sin that we hold closely within our own constructed identity. It seems the Hays men confuse conversion with sanctification.

Unnecessary Political digs at conservatives throughout

A more minor issue with the book is the random and sudden inclusion of progressive political stances strewn throughout. Gun control, immigration and other politically conservative positions receive unnecessary blows as the arguments are made:

“These deaths, he says (Garry Wills) are an ‘offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily.’ Most people are capable of understanding the statistics about gun deaths, and the many things we could do to reduce them, but alas, they are sure that the Second Amendment means free access to all sorts of firearms. When we grit our teeth in the face of the death of children, we sacrifice them to false gods” (pg. 67).

Perhaps the above quote might be correct even if I disagree, but it is either tone-deaf, disingenuous, or both to include something about Moloch and guns without touching on abortion even once. This would be enough to make one think that perhaps this is simply an ideological work rather than a theological one. This is just one example.

There is no limiting principle

The final issue I want to highlight with this book is that even if the argument worked for same-sex relationships it does not seem that Richard and Christopher are content to stop there. They seem to employ a sort of Motte and Bailey technique of argumentation as they argue for same-sex unions specifically on occasions but then incorporate the entire gambit of sexual ideology (LGBTQ) throughout the book as well.

“Does Luke’s account of the Jerusalem Council offer a model for how the church today might address controversial issues concerning inclusion of sexual minorities?… If the church today looks to the council as a pattern – and if it decides that same-sex unions are no longer to be automatically classified as ‘porneia’ – we would need to ask what analogous transformative guidance the church would offer to its members of differing sexual orientations. . .  One reasonable suggestion is that same-sex relationships should aspire to the same standard of monogamous covenant fidelity that the church has long commended and prescribed for heterosexual marriage. And, at the same time, the church should be no less careful to uphold the same standard consistently for its members of heterosexual orientation” (pgs. 186-87).

To argue simply for same-sex inclusion might be one thing (though, I still believe their argument fails). But it seems they have their sights set not simply on this but on the entire progressive sexuality gambit. The constant use of terms like sexual minorities and LGBTQ leaves no guard rails to sexual behavior. Would pedophilia be off limits? Bestiality? Incest? One is left to wonder. Exactly how far does God’s mercy widen in this arena?

“As for the rest of us, when it comes to respecting other people, it’s not plausible to hold our nose at something as important as who people love most and still present ourselves as their friend, or their ‘brother (or sister) in Christ.’ Most people are not interested in that kind of grudging acceptance” (pg. 11, emphasis mine).

Would Richard and Christopher Hays really say it is never plausible to do this? If that is the case, then I suppose we must be open to polyamory, pedophilia and more? After all, who are we to “hold our nose at something as important as who people love most and present ourselves as their friend?” There is no limiting principle offered throughout the book. Only, the continuous and seemingly never-ending widening of God’s mercy in acceptance of previously outlined sin so long as the sin can be seen as an identity marker for a minority group.

“We believe that welcoming people of different sexualities is an act of faithfulness to God’s merciful purposes. Let’s not make God’s offer of grace a lie” (pg. 220-21, emphasis mine).

Conservative Christians would agree with the above statement, but Hays and Hays intimate that welcoming equals affirming. Of course, God’s grace is not a lie. Of course, it extends to all people regardless of their sexual past or their proclivities, but it does not follow then that these sexual sins are not sins and it does not follow that they are worthy of full acceptance and affirmation. Finally, what exactly is meant by “different sexualities”? This is not simply a call for including homosexual “marriage” but opens the door to a wide variety of sexual aberrations. Where does it end?

Conclusion

As the authors say:

“This book is therefore not just an argument about the meaning of the Bible in the past, but an invitation to readers to make new meaning in the present by listening to the Spirit and joining God now in saying, ‘I will gather others to them/besides those already gathered’ (Isa 56:8)” (pg. 221).

Clearly, this book is not about what the Bible means but simply what Christopher and Richard Hays believe God’s character SHOULD be based on their own experiences and feelings:

“The more we have listened to friends, to our fellow Christians, and to respected voices in the culture more broadly, the more we have been compelled to recognize a tidal wave of evidence that same-sex attraction and partnering is, for some people, hardwired into their identity. And, at the same time, we recognize that the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are abundantly present among our LGBTQ friends. That being so, we find ourselves compelled to say, along with Peter, ‘Who are we that we can block God’ (pg. 213-14).

Because they have been influenced by people whom they love, who live sexually impure lifestyles, they seem to embrace the conclusion they desire and read the scripture through that. There is a reason exegesis is ignored in this book because, to come to the conclusion they desired, they could not practice it. Instead, they practice eisegetical approaches to narratives throughout scripture.

This book fails in academics, fails in rhetoric, and fails in discipleship. It is a net negative for the church and while the arguments should be understood, the book as a whole should be rejected as it is unreasonable, unbiblical, and illogical. I give this book a 4 out of 10.

References: 

[1] Editor’s Note: The author said, “theological determinism” here. But, the deeper more robust contrast here is with Classical Theism as that (traditionally understood) contrasts with both (1) Molinism and middle knowledge as well as (2) Open Theism. Classical theists can vary in how they relate to the doctrine of “theological determinism,” though they all agree that God foreordains everything in some sense, even if they can disagree about whether that is “compatible” with human free will.

Recommended Resources: 

Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4)  by Dr. Frank Turek

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek

 


Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3YTS3zM

A clip from Skillet frontman John Cooper has recently been making the rounds on social media. In it, Cooper is heard saying that “it is time to declare war on this idolatrous deconstruction Christian movement.”

And just like that, the Christian community split.

One set of people claims that Cooper is causing further harm to Christians who are already struggling with their faith. The other set of people is praising Cooper for taking a stand against the so-called “Christian deconstruction movement.” So which is it?

What Do We Mean By The Deconstruction Movement?

The process of deconstruction usually goes like this: an influential, self-proclaimed Christian announces to their thousands/millions of fans that they no longer believe in the faith on which their careers were built. Through the process of “deconstruction,” they now realize that X, Y, and Z questions have no good answers (usually things that theologians have been discussing for hundreds of years). [i] Due to this perceived lack of answers (and usually accompanied by stories of “harm” they have seen within the church), they can no longer call themselves Christian or trust the Bible. [ii] They are all about some Jesus, but they feel the need to apologize to all the people they may have hurt back when they adhered to biblical principles. [iii]

There’s another word for this phenomenon. It’s called apostasy or deconversion, and it’s not a new thing. [iv] Since the beginning of Christianity, we’ve seen some people who have apostatized (i.e., walked away) from the faith. The Early Church was dealing with this within the first generation of Christianity (2 Timothy 4:12 Peter 2:20-221 John 2:19, and more…).

But we are talking about more than a process here; we are talking about a genuine movement. If I were to break it down, I’d say a movement consists of 1) a group of people who are 2) journeying together 3) for a common purpose and 4) gaining adherents. The new category “Christian deconstruction” fits all the criteria.

Not only are people questioning the tenets of the faith, but they are finding community with others doing the same thing. That’s the whole point of adopting the label: it gives them a group to belong to.

Sometimes they see themselves as the only ones bold enough to question traditional Christian teachings. And when they meet others who are questioning like themselves, they lock arms and buckle down together. And like any movement, those who most fervently embrace the label are trying to get others to join them on the quest — in this case, by vocal and public “deconstruction” announcements intended to evangelize listeners into the club.

What are deconstructionists really questioning?

A lot of this comes down to the problem of word choice and linguistic theft. Classically, deconstruction involves a postmodern view of language. It denies that a text has any objective meaning, or if it does, that the meaning can be objectively known (see chapter 8 in Mama Bear Apologetics). This translates directly into how a person reads the Bible.

Once you doubt that you can even know what the Bible really says, very few people are willing to take the time to “reconstruct” their faith according to what the Bible teaches. It’s a catch-22.

The people who adopt the banner of deconstruction often deny (at least at first) that they are undergoing classic deconstructionism. They claim that their end goal is a purer faith, one which has stripped away the “traditions of men” that Jesus denounced in Mark 7:8. [v] They are like the reformers, or as reformers are called now, the “original deconstructionist.”

Mama Bears, this is not true (or even possible), and here’s why. First, anything which assumes that the Bible has original meaning to which we should return is by definition the opposite of deconstructionism. Deconstructionist philosophy claims that meaning and the text are separate and subjective.

Second, claiming to “reject” classic deconstructionism while redefining the word deconstructionist to include reformation is itself a classic deconstructionist move! It treats the meanings of words as moldable to a person’s subjective whims. This is literally the first step in the classic, postmodern, Jacques Derrida-style deconstructionist movement that they are trying to distance themselves from. A person may not know that’s the road they are walking down, but they are. And the end of that road is relativism, friends, not a “purer faith.”

Why We Need To Be Careful How We Identify

The words we use matter. The identities that we speak over ourselves matter. I understand why some people were offended by John Cooper’s comments. As one of my sweet friends put it:

“When someone says they are declaring *war* on a movement, the people who compose that movement or are considering ideas from that movement are reasonably likely to feel like they are perceived as the enemy.”

There is a very simple solution to this problem, and we shouldn’t be afraid of saying it: don’t claim to be a part of a movement that has always (until just recently) been associated with deconversion, apostasy, and rebellion against God. It will not go well for you.

Be a struggling Christian. Be a questioning Christian. Be a wounded sheep if that’s what you are. But when you start marching under the identity “deconstructing Christian,” you are taking on all the weighted baggage that comes with that word. It would be like saying, “I’m a wolf, and by wolf, I mean I’m a struggling Christian who needs care and compassion.” Just because you have changed the definition doesn’t mean that everyone else is now required to use a different word to denounce wolves. Or that the Bible is causing harm by warning Christians against wolves! (Luke 10:3Acts 20:29)

How Do You Approach A Child Who Thinks They Are “Deconstructing” Their Faith?

We want to be loving toward those who are struggling in the faith, and we should actively be involved in helping to “snatch them from the fire” (Jude 1:22-23). So, what can we do as parents?

1. DO allow for verbal processing (the good, the bad, and the ugly).

The first thing to do is ask them questions and then just listen — without judgment. This means they may say things that are nonsense. Let them say nonsensical things. As verbal processors know, sometimes you need to get out a whole lot of things that aren’t really the issue to finally uncover the actual issue. If you keep stopping them in this process to address factual errors, neither they nor you will ever get to the bottom of what’s actually going on in their heart.

2. DON’T stop at the brain-dump conversation phase.

As I mentioned above, often people aren’t even sure what the real problem is. And who knows how long it’ll take to uncover the actual issue? A kid may list out everything they heard on some podcast as their “reasons” before you finally uncover the root problem, like how rejected they feel by their peers at youth group. Or how hurt they are over a parental divorce. Or how angry they are at an unanswered prayer request.

3. DO follow up with clarifying questions (after brain dump).

At some point, the nonsensical things will need to be addressed. The initial brain dump isn’t the time. After they start feeling some relief at being able to express their doubts, then you can start gently asking more clarifying questions (remember, 1 Peter 3:15 doesn’t just say give a defense…it says to do so with gentleness and respect).

4. DON’T agree with their faulty definitions or new identity.

If they say they are deconstructing, it is perfectly okay to ask them what they mean by that. If they are just questioning, then remind them, “It sounds like you just have questions. Do you mind if we use the word ‘questioning’ to refer to what is going on so that you don’t accidentally lump yourself in with a word that has a lot of baggage?” Or maybe they are a “wounded sheep.” Or maybe they are a struggling Christian who is having difficulty submitting their desires to God’s authority. Whatever the issue, how they choose to identify themselves matters.

The truth is words are not meaningless. Jesus Himself is called “the WORD made flesh.” Our enemy is like a roaring lion, seeing whom he can devour. He would absolutely love for us to assume a new identity and to march under his banner, even if we don’t know what we are doing. The more your child identifies him or herself as “deconstructing,” the more they will entertain the conclusions that other deconstructionists have concluded.

We can’t answer all their questions for them. But we can at least prevent them from assuming an identity which, in most cases, serves to woo them away from the faith. And even more, we can help protect them from feeling attacked when Christians speak out against the evils of deconstruction.

References: 

[i] See Marty Sampson’s deconstruction story.

[ii] Such are the stories from people like Marty Sampson (a former worship leader of Hillsong Church), Joshua Harris (author of I Kissed Dating Goodbye), Rhett and Link (comedians and popular YouTubers), and Jon Steingard (former frontman of the Christian band, Hawk Nelson).

[iii] For an example, see Joshua Harris’s deconversion story.

[iv] [Editor’s note: While people sometimes use these terms – “deconstruction and deconversion” – as synonyms, there aren’t always interchangeable. A person could be in a doubting phase that they describe as “deconstruction,” but they are haven’t rejected Christianity. Deconstruction and deconversion, however, are often so deeply interrelated that they overlap, or even become indistinguishable in practice.]

[v] There are a few stories of individuals who claim to have “deconstructed” their faith and rebuilt it into something stronger. I would still say that they are using the wrong word, however. True deconstruction does not leave room for reconstruction.

Recommended Resources:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ [FOUR unique curriculum levels for 2nd grade through to adult] by Frank Turek👉📱https://bit.ly/3ZqepsR 

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek: Book👉📱https://cutt.ly/II4j464, 10 part DVD Set👉📱https://cutt.ly/FI4krhS, STUDENT Study Guide👉📱https://cutt.ly/jI4kp03, TEACHER Study Guide👉📱https://cutt.ly/5I4kjdA

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek 👉📱https://bit.ly/3nUJYsP 

Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism 2023 Edition by Dr. Frank Turek Book👉📱https://bit.ly/3qws2ZL  

 


Hillary Morgan Ferrer is the founder of Mama Bear Apologetics. She is the chief author and editor of Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies and Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality: Empowering Your Kids to Understand and Live Out God’s Design. Hillary has her masters in Biology and has been married to her husband, Dr. John D. Ferrer, for 17 years. Don’t let her cook for you. She’ll burn your house straight to the ground. Image source: Hillary-Morgan-Ferrer-Square-2.jpg (1500×1500)

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4fhL7n6

 

 

Before I go any further, I must state that this is not an attempt to apply guilt or condemnation to any woman who has had an abortion, or any man who has encouraged it. The Good News is that grace is extended to all willing to accept it by grace, through faith in Christ. With that said, I now hope to clearly explain why I am pro-life and hope to encourage you to consider your own views as you read further.

Early Ambivalence

I wasn’t always pro-life. I was more ambivalent than anything until I was in my 30’s. Yes, I am a man and I had never been in a scenario to have to consider the idea carefully. However, something happened to me to cause me to come completely to the point that I am now involved in supporting pro-life ministries locally, and share my beliefs openly, such as in this writing.

I, like many men and women I speak to, had certain preconceived notions in my head about abortion before doing the research for myself. I assumed abortion was rare, that it was almost always very early in pregnancy, that it was almost always done because of incest or rape, danger to the mother, or due to extreme hardship with no way to provide for the child. I assumed that it was also beneficial to prevent overcrowding and starvation, as well as keeping crime at bay. I also assumed that the fetus was not a human at the point of abortion.

I also understood the whole thing to be a woman’s constitutional right. These are all common talking points of pro-abortion advocates, and unless you look for yourself, there is not much to question these ideas in the mainstream of American public thought. While I wasn’t avidly pro-choice, I was at least agnostic.

I had been a Christian for many years at that point, but still never gave the issue much thought as it was never brought up in church or among friends in any meaningful way. In thinking more about the question, and with a little research in reading books like Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation by Ronald Reagan and The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf my mind was opened to the logic and sound morality of the pro-life movement. Yes, the fact that this whole line of thinking combines religion and politics together is scary, but when are the two really not together anyway?

It was my understanding that the pro-life side had a bad reputation for being hateful to women who have had abortions, and that thought continues to keep many from expressing thoughts or questions about abortion. As a certified sinner myself, I continue to do all I can to make the issue about the sin and not the sinner. But once I thought the matter through to the end, I could not help but find my way to the most important part of the question.

In my decision to come to a decision on abortion, I eventually came to ask what the foundational question of abortion was – what was the most important thing that needed to be answered? Is abortion a question of a woman’s rights, population control, and the greater good of society? Is it about equal opportunity for women in the workforce, ridding ourselves of poverty, or is it about the mental health of the mothers?

Even as a Christian, I struggled to understand how to view this divisive subject and balance what I felt made sense with what seemed like persuasive, emotional arguments for what many consider to be the ending of a non-human entity for the greater good of society and the mothers involved.

And there it was. Is it a non-human entity? 

I discovered the real question to ask in this debate, thanks to the work of pro-life writers and my own journey. The foundational question turns out to be what is the thing that we are terminating. Here is why: everyone knows that we shouldn’t intentionally take the life of an innocent human being. If the fetus is an innocent human being, we should not take their life.

My findings

It didn’t take long to come to a conclusion on the question that I determined needed to be answered for my own conclusion on the question of abortion. There is no longer a debate in science or even among more and more pro-choice advocates. The bottom line is that whatever name you call it, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, or a “product of conception” is absolutely human, even if not fully developed, by the time the pregnancy is detectable. It is a human life before you can intentionally end it.

So, if you will grant me that the baby inside the womb rather than outside the womb is a human (not to mention an innocent human), is there something different about the same human baby before it makes its entrance into the world outside the womb? The arguments among pro-choice advocates are typically broken down into four issues that Scott Kluesendorf applies in a helpful acronym. Below is the SLED argument.

Size

The fact that the human being in the womb is tiny at first, and still very small for much of the pregnancy (thankfully!), is not in dispute. So, does the size of the human allow for the taking of its life? For all of you human beings who are smaller than other human beings, I sure hope not. A human life is a human life, no matter the size. In fact, it is usually considered noble and right to protect those humans who are considered small and vulnerable. I believe the same is true of humans prior to birth, as well as those 60 seconds, 60 months, or 60 years after birth. The size of a human does not ever give us a license to end that life.

Level of Development

The standard pro-choice argument says the unborn are nothing but a “clump of cells”. The definition of a clump of cells could be just as accurately applied to a grown person considering the complexity of even the tiniest of detectable human life. Between 10 and 30 hours, after the sperm penetrates the egg, the nuclei combine, and the DNA is already sequenced for a unique human being, the new and genetically mapped offspring of both the mother and father together. The baby’s gender is already in place, and the cells divide rapidly. Within 5 weeks, the heartbeat can be detected. I think we can agree that anything with a heartbeat is a life, and thanks to science, we know that it is a human life. So, when can we take the life of a human based on its level of development outside the womb? Never. Why should this be different inside the womb?

Environment

Somehow the fact that an unborn child is not yet in the outside world, beyond the birth canal, has become a test to see if a human is worthy of life. Many states allow abortion right up to the point of natural birth.[i]

What exactly is the difference of that baby from the time it is in the mother’s womb to the time it is outside the mother? What makes the baby’s life outside the mother different from its life inside the mother? Is there another example of when it is justified to take an innocent human life solely because of where it is located? I cannot find a logical way out of this problem for abortion. If it’s an innocent human, shouldn’t we care about it no matter where it is? Human beings risk their lives and earn their livings every day by going to very dangerous places to try to rescue human beings from the harm they walked themselves into. Why would we not extend the same courtesy to our tiniest and least guilty brothers and sisters still inside what should be the safest place on earth?

Degree of Dependence

Many on the pro-choice side argue that the fact that the baby is unable to survive without the benefit of the physiological protection and nourishment of the mother while in utero. The fact that, at least for the first half of pregnancy, the child is dependent on the mother is said to be an unwelcome and unfair burden on the mother.

While many used to say that the baby is not human until it is born, that argument has been lost to the scientific facts we now know, especially when compared with 1973, the year of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in every state. Now the argument is more often stated that the woman does not have to allow her body to be used by an unwelcome, dependent little human. It is her right to scrape off this unwanted “parasite” as they are often referred to by some pro-choice advocates.

While it doesn’t necessarily have to be the mother of the child that cares for them, every human born is for the first years of its life in constant need of bigger, more mature humans to care for and nurture them to survive, but not just for the nine months in the womb.

If you saw someone leave a two-week-old baby on the street and heard them tell the baby, “Good luck, you’re on your own now”, you would likely (and rightly) grab the baby and seek a caretaker for it. You would also likely be incensed that someone would leave a two-week-old baby on the street. Would you also not be incensed if someone put a gun to the same two-week-old’s head and pulled the trigger?

While not in public view, why is it different if taking the baby’s life occurs inside the womb? What has changed about the baby, or the responsibility humans typically feel to care for other vulnerable humans?

The difference in the analogy above is that the baby is simply unseen in the womb as opposed to being seen in the street. I believe that is why human beings have not wholly rejected abortion – they can’t see it happen. It is out of sight and out of mind.

The Numbers

According to the Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, 18% of pregnancies in the United States ended in abortion in 2017.[ii] That amounted to approximately 862,320 abortions in the US that year. 18% of pregnancies ending in abortion means that almost 1 in 5 human beings conceived were not born due to the intentional termination of their lives.

[Editor’s Note: The Abortion rate, after a trending downward since the 1990’s, has risen in recent years, including an 11% increase since 2022. There were 1,037,000 abortions in 2023 according to Guttmacher institute.[iii] This might be attributed to reactions against the Dobb’s decisions, but is undoubtedly boosted by the proliferation of Do-It-Yourself/at-home abortions by way of the Abortion Pill].

Also, according to the Guttmacher Institute, adolescents made up 12% of abortion patients in 2014: those aged 18–19 accounted for 8% of all abortions, 15–17-year-olds for 3%, and those younger than 15 for 0.2%.

White patients accounted for 39% of abortion procedures in 2014, black patients for 28%, Hispanic patients for 25%, and patients of other races and ethnicities for 9%. This is certainly not a statistically balanced fact. African Americans are aborted at rates that far exceed other races, and it is easy to see how that occurs with many Planned Parenthood abortion clinics positioned in places with high African American populations. As an example, in New York, more African American babies are aborted than are born. [iv]

And what about those conceived in rape or abortion? Shouldn’t we allow abortions for cases such as these? I used to think we should. When we consider these questions of abortion, however, we can “trot out the toddler” as Kluessendorf says. What about their situation gives us the right to take their life?

In no other situation would we have a judge or jury come to the conclusion that the son or daughter of a rapist should be murdered because of the offense their father committed? We would also not legally take a child’s life if we found out that the parents were kissing cousins after the child was born. Might that cause genetic defects in the child? Maybe, but we all have genetic defects and nobody has the right to kill us for ours.

It is lauded in the world now that certain Scandinavian countries have eliminated Down Syndrome. The truth, however, is that they have not eliminated Down Syndrome. They have only eliminated children with Down Syndrome thanks to tests determining potential issues prior to birth. Do people with Down Syndrome or any other imperfection deserve death? What makes us different from the Third Reich when we simply do this in the womb instead of the gas chamber? I know this seems harsh, but abortion is a harsh topic. Especially to those who have been its victim.

I should note here that I do understand the need for abortion in cases when the child is a clear and real threat to the life of the mother, though cases like that are rarer than I previously realized. I encourage you not to take my word for it and to explore stats from reliable sources on reasons abortions are sought.

There is nothing in our constitution about the right to have an abortion. That so-called right was really a collection of a few Supreme Court cases starting with Roe v. Wade that mandated legal abortion in every state, and now in many states, it is allowed for any reason. I grant you that the right of a woman to have an abortion currently exists, even if our legislators have been unable to craft it into a constitutional amendment. The right of slaveholders to own slaves used to exist too. Just because something is a right or a law does not make it morally righteous.

According to a recent Pew Research poll, Americans have remained divided consistently on the issue, with the approximate ratios of 59% pro-choice and 39% pro-life since 1995.[v] The percentage of people surveyed revealed that only 25% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all cases, while 26% believe it should be illegal in most cases. 34% believe it should be legal in most cases, while 13% believe it should be illegal in all cases.

In case you were thinking that I had no right to weigh in on this issue as a man, I must point out that around half of those aborted humans we are talking about would have grown into men. Therefore, I and every other man have standing. As for the statement that if you don’t like abortion you shouldn’t have one, this same saying was applied to slaves prior to the great emancipation.

Since Roe v. Wade was decided, there have been at least 44 million babies aborted in the U.S. In my home state of Illinois, there are regularly over 40,000 per year aborted. This does not speak to the total amount of abortions worldwide, where the U.S. continues to be a frontrunner in the practice, along with Russia and China. According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.[vi]

I do hope you note that, aside from my introduction, there has not been much made of my faith in the body of this writing. I absolutely believe that mankind was made in the image of God, and I also believe that all men and women in America have the Constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While I believe that God is at the beginning and end of this argument, you do not have to be a professing Christian, or Muslim, or Jew to care about the welfare of other human beings. Many atheists put Christians and other religious claimants to shame on a regular basis. I believe that being pro-life should not be seen as a purely religious stance, but rather as a human civil rights issue that can be led by the faithful and the secular alike.

But since I did bring up religion, I must note some other items from the research cited above that Christians may be interested in. Seventeen percent of abortion patients in 2014 identified themselves as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant, and 24% as Catholic, while 38% reported no religious affiliation and the remaining 8% reported some other religious affiliation. So, 37% of those obtaining abortions identify themselves as Christians.

Those numbers should not come as a shock, considering that the same poll found that 63% of those who identified as protestant, non-evangelical Christians said abortion should be legal in all/most cases. Of those who described themselves as Catholic, 55% believed abortion should be legal in all/most cases.

While I insist this is not just a religious issue, if the churches in America don’t provide the foundation for changing public opinion on this matter, who will? Just as the churches were a driving force in the abolition of slavery in the world, the church must work to help its congregants, and then society, see the truth in this most serious attack on the image of God in our lifetime.

To reiterate with all the love for you that I can send through writing to a stranger, if you have had an abortion or encouraged one, I pray that you know that there is real forgiveness for this and any other sin you can imagine. Jesus simply asks us to repent and trust in Him. To repent means to stop and turn away. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) I pray we all repent of our acceptance of this assault on God and His image-bearers soon.

My prayer is that the end of abortion comes about not from a Supreme Court decision or (God forbid) a civil war but instead as a result of all people seeing the wrong of our doing and moving as one people toward life as God designed.

References:

[i] Editor’s note: The original post says “Many states allow abortion right up to the point of natural birth” but adds the following, “and actually allow for partially exiting the child from the mother to end its life so that it will count as an abortion for those who wait too long for a “normal” abortion.” Perhaps the author had some rare or obscure abortion-method in mind, but it sounds like he’s describing partial birth abortion which remains under a federal ban making partial-birth abortion illegal across the United States. See: S.3 – Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

[ii] https://data.guttmacher.org/states/

[iii] https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/despite-bans-number-abortions-united-states-increased-2023

[iv] https://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-talk-about-the-black-abortion-rate-1531263697?msockid=2fe0aed392d664f11b30bdf6934565ef

[v] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

[vi] https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

Recommended Resources:  

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

 


Tony Williams is currently serving in his 20th year as a police officer in a city in Southern Illinois. He has been studying apologetics in his spare time for two decades, since a crisis of faith led him to the discovery of vast and ever-increasing evidence for his faith. Tony received a bachelor’s degree in University Studies from Southern Illinois University in 2019. His career in law enforcement has provided valuable insight into the concepts of truth, evidence, confession, testimony, cultural competency, morality, and most of all, the compelling need for Christ in the lives of the lost. Tony plans to pursue postgraduate studies in apologetics in the near future to sharpen his understanding of the various facets of Christian apologetics

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4faZKsc

Editor’s Note: This post from Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon was originally posted on October 14, 2024 at FreeThinking Ministries, in the form of an open letter to everyone who is tempted to abstain from voting in the 2024 election. We’ve tried to preserve that format here at CrossExamined.

Dear friend who is inclined not to cast a vote for either Harris or Trump,

I agree that Trump deserves criticism for his weakened stance on abortion. His position on abortion has probably changed for the worse since coming to the conclusion that he can’t get elected by holding a consistently pro-life position.

But consider Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election. Even Lincoln was not a declared abolitionist in 1860 (and also by our standards today a racist). He couldn’t have been an abolitionist and still have had a prayer to get elected. I don’t think that is a perfect analogy (even apart from the character differences of the two men) because Lincoln deep in his heart thought that slavery was a high moral evil, whereas Trump probably isn’t convinced in his heart that abortion is an evil at all stages. But the point is that *even* Lincoln had to compromise his principles in running for office. Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison wouldn’t vote for him as a result, but Garrison was wrong (as ex-slave Frederick Douglass pointed out). (Note: Garrison eventually did come around and support Lincoln in the 1864 election.)

Trump’s position on abortion is still significantly better than that of Harris. For one, Trump will still leave matters to the states. He is not going to push for a federal “reproductive freedom” bill. For another, he is not going to appoint justices who want to reinstate Roe and Doe. He would support a Born Alive bill. He would likely support additional protections for the fetus in the viability phase. He will probably continue to be a thorn in the side of Planned Parenthood. He is not going to let the Justice Department go after pro-life protestors. He is not going to sick the Justice Department on states that put various restrictions on abortion.

That is not as much as you or I want, not by a long shot, but it is far more than we will get with Harris. Trump will also carry through with his promise to put an end to the transgender insanity perpetrated on minors. He opposes chemical castration and surgical mutilation of minors, as well as compulsory indoctrination. He opposes males in female restrooms and sports. He is a big supporter of Musk’s X and he is not going to do anything to cancel or criminalize free speech or free exercise of religion.

I too wish that DeSantis had been given the nomination, but since that ship has sailed, I have to do what I can to prevent the far worse alternative. I think that Vance can be reached for a stronger pro-life position after Trump leaves office.

In my view, there is a real possibility that if Harris is elected, Republicans may not win the presidency for the foreseeable future, owing to the massive illegal immigration scam and active suppression of free speech. We really don’t have a choice but to cast an effective vote against Harris, don’t you think?

Recommended Resources:

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

 


Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., became a Wesley Biblical Seminary Visiting Scholar in the summer of 2024, teaching remotely from Pittsburgh, PA. Among his many academic publications, he is best known for The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon), widely regarded as the “gold standard” work defending the biblical view of a male-female foundation for sexual ethics. He is currently working on a popular concise book on the same subject, as well as a book tentatively entitled The Fifteen Most Important Texts in the Bible. Dr. Gagnon received a B.A. from Dartmouth College (1981, cum laude, highest honors in history), a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School (1987), and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary (1993, magna cum laude). His first full-time teaching experience was as a Visiting Professor at Middlebury College (1993-94), then taught at a PCUSA school, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, first as an Assistant Professor of New Testament, then as a tenured Associate Professor (1994-2017). After defending at PTS for 23 years the orthodox Christian position on the atonement and on homosexual behavior, he and the new PTS President “mutually agreed” to end his employment there. From 2019 to July 2024 Dr. Gagnon was a professor of biblical theology at Houston Christian (formerly Baptist) University. A number of his publications pre-2018 can be found at www.robgagnon.net (needs redesigning and updating!); and he is active on Facebook and X. www.robgagnon.net

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3NILB9z