[Editor’s Note: This blog was originally posted in 2014. While the general argument is still as relevant as ever, a lot has changed in the cultural landscape since then, most notably the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Plus, time-sensitive statistics are relative to 2014.]
The right to privacy just might be the most widely touted justification for abortion today. Implied within the right to life and to liberty, the concept of “privacy” demarcates the sacred domain of self-possession (my body), autonomy (my choice), and liberty (my freedom). Without at least some form of the right to privacy, one cannot defend against forced marriage, coercive medical procedures, physical abuse, slavery, forced labor or any other forms of coercion. And of course, abortion isn’t a “right” unless a mother can do what she wants with her body. One mantra, long circulated under the right to privacy is: “My Body, my right.” The (illicit) presumption is that bodily autonomy guarantees women of the right to abortion. But when these words are pressed, and the idea inside squeezes out, there might not be much pro-choice power left.
History of “My Body My Choice”
The right to privacy has legal roots in the 1927 Olmstead v. United States decision where the letter of dissent, penned by Justice Louis Brandeis, articulated this previously unstated right. The case concerned Olmstead’s suspected smuggle and sale of alcohol. The “privacy” issue regarded how authorities gathered evidence against him. Brandeis argued that our founding fathers had “conferred against the government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most favored by civilized men.” Olmstead was convicted, by a 5-4 decision, on covert wire-tapping evidence, gained without a warrant. Brandeis’ dissent letter, however, proved pivotal forty years later in the 1967 Katz v. U.S. case which overturned the Olmstead ruling.
In between these events was the 1965 Griswold vs. Connecticut ruling where the right to privacy was applied to sexual ethics, thus bringing that conversation closer to the abortion debate of today.
In Griswold v. Connecticut the issue was contraception, specifically within marriage. The ruling found in favor of the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood, Estelle Griswold, who advocated for the free use of contraception (at least) within marriage. The predominate justification for their case? Privacy. Married couples have the right of privacy whereby they can choose for themselves whether to direct their sexual relations toward pregnancy or not.
Following the Griswold case, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) would extend the right of contraceptive access to unmarried couples as well. In that case, the right to privacy joined with the equal protection clause to give unmarried couples the same access to contraception as married couples. While the Eisenstadt case is important, the Griswold case is widely considered to be the more groundbreaking decision leading up to Roe v. Wade (1973).
In Roe v. Wade (1973), the right to privacy was one of the main justifications for the ruling, in favor of Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey), granting a qualified right of abortion access. Together with the concurrent Doe v. Bolton case (verdict rendered the same day, January 22, as Roe v Wade) abortion access was granted to U.S. women on an unprecedented scale. The privacy argument refers to a woman’s right to manage her body how she sees fit, with minimal intrusion from others. Her contraceptive practices are primarily her choice to make, in part, because she bears the greatest responsibility for what happens to her body be it pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, child-birth, or subsequent motherhood.
Roe v. Wade proved to be a controversial ruling, having been disputed ever since. Some sense of the “right to privacy”, however, has never been disputed, since it is understood that the federal and state government should generally respect individual citizen’s rights to conduct their private affairs privately, and to manage their own bodies with general freedom from interference. It is this special right (a.k.a., sacred right) that is implied when people say things like, “the government should stay out of my bedroom” or “you can’t tell me how to raise my child” or, more crassly, “keep your rosaries off my ovaries.” Pro-choice and pro-life advocates can all agree that there is some sort of privacy right implied in the basic legal and human rights of U.S. citizens. The terminology is not explicitly stated in our founding documents yet some sense of it has always been understood therein.
[Editor’s Note: The watershed case of Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) Doe v. Bolton (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992). The decision confirmed that there was no explicit “right to privacy” mentioned in the Constitution, although, the concept still applies in regarding people’s general rights against spying, theft, illegal search and seizure, contraception, etc. Dobbs did not overturn Griswold or the Eisenstadt decisions, so those applications of “privacy rights” are maintained, even abortion is no longer included as a constitutional right]
But how far does that right to privacy extend? When pressed, it seems like there are some important qualifications that can be pitted against a blanketing sense of “privacy.”
1) Certain public health issues restrict the right to privacy
In some states, an HIV-carrier can be criminally tried for willfully spreading HIV if they don’t reveal their HIV status to their partner. Though his or her disease may, in some sense be “his body,” and “his own business,” it becomes a public issue when, under false pretense, he infects others. Similarly, a smoker may be allowed to smoke at home, but not necessarily at public restaurants or at work. It may be one’s personal right to smoke a cigarette, but since that private behavior has public consequences there is no universal right to smoke just anywhere one wants.
Furthermore, there are certain behaviors that are illegal even among consenting adults who, regarding their right to privacy, have no personal objections. Illegal drug use and prostitution are considered such pressing public health issues that we have governing prohibitions in place.
It might be exaggerating things a bit to call abortion a “public health crisis,” but that assessment has merit. In a brutally literal sense, medical abortion, among preventable causes, is by far the single leading killer for human beings of any age or race.
[1]* According to CDC reports for 2011, abortion claimed the lives of 1,058,490 children in utero, meanwhile malnutrition claimed 3,009 lives, various accidents (firearms or otherwise) claimed 126,438, suicides and homicide claimed 55,756.
[Editor’s Note: the current total, is now around 66,000,000 abortions from 1973-2025. And the yearly average is, again, around 1,000,000.]
Doubtless, there are preventable cases of heart disease and Type II diabetes that could be added to those numbers, but it should be clear that the million plus deaths annually from abortion easily tips the scales when compared against other preventable deaths. Were there more than a million deaths from salmonella poisoning, or malnutrition, or suicide, or drug trafficking, or medical malpractice, then hardly a politician in Washington would fail to join the campaign against such preventable fatalities. Those numbers would easily count as a public health crisis in any other field. Even when a basic right to privacy is granted, public health crises present a plausible boundary line for personal autonomy. People might have a general right to do what they want with their bodies, but not necessarily if their actions constitute a public health crisis and especially not if their behavior extends that health crisis into killing other human beings.
2) There is no privacy right regarding child-abuse.
It is widely granted that parents have a right to raise their (minor) children how they see fit. Their home is a private bastion of liberty where they can talk, think, feel, hope, believe, and generally act as they see fit. This includes child-rearing, discipline, character formation, and even naming one’s children with most any name one sees fit. This domain of freedom has also been touted in justifying home schooling and personal choice of religious or non-religious education. Yet in spite of all that liberty at home, there is no “privacy right” allowing sexual, physical, or gross verbal abuse. The children are still individual human beings with their own rights even if their status as minors nuances their legal autonomy. In these circumstances, the general right to privacy for parents is bounded by a more basic right of the child’s right to life, liberty, and his/her pursuit of happiness. Phrased ethically, the parents have a moral responsibility to care for and support their children towards health and well-being and not treat them like slaves, robots, sex partners, or punching bags.
Regarding the subject of abortion it is common parlance to refer to a pregnant woman as a “mother” and to refer to her gestating human fetus as her “child,” i.e., “mother and child.” There is legal precedence for referring to the preborn human being as a “child-in-utero” and to the pregnant woman as “mother” (see, The Unborn Victim of Violence Act, 2004). To be fair, she may prefer not to be a mother, she may scorn motherhood, or otherwise dislike being called a mother, but biologically she has begun motherhood as soon as another human being has begun inside of her. She does indeed have great and rightful freedom to conduct herself how she sees fit, but now that another human being is involved – and biologically there’s no dispute over whether the child-in-utero is a genetically distinct homo sapien – she is a mother and any abusive acts on that human inside of her is literally child abuse. Admittedly, the legal system, via the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, does not deem assaults on children-in-utero as “abuse” unless the child is harmed by an aggressor besides the mother.[2]
The child’s physiological status, however, is the same regardless of whether the child is killed by an assailant or by an abortion doctor; whether the child is wanted or not. He or she is still an abused child in terms of the malicious and fatal harm inflicted on them. He or she is no less harmed regardless of who is doing the abusing, or what their intentions might be.
3) There are competing responsibilities of parenthood
Similar to the last point, it should be noted that parental behavior regarding their own bodies can still harm their children. While parents have a general right to privacy regarding their own bodies, their bodies, nonetheless, are part of their person so that gross negligence of their own bodies or abandonment are unethical and sometimes illegal.
If a single parent says, “It’s my body, and I want my body to be in California” but their 5 year-old child is in Maryland, then that parent’s autonomy is competing with his or her legal responsibility as a parent. To leave that child unaccompanied in Maryland is child abandonment. Moreover, if that parent participates in illegal drug activity, prostitution, or otherwise extremely risky behavior the state can rightly take that child away from that parent for his or her gross negligence. One could even be ethically and legally culpable for willfully self-destructive behavior like suicide attempts, morbid obesity, abusing over-the-counter drugs, or any number of behaviors that leave children with a dangerously unreliable parent. That parent’s right of privacy infringes on his or her responsibility as a parent, and in some cases that parent’s behavior is both criminal and unethical.
Regarding abortion, a woman might not want to think of her preborn child as a “parasite” or wish any harm on it, but she does want it out of her body to let “nature take its course.” In that sense, she may seek a more gentler characterization of the abortion process so that her behavior is construed passively, selflessly, or in otherwise nicer tones. In that way an abortive mother may try to baptize her intentions so that she’s not willing any harm, or she is aiming for the “greater good.” These efforts have some ethical value, but do not necessarily counterbalance the fact that a mother’s children have some rightful expectations that she will not deliberately destroy herself or harm them through her body.
For example, it is unethical for a smoking mother to give her prenatal child cancer or birth defects, or for her to use illicit drugs and deliver a crack baby, or to acquire HIV and knowingly confer it to her pre-born child. These acts are not just done to one’s self, but directly affect someone else. It is no longer a strictly “private” issue now that someone else is involved. Abortion, as such, is not just an act on the mother’s body but also harms the child. For example, some abortificients (abortion medications) are known to reduce the mucosal lining in the uterine wall where the embryo would otherwise implant. This leaves the embryo with nowhere to go, it is expelled from the womb. The pill was an action of the mother, affecting her own body, but its effects did not rest with the mother. The effect was a silentabortion, where another human life was taken. In this way, abortion can be ethically similar to other actions of mothers that harm their babies–even if the action was intended to be of a different sort, like smoking for pleasure, or drinking for fun, or taking recreational drugs to hide from the world. These acts might have different ethical weight themselves, but all of them also carry the ethical weight of child-abuse when they harm the child-in-utero.
4) There are competing responsibilities of citizenship
Some minimal responsibilities are expected in exchange for the many rights and privileges of citizenship. For example, one is not at liberty to plot treason against one’s president nor to attempt to assassinate the president, even if one is only “planning” such a thing without yet acting. It is illegal to even conspire to do such anti-government activities. It does not matter if one’s activities are all contained within personal journals with the materials kept in one’s home. One may have a right to bear arms, but not to bear the schematics for an assassination attempt. Frankly, a person might even be “joking” yet if the threat looks real enough, that behavior could be grounds for criminal charges. The right to privacy does not grant unqualified liberty to mobilize one’s private domain for public harm, as that is no longer a merely private matter.
Ever since Roe v. Wade pre-born children are not considered legal persons and therefore do not have the rights of citizenship. [Editor’s Note: And while the Dobbs decision overturned Roe, it did not establish federal “personhood” status for children-in-utero. Abortion policy reverted to the states, along with any related “personhood” amendments.] The mother, presumably, would still have that right of citizenship qualifying her for special privileges granted to U.S. citizens like miranda rights or voting rights in U.S. elections. She would also be subject to the laws of the land, and so she has laws which prevent her from child abandonment and child abuse, and of course child mutilation, and serial murder of children. Her privacy is already infringed upon regarding her motherhood, such that she has civil duties as a mother.
[Editor’s Note: All these duties apply to fathers as well, as bodily autonomy and the right of privacy do not, normally, entail any “license to kill” innocent human beings, especially one’s own child. Abortion-choice policy, of course, remains the lone legal exception to that humanitarian basic.]
The preborn child is at least analogous to the born child such that it’s no stretch of the imagination to think a real mother should act like a real mother, even if she’s only pregnant right now. Also, if any further legal precedents are established that raise the relative legal status of the child-in-utero, then they might come closer in status to “citizens” and be a more rightful boundary on the “right of privacy.”
5) It is illegal to use one’s body to injure or kill other people without other overriding justifications
It is illegal in many cases, and unethical in more cases, to use one’s body to harm others. A person has the right to go skydiving, but not to willfully land on another person killing them. In that case, both parties are killed. Two evils have been done – both being a kind of homicide. Of course, successful suicides can’t be prosecuted, but it’s still a criminal act, and there’s little dispute about whether it’s generally evil to kill oneself, especially if someone else is killed too.
On a lesser scale, a person might jokingly fall all over people at a party receiving bumps and bruises and giving them as well. The person might be amusing, but he’s still harming other people by use of his body. One’s right to privacy is restricted by the general principle of non-malfeasance: that is, do no harm to others. Even if one’s own very body becomes the instrument of harm, it is still unethical and in many cases illegal, to harm other human beings with one’s body. Abortion involves a mother’s instrumental use of her body, by a doctor’s assistance, to create a hostile environment for the child-in-utero. To use one’s body for harm is still unethical, and not a natural privilege within the “right of privacy.”
6) Rights to privacy can be abdicated
In the case of Bowe Bergdahl American audiences were scandalized, in part, by his reported treachery, as his “right to privacy” did not include the privilege to endanger his fellow soldiers. Bergdahl, a soldier for the U.S. Army, who legally swore allegiance to the U.S. Army, and allegedly betrayed his fellow soldiers abandoning his post, going AWOL, with intent to ally with the enemy. If those reports are validated and Bergdahl is found guilty, he will not have a strong “right to privacy” defense in his favor.
[Editor’s Note: Bergdahl He was held captive by the Taliban from 2009-2014 despite his alleged efforts ally with the enemy. He was court martialed and found guilty in 2017, fined, and dishonorably discharged. In 2023 his case was appealed and his conviction overturned].
By swearing allegiance and signing his respective contracts he made a substantial commitment to the United States of America to loyally serve as long as he is able and allowed. He retains his freedom of conscience throughout (he could agree with the enemy if he wants). He retains some freedom of speech (he can say what he wants in his journals). He retains freedom of religion (he can worship or not worship however he sees fit). But his body is not fully his own, since he abdicated certain privileges of free citizenship for the sake of becoming a soldier.
Bergdahl is not unique here either. Most every working man or women abdicates some degree of personal freedom and privilege for the sake of conforming to a work environment. That’s the price people pay so they can bring home a paycheck. People can exercise their right to privacy by not working in those jobs. If they don’t want to agree to their terms they don’t have to work for that business. Fashion and film industry can have rigorous expectations of their employees, “You must dye your hair,” or “You have to be willing to do nude scenes,” or “you cannot let your body weight exceed 115 pounds.” People may also abdicate certain privacy rights as legal punishment. Some criminals are forced to wear trackers monitoring their location in the event of trespassing on a restraining order. One of the paradoxes of the right to privacy is that as a facet of bodily autonomy, people can exercise their bodily autonomy by sacrificing certain aspects of privacy.
Regarding abortion, a parent’s right to privacy might be restricted by parental duties but that very privilege to choose to get pregnant or raise a child is itself a rightful exercise of one’s privacy. Even if the pregnancy was forced on the woman, through violent rape, molestation, or incest, those horrific evils don’t implicate the child. It’s not like the child-in-utero did anything deserve a death-sentence. The mother’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy are grounds for prosecuting the rapist, not for punishing the child.
Parenthood has always been a normal constraint on one’s privacy. It’s a heavy blessing people assume when they are willing to invest some of their freedom as a sacrifice for the benefit of children. Reluctant parents may have a harder time coping with the lifestyle change, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are parents and parenthood naturally constrains our privacy. Those who do not want that constraint would do well to avoid parenthood. Killing one’s child, however is not “avoiding parenthood,” since parenthood has already begun at conception. That is more like willful failure as a parent.
So, What’s Left of ‘My Body My right’?
Bringing all these different qualifications together, a stiff critique emerges against certain liberal uses of the “right to privacy.” We can, and should, grant a qualified sense of the right to privacy without assuming that that right includes the license to kill innocent human beings by way of abortion.
References:
[1] The CDC reports the total deaths for the U.S. population as ranging between 1.9 million and 2.5 million between 1970 and 2011 per year not including abortions. In that same time frame, abortion rates ranged from 0.74 to 1.3 million abortions. In 2011, those reports estimate that there were 2,515,458 deaths (not counting abortions) and 1,058,490 abortions, making abortions about 1/3 of all fatalities in the U.S. Yet even these numbers are skewed because natural abortion (miscarriages) are not counted whereas natural deaths that occur as complications from old age are counted. Abortions might be better compared to preventable circumstances like workplace accidents, traffic fatalities, or preventable diseases like Type-II diabetes.
[2] One could argue that our legislation is due for updating since 1973. Some things that have since been legalized in the name of abortion create inconsistences for established laws, precedents, and ideals within our legal system. For example, mutilating a human corpse for the sake shipping purposes is illegal, but if it’s in utero then that is standard practice of dilation and curettage abortions. Likewise, a pregnant mother who is woefully derelict of her maternal duties cannot be legally tried for all the negligence and abuse inflicted on her preborn-child, yet if it’s a “wanted” baby that would seem to make her the aggressor against the child as in the “Lacy and Connor Law” so that if she kills the baby through drug and alcohol abuse, she could be tried for negligent homicide, manslaughter, or at least child abuse. Likewise, if a pregnant woman is assaulted on the way to the abortion clinic, intending to get an abortion, and miraculously the thief forgets to take her wallet but does push her down, killing the child on impact–he actually saved her time, and money by killing the baby in a much shorter fashion. He can be criminally charged for killing the child, for assault, and for theft, yet the thief was only incidentally involved in an abortion procedure intended by the mother. The mother’s “intentions” did not change the nature of that child any more than it changed the ethical status of that assault.
Recommended Resources:
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek
Sex and Your Commanding Officer (DVD) (Mp4 Download) by Dr. 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)
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.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4mBhosw
New-Testament Slavery: Fact vs. Fiction with Dr. Paul Copan
PodcastDoes the Bible REALLY support slavery, as skeptics often claim? Last week, Dr. Paul Copan joined Frank to unpack the cultural and theological context of Old Testament passages, like Leviticus 25. This week, Paul returns to examine the New Testament’s most controversial passages on slavery, addressing questions about human dignity, morality, and God’s ultimate plan while answering questions like:
You’ll learn that slavery in the Bible is far more nuanced than skeptics want you to believe. Tune in to discover how Jesus’ radical model of service, Paul’s letters, and the early church’s example paved the way for the eventual abolition of slavery in both the ancient and modern world.
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Old-Testament Slavery: Fact vs. Fiction with Dr. Paul Copan
Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World
PaulCopan.com
Is God a Moral Monster?
Is God a Vindictive Bully?
Christianity Contested
Slavery in the Bible: Answering Atheist Critiques
The BIBLE and SLAVERY Explained! with Dr. Carmen Imes
Answering Stephen Law’s Evil God Challenge
2. Does God Exist?If you’ve followed the problem of evil at the popular or academic level, then there’s a good chance you’ve come across the rather interesting objection from Stephen Law which he terms the “Evil God challenge.”
In essence he contends that skeptics can reverse any efforts from theists to explain God’s goodness in spite of the facts of evil in the world. The conventional problem of evil claims that God doesn’t exist or probably doesn’t exist given the facts of evil (gratuitous evil, animal suffering, moral evil, etc.) in the world. While theists typically appeal to things like free and sublime unknown divine purposes to explain away these evils, the skeptic can counter that these evils are equally good evidence that there exists a maximally evil God. Free will is the accommodation that this maximally evil God permits since deterministic evils aren’t as evil as freely chosen evils. And that supreme Satan wants the worst evils.
I consider Stephen Law’s “Evil God Challenge” to be one of the smarter objections within the Problem of Evil (PoE) debate. That said, his argument does have some limitations.
Independent Evidence
As Bill Craig rightly notes, and Law unwisely dismisses, there could exist independent reasons for believing in God’s existence (such as the Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral Arguments), wherein a cumulative case could assimilate the Free will theodicy but would rebut the Evil God Challenge. Considered together these arguments point to a tremendously powerful, intelligent, and good creator God. The evil god hypothesis doesn’t fit theological picture from these arguments.
The Moral Argument
The Moral Argument is stronger than how Law treats it. Only some versions/elements of the Moral Argument submit to his “evil God” recasting. I’d suggest that we have preliminary knowledge of at least some moral facts whereby some things are good and some things are bad even if a whole society were to legalize that evil or prohibit that good. Yet the existence of moral facts (i.e., a category of truth) requires a moral truthmaker. Nature seems wholly incapable, in itself, of mustering the requisite teleology for enabling the referential relation needed for any such “truth” to exist. In other words, there’s nothing nature that could make a moral truth “true.” (i.e., “Raping women is evil. As such we ought not do it. But nature never mustered a single ‘ought.’ Therefore, that “oughtness” originates from outside of nature). So, I take the moral argument to be strong evidence of a morally good God.[i]
Fallenness
Brute theism doesn’t predict the Fall of Man (Gen. 3), but more specific brands of theism in the Abrahamic tradition predict the Fall of Man, the Angelic Fall, heaven, hell, and the subsequent problems in nature. I don’t pretend to have a ready answer here for the many and sordi problems related to animal suffering, pre-adamic pain, hell, etc. But, it’s worth noting that Christian theism does not predict that this earth would be heavenly. It’s atheists who think that Christianity should predict a heavenly/morally perfect created order. Christianity instead predicts that this earth would look like perfection tainted, goodness flawed, like a cracked looking glass for gazing at greater things.
Law and other atheists often present the problem of evil like the fact of evil in the fallen world are supposed to scandalize us Christians as if we had no biblical-Christian reasons to expect such things. Instead, I’d suggest the existence of any moral facts whatsoever should scandalize atheists for whom nature’s red tooth and claw is as much the “moral law” as anything–if nature were all that exists.
Law is smart enough to use his ‘evil god’ hypothesis as a kind of argument by analogy. He’s not directly refuting the free will theodicy. He’s using the free will theodicy to prove an objectionable conclusion. If the facts of free will and evil equally predict an evil god as a good God, then they are not (together) strong unique evidence for either. Law has a smart argument here.
And the doctrine of fallenness doesn’t directly address the core of Law’s argument. The fact of fallenness, however, is still part of the biblical Christian explanatory package. And it would be scandalous to Christian theists if the world looked like what atheists think theism should look like. There’s an underlying disconnect between Biblical-Christian theism and the atheists conception of what such a ‘god’ would look like. In this way, Law’s ‘evil god’ might not be a strong or helpful analogue to the biblical God. Law’s evil god might be only a symmetrical foil for the abstraction that atheists label “god.” But this “god” – as conceived among atheists – is acaricature compared to the nuanced personal God of historic Christian theism.
Privation Definition of Evil
Given the evidence of the Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral arguments, we have sufficient independent evidence for thinking that God is the more ultimate reality, beyond even nature itself. And this God is the metaphysical grounding for moral goodness. An interesting implication of this conception of moral goodness is that goodness and evil aren’t ontological parallels. Goodness has independent substantial existence whereas evil has only dependent insubstantial existence as a privation of goodness. They don’t share the same metaphysical spectrum, rather evil exists only as a descriptor for the lack of goodness. Evil needs goodness, but goodness doesn’t need evil. Goodness is the metaphysical substance and evil is just the description for the lack of whatever goodness that should exist, but doesn’t. Rocks are blind, but that’s not “evil” since rocks aren’t supposed to have sight. Blind infants are an example of ontological evil. It’s somehow wrong that they are blind since infants are supposed to be able to see. Evil is still real, but it’s a real lack of metaphysical goodness. This idea is called the privation definition of evil, and is attributed to St. Augustine in his 4th-5th century address of the problem of evil. I agree with Augustine on this because every single evil I’ve yet encountered or imagined appears to be a corruption of a metaphysically prior goodness. Rape is a corruption of sexual love. Death is a corruption of life. Any brokenness is a disordering of proper form or function. Divorce is a corruption of marriage. Diseases is a corruption of health. Etc. etc.
The impossibility of “maximal evil”
Following from the last point, a privative sense of evil prohibits the “existence” of a maximally evil being. Maximal privation is literally nothingness. If we took the whole bag of all coherent, possible, actual, necessary or contingent goods and started subtracting each one of them–that’s what privation is, it’s the substraction of something–we would not end up with some maximally evil “thing.” No, we’d have literal nothingness, a wholly privated remainer wherein nothing whatsoever exists. The very notion of “maximal evil” is incoherent, and intrinsically self-defeating (not in the logically self-defeating sense, but in the metaphysical sense of depriving itself till it can no longer exist). A parasite without a host is lives no long in this world.
The Euthyphro Dilemma
William Lane Craig makes an interesting use of the Euthyphro Dilemma to rebut Law’s “evil god.” Skeptics are familiar with the euthyphro dilemma as a way to object to traditional forms of theism, whereby God is either “beneath” goodness answering to some external objective moral standard or God is “above” goodness arbitrarily choosing what is “good” or “bad” and mandating those standards for his creation. Conventional responses have suggested that this is a false dilemma since God, instead of being beneath or above goodness, could be identical with goodness. God is good. He does not have goodness from some external source, or invent goodness as an arbitrary creation. He just is good. Craig takes this classic dilemma and applies it to Law’s “evil god” to interesting effect.
Craig doesn’t mention how theists escape the problem, but he allows Law to get trapped in it. Augustinians like myself, can admit that evil is a privation. It’s a wholly contingent entity that cannot exist without being hosted by a good substrate. Evil can’t exist without goodness, but goodness can exist without evil. A good God can split the horns of euthyphro’s dilemma, but an evil God could not. One is left to wonder what is the more basic moral substrate that enables the existence of that god’s evil. Does that god derive evil from some higher moral standard, perhaps a Good God whom this demigod (Satan?) has rebelled against? Or does this evil god first encounter ‘evil’ as an arbitrary creation though he himself isn’t good or evil, right or wrong? Either of these options leave Law’s argument handicapped. And because the nature of privative evil doesn’t allow a maximally evil independent god, then Law’s god cannot split the dilemma. He’s gored on either horn.
Conclusion
Summarizing the course of argument so far, Law has a clever rebuttal to the Free Will Theodicy, but it can only stand by conceiving of evil substantially (as opposed to a privation), and only then if there do not exist other independent reasons for expectng God to be Good instead of evil. In this way, the cumulative case method and the moral argument specifically reinforced the conventional Free Will Theodicy to the exclusion of Law’s ‘evil god.’ The Problem of Evil is a serious philosophical objection to classical theism, but Stephen law’s “evil god challenge” has only limited value in reinforcing that avenue of anti-theism.
Additional Resources
References:
[i] Some atheists agree that nature cannot produce (or be known to produce) what’s required for objective morality (moral realism) but instead of granting the moral argument for God’s existence, they appeal to some mysterious third option between nature and supernature. G.E. Moore calls this occult realm “non-naturalism.” The most famous proponent of the non-natural, non-theistic, moral realism is Erik Weilenberg. Non-naturalism has it’s own problems (see, the critique of his position in Philosophia Christi). Stephen Law’s position, however, doesn’t appeal to non-naturalism. So, his use of ethics falls well within the conventional critiques of naturalistic evolutionary ethics (namely, nature is “at bottom, blind pitiless and indifferent” rendering human ethics relativistic at best, and illusory nonsense at worst. See my “Nature is a Jerk” blog or presentation). Law has not allowed himself the liberty of appealing to immaterial brute moral facts as the truthmakers for his moral system.
Recommended Resources:
Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)
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.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lJkxFQ
Old-Testament Slavery: Fact. vs. Fiction with Dr. Paul Copan
PodcastDoes the Bible condone slavery? Critics often point to verses like Leviticus 25 as proof that Scripture supports the kind of dehumanizing chattel slavery we know from the antebellum South. But is that REALLY what the text is teaching? Old Testament scholar and author, Dr. Paul Copan, joins Frank to unpack this hot-button issue and explain how to think carefully about slavery in its historical and redemptive context. You’ll hear answers to questions like:
Tune in as Frank and Paul peel back the layers of cultural context, translation challenges, and God’s ultimate plan of redemption—revealing why the Bible’s teaching on this controversial and complex issue is far different than what skeptics claim. This episode will barely scratch the surface, so be sure to tune in next week as they continue the conversation!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
PaulCopan.com
Is God a Moral Monster?
Is God a Vindictive Bully?
Christianity Contested
Slavery in the Bible: Answering Atheist Critiques
The BIBLE and SLAVERY Explained! with Dr. Carmen Imes
Four Ways that Middle Knowledge Helps to Explain Unanswered Prayer
Theology and Christian ApologeticsCountry singer Garth Brooks popularized the song, “Unanswered Prayers.” The song recounts how he prayed to have the love of a young woman earlier in his life. His prayer, however, was declined. While he didn’t understand why God did not allow him to have the love of this young woman when he was young, he later reflected on why God did not answer his prayer when he looked upon his wife and valued the love they had for one another. Brooks then sings, “One of God’s greatest gifts is unanswered prayer.”
In his book Luis de Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge, Kirk MacGregor recounts the life and belief system of Luis de Molina. Unfortunately, much of Molina’s works are still left untranslated. MacGregor, who is able to read the languages in which Molina wrote, digs into the writings of Molina. Of particular interest is the way Molina examines divine providence through the lens of middle knowledge. Middle knowledge is understood as “God’s knowledge of all things that would happen in every possible set of circumstances.”[1] Molina averred that middle knowledge helps to explain unanswered prayer in four different ways.
Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Logically Impossible
Molina argues that some things for which people petition God are impossible for God to bring about.[2] As has been noted by numerous theologians and philosophers, certain things lie outside the realm of possibility for even God to answer. For instance, it is impossible for God to make a round square or a married bachelor. Such instances are logically impossible. MacGregor adds that prayers that an enemy was never born, for events such as the Holocaust to have never happened, or that God would commit some form of evil to avenge a person lies outside of possibility or the character of God. As such, some prayers may go unanswered because a person asks God to do something that lies outside his character to do. Remember, God is the absolute good and, thereby, does not commit evil acts.
Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Logically Infeasible
Second, Molina holds that some prayers are logically infeasible for God to answer. [3] For instance, a person may pray that God changes another person’s life. While it would be possible for God to force his love and grace on another person, it would not be feasible to do if God grants individuals free will. As such, God will do everything possible to bring a soul to salvation without sacrificing the freedom of the will. If human free will is accepted, then it can be said that God’s desire is for all souls to be saved. Because of the essence of love itself, love must be freely given and freely received. Due to its inherent characteristics, prayers asking God to force a person into a divine relationship would inhibit the nature of love itself. If true, middle knowledge ensures that God will place each person in the best possible circumstance to receive God’s love, particularly those whom God knows would respond to his grace.
Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Individually Detrimental
Molina argued that some prayers are unanswered by God because, if answered, they would be detrimental, if not disastrous, to the person requesting it. [4] MacGregor gives the illustration of a girl who prayed to marry a certain boy. God, however, did not answer the prayer. It may have been that if God had answered the prayer, the boy would have cheated on the girl, divorced her, causing her to question her faith. [5] The same may be said for prayers to win the lottery. Suppose that God answered a person’s prayer. It may be that if the person won the lottery that the individual’s children would become addicted to drugs, the person’s relationship with his/her spouse would become strained and that the person may leave their faith. What the person thought would have been a blessing would result in a disaster. Thus, God realizes that it would be better for the person if he or she doesn’t win the lottery rather than winning it. Therefore, the prayer goes unanswered.
Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Globally Destructive
Molina also argues that God may not answer one’s prayer because the prayer would become disastrous to the world at large. [6] Suppose that a farmer prays for extra rain for his crops. But the rain does not come. Imagine that a dam was damaged, and the extra rain could have caused the dam to burst, causing devastation and the loss of lives to countless thousands. Perhaps God waits to answer the prayer until the time that he knows that a dam worker comes by to observe the defect and calls for the dam’s repair. Through God’s middle knowledge, he knows how the worker would respond in such an instance. In like manner, he also knows what the extra rain would do to the dam’s integrity. Some prayers may go unanswered because, unbeknownst to the petitioner, they could bring harm to others.
Conclusion
Middle knowledge has been called “the most fruitful theological ideas ever conceived.” [7] It has many beneficial applications even beyond the scope of balancing divine sovereignty and human freedom. As noted, middle knowledge can provide a means of understanding why God may not answer certain prayers at certain times. Since God knows every factual and counterfactual, God’s refusal to answer our prayers according to the way that we desire may actually turn out to our benefit. When we get to heaven, I imagine that all of us will sing along with Garth Brooks as we thank God for unanswered prayers.
Dive Deeper
Brian Chilton, Curtis Evelo, and Tim Stratton, “Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism,” BellatorChristi.com (8/8/2021), https://bellatorchristi.com/2021/08/08/sis-s1-e7-human-freedom-divine-knowledge-and-mere-molinism-w-dr-tim-stratton/
Brian Chilton, “What is Molinism?,” BellatorChristi.com (5/15/2018), https://bellatorchristi.com/2018/05/15/what-is-molinism/
References:
[1] Kirk R. MacGregor, Luis de Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 11
[2] Luis de Molina, Concordia 2.14.13.26.14; Ludovici Molina, Commenteria in primam divi Thomae partem (Venice, 1602), 25.3.
[3] Molina, Concordia 7.23.4/5.1.13.6; Molina, Commentaria 25.4.
[4] Molina, Concordia 6.22.4.10; 7.23.4/5.1.14.8–10.
[5] MacGregor, Luis de Molina, 127–128.
[6] Molina, Concordia 7.23.4/5.1.6.23.
[7] William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 127. [Editor’s Note: While Molinism is popular in Christian philosophy and some academic circles, it is not the “consensus” view, nor established orthodoxy. It is an “option” within historic Christianity, but it’s worth noting that other historic Christian traditions, notably, Classical Theists, Scholastics, and Thomists, tend to reject Molinism and the concept of “middle knowledge.” They, instead, explain the content of middle knowledge in other ways, without granting any middle realm of “knowledge” distinct from God’s self-knowledge and his knowledge of creation. Nevertheless, that disagreement is a family feud between Christian brothers and sisters. The point is, even if William Lane Craig is impressed with middle knowledge thinking it is especially “fruitful,” that opinion isn’t necessarily heresy but neither does it represent the consensus or even the majority view across historic Christian orthodoxy.]
Recommended Resources:
Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3
The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4mveUvO
What Happened to Our Respect for Authority? with Brett & Erin Kunkle
PodcastThere is a crisis of authority in our culture. Across the board there is more distrust in our once authoritative positions: parents, politicians, media, teachers, law enforcement, and even God Himself. But have you ever stopped to ask: what is authority? Why do we need it? And what has to be missing or go wrong with an authority figure to make us distrustful? In this episode, Brett and Erin Kunkle from MAVEN unpack the nature of authority, how this applies to the authority of Scripture, and how to explain authority to your kids. Together with Frank, they answer questions like:
Whether you’re raising toddlers, guiding teenagers, or mentoring young adults, this episode will give you clarity on what’s fueling the breakdown of authority in our current culture and how God’s Word provides the solution. And for more parenting wisdom from Brett and Erin, be sure to check out the links in the resources section below!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
MAVENTruth.com
The MAVEN Parent Podcast
What’s Left of ‘My Body, My Right’?
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics[Editor’s Note: This blog was originally posted in 2014. While the general argument is still as relevant as ever, a lot has changed in the cultural landscape since then, most notably the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Plus, time-sensitive statistics are relative to 2014.]
The right to privacy just might be the most widely touted justification for abortion today. Implied within the right to life and to liberty, the concept of “privacy” demarcates the sacred domain of self-possession (my body), autonomy (my choice), and liberty (my freedom). Without at least some form of the right to privacy, one cannot defend against forced marriage, coercive medical procedures, physical abuse, slavery, forced labor or any other forms of coercion. And of course, abortion isn’t a “right” unless a mother can do what she wants with her body. One mantra, long circulated under the right to privacy is: “My Body, my right.” The (illicit) presumption is that bodily autonomy guarantees women of the right to abortion. But when these words are pressed, and the idea inside squeezes out, there might not be much pro-choice power left.
History of “My Body My Choice”
The right to privacy has legal roots in the 1927 Olmstead v. United States decision where the letter of dissent, penned by Justice Louis Brandeis, articulated this previously unstated right. The case concerned Olmstead’s suspected smuggle and sale of alcohol. The “privacy” issue regarded how authorities gathered evidence against him. Brandeis argued that our founding fathers had “conferred against the government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most favored by civilized men.” Olmstead was convicted, by a 5-4 decision, on covert wire-tapping evidence, gained without a warrant. Brandeis’ dissent letter, however, proved pivotal forty years later in the 1967 Katz v. U.S. case which overturned the Olmstead ruling.
In between these events was the 1965 Griswold vs. Connecticut ruling where the right to privacy was applied to sexual ethics, thus bringing that conversation closer to the abortion debate of today.
In Griswold v. Connecticut the issue was contraception, specifically within marriage. The ruling found in favor of the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood, Estelle Griswold, who advocated for the free use of contraception (at least) within marriage. The predominate justification for their case? Privacy. Married couples have the right of privacy whereby they can choose for themselves whether to direct their sexual relations toward pregnancy or not.
Following the Griswold case, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) would extend the right of contraceptive access to unmarried couples as well. In that case, the right to privacy joined with the equal protection clause to give unmarried couples the same access to contraception as married couples. While the Eisenstadt case is important, the Griswold case is widely considered to be the more groundbreaking decision leading up to Roe v. Wade (1973).
In Roe v. Wade (1973), the right to privacy was one of the main justifications for the ruling, in favor of Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey), granting a qualified right of abortion access. Together with the concurrent Doe v. Bolton case (verdict rendered the same day, January 22, as Roe v Wade) abortion access was granted to U.S. women on an unprecedented scale. The privacy argument refers to a woman’s right to manage her body how she sees fit, with minimal intrusion from others. Her contraceptive practices are primarily her choice to make, in part, because she bears the greatest responsibility for what happens to her body be it pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, child-birth, or subsequent motherhood.
Roe v. Wade proved to be a controversial ruling, having been disputed ever since. Some sense of the “right to privacy”, however, has never been disputed, since it is understood that the federal and state government should generally respect individual citizen’s rights to conduct their private affairs privately, and to manage their own bodies with general freedom from interference. It is this special right (a.k.a., sacred right) that is implied when people say things like, “the government should stay out of my bedroom” or “you can’t tell me how to raise my child” or, more crassly, “keep your rosaries off my ovaries.” Pro-choice and pro-life advocates can all agree that there is some sort of privacy right implied in the basic legal and human rights of U.S. citizens. The terminology is not explicitly stated in our founding documents yet some sense of it has always been understood therein.
[Editor’s Note: The watershed case of Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) Doe v. Bolton (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992). The decision confirmed that there was no explicit “right to privacy” mentioned in the Constitution, although, the concept still applies in regarding people’s general rights against spying, theft, illegal search and seizure, contraception, etc. Dobbs did not overturn Griswold or the Eisenstadt decisions, so those applications of “privacy rights” are maintained, even abortion is no longer included as a constitutional right]
But how far does that right to privacy extend? When pressed, it seems like there are some important qualifications that can be pitted against a blanketing sense of “privacy.”
1) Certain public health issues restrict the right to privacy
In some states, an HIV-carrier can be criminally tried for willfully spreading HIV if they don’t reveal their HIV status to their partner. Though his or her disease may, in some sense be “his body,” and “his own business,” it becomes a public issue when, under false pretense, he infects others. Similarly, a smoker may be allowed to smoke at home, but not necessarily at public restaurants or at work. It may be one’s personal right to smoke a cigarette, but since that private behavior has public consequences there is no universal right to smoke just anywhere one wants.
Furthermore, there are certain behaviors that are illegal even among consenting adults who, regarding their right to privacy, have no personal objections. Illegal drug use and prostitution are considered such pressing public health issues that we have governing prohibitions in place.
It might be exaggerating things a bit to call abortion a “public health crisis,” but that assessment has merit. In a brutally literal sense, medical abortion, among preventable causes, is by far the single leading killer for human beings of any age or race.
[1]* According to CDC reports for 2011, abortion claimed the lives of 1,058,490 children in utero, meanwhile malnutrition claimed 3,009 lives, various accidents (firearms or otherwise) claimed 126,438, suicides and homicide claimed 55,756.
[Editor’s Note: the current total, is now around 66,000,000 abortions from 1973-2025. And the yearly average is, again, around 1,000,000.]
Doubtless, there are preventable cases of heart disease and Type II diabetes that could be added to those numbers, but it should be clear that the million plus deaths annually from abortion easily tips the scales when compared against other preventable deaths. Were there more than a million deaths from salmonella poisoning, or malnutrition, or suicide, or drug trafficking, or medical malpractice, then hardly a politician in Washington would fail to join the campaign against such preventable fatalities. Those numbers would easily count as a public health crisis in any other field. Even when a basic right to privacy is granted, public health crises present a plausible boundary line for personal autonomy. People might have a general right to do what they want with their bodies, but not necessarily if their actions constitute a public health crisis and especially not if their behavior extends that health crisis into killing other human beings.
2) There is no privacy right regarding child-abuse.
It is widely granted that parents have a right to raise their (minor) children how they see fit. Their home is a private bastion of liberty where they can talk, think, feel, hope, believe, and generally act as they see fit. This includes child-rearing, discipline, character formation, and even naming one’s children with most any name one sees fit. This domain of freedom has also been touted in justifying home schooling and personal choice of religious or non-religious education. Yet in spite of all that liberty at home, there is no “privacy right” allowing sexual, physical, or gross verbal abuse. The children are still individual human beings with their own rights even if their status as minors nuances their legal autonomy. In these circumstances, the general right to privacy for parents is bounded by a more basic right of the child’s right to life, liberty, and his/her pursuit of happiness. Phrased ethically, the parents have a moral responsibility to care for and support their children towards health and well-being and not treat them like slaves, robots, sex partners, or punching bags.
Regarding the subject of abortion it is common parlance to refer to a pregnant woman as a “mother” and to refer to her gestating human fetus as her “child,” i.e., “mother and child.” There is legal precedence for referring to the preborn human being as a “child-in-utero” and to the pregnant woman as “mother” (see, The Unborn Victim of Violence Act, 2004). To be fair, she may prefer not to be a mother, she may scorn motherhood, or otherwise dislike being called a mother, but biologically she has begun motherhood as soon as another human being has begun inside of her. She does indeed have great and rightful freedom to conduct herself how she sees fit, but now that another human being is involved – and biologically there’s no dispute over whether the child-in-utero is a genetically distinct homo sapien – she is a mother and any abusive acts on that human inside of her is literally child abuse. Admittedly, the legal system, via the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, does not deem assaults on children-in-utero as “abuse” unless the child is harmed by an aggressor besides the mother.[2]
The child’s physiological status, however, is the same regardless of whether the child is killed by an assailant or by an abortion doctor; whether the child is wanted or not. He or she is still an abused child in terms of the malicious and fatal harm inflicted on them. He or she is no less harmed regardless of who is doing the abusing, or what their intentions might be.
3) There are competing responsibilities of parenthood
Similar to the last point, it should be noted that parental behavior regarding their own bodies can still harm their children. While parents have a general right to privacy regarding their own bodies, their bodies, nonetheless, are part of their person so that gross negligence of their own bodies or abandonment are unethical and sometimes illegal.
If a single parent says, “It’s my body, and I want my body to be in California” but their 5 year-old child is in Maryland, then that parent’s autonomy is competing with his or her legal responsibility as a parent. To leave that child unaccompanied in Maryland is child abandonment. Moreover, if that parent participates in illegal drug activity, prostitution, or otherwise extremely risky behavior the state can rightly take that child away from that parent for his or her gross negligence. One could even be ethically and legally culpable for willfully self-destructive behavior like suicide attempts, morbid obesity, abusing over-the-counter drugs, or any number of behaviors that leave children with a dangerously unreliable parent. That parent’s right of privacy infringes on his or her responsibility as a parent, and in some cases that parent’s behavior is both criminal and unethical.
Regarding abortion, a woman might not want to think of her preborn child as a “parasite” or wish any harm on it, but she does want it out of her body to let “nature take its course.” In that sense, she may seek a more gentler characterization of the abortion process so that her behavior is construed passively, selflessly, or in otherwise nicer tones. In that way an abortive mother may try to baptize her intentions so that she’s not willing any harm, or she is aiming for the “greater good.” These efforts have some ethical value, but do not necessarily counterbalance the fact that a mother’s children have some rightful expectations that she will not deliberately destroy herself or harm them through her body.
For example, it is unethical for a smoking mother to give her prenatal child cancer or birth defects, or for her to use illicit drugs and deliver a crack baby, or to acquire HIV and knowingly confer it to her pre-born child. These acts are not just done to one’s self, but directly affect someone else. It is no longer a strictly “private” issue now that someone else is involved. Abortion, as such, is not just an act on the mother’s body but also harms the child. For example, some abortificients (abortion medications) are known to reduce the mucosal lining in the uterine wall where the embryo would otherwise implant. This leaves the embryo with nowhere to go, it is expelled from the womb. The pill was an action of the mother, affecting her own body, but its effects did not rest with the mother. The effect was a silentabortion, where another human life was taken. In this way, abortion can be ethically similar to other actions of mothers that harm their babies–even if the action was intended to be of a different sort, like smoking for pleasure, or drinking for fun, or taking recreational drugs to hide from the world. These acts might have different ethical weight themselves, but all of them also carry the ethical weight of child-abuse when they harm the child-in-utero.
4) There are competing responsibilities of citizenship
Some minimal responsibilities are expected in exchange for the many rights and privileges of citizenship. For example, one is not at liberty to plot treason against one’s president nor to attempt to assassinate the president, even if one is only “planning” such a thing without yet acting. It is illegal to even conspire to do such anti-government activities. It does not matter if one’s activities are all contained within personal journals with the materials kept in one’s home. One may have a right to bear arms, but not to bear the schematics for an assassination attempt. Frankly, a person might even be “joking” yet if the threat looks real enough, that behavior could be grounds for criminal charges. The right to privacy does not grant unqualified liberty to mobilize one’s private domain for public harm, as that is no longer a merely private matter.
Ever since Roe v. Wade pre-born children are not considered legal persons and therefore do not have the rights of citizenship. [Editor’s Note: And while the Dobbs decision overturned Roe, it did not establish federal “personhood” status for children-in-utero. Abortion policy reverted to the states, along with any related “personhood” amendments.] The mother, presumably, would still have that right of citizenship qualifying her for special privileges granted to U.S. citizens like miranda rights or voting rights in U.S. elections. She would also be subject to the laws of the land, and so she has laws which prevent her from child abandonment and child abuse, and of course child mutilation, and serial murder of children. Her privacy is already infringed upon regarding her motherhood, such that she has civil duties as a mother.
[Editor’s Note: All these duties apply to fathers as well, as bodily autonomy and the right of privacy do not, normally, entail any “license to kill” innocent human beings, especially one’s own child. Abortion-choice policy, of course, remains the lone legal exception to that humanitarian basic.]
The preborn child is at least analogous to the born child such that it’s no stretch of the imagination to think a real mother should act like a real mother, even if she’s only pregnant right now. Also, if any further legal precedents are established that raise the relative legal status of the child-in-utero, then they might come closer in status to “citizens” and be a more rightful boundary on the “right of privacy.”
5) It is illegal to use one’s body to injure or kill other people without other overriding justifications
It is illegal in many cases, and unethical in more cases, to use one’s body to harm others. A person has the right to go skydiving, but not to willfully land on another person killing them. In that case, both parties are killed. Two evils have been done – both being a kind of homicide. Of course, successful suicides can’t be prosecuted, but it’s still a criminal act, and there’s little dispute about whether it’s generally evil to kill oneself, especially if someone else is killed too.
On a lesser scale, a person might jokingly fall all over people at a party receiving bumps and bruises and giving them as well. The person might be amusing, but he’s still harming other people by use of his body. One’s right to privacy is restricted by the general principle of non-malfeasance: that is, do no harm to others. Even if one’s own very body becomes the instrument of harm, it is still unethical and in many cases illegal, to harm other human beings with one’s body. Abortion involves a mother’s instrumental use of her body, by a doctor’s assistance, to create a hostile environment for the child-in-utero. To use one’s body for harm is still unethical, and not a natural privilege within the “right of privacy.”
6) Rights to privacy can be abdicated
In the case of Bowe Bergdahl American audiences were scandalized, in part, by his reported treachery, as his “right to privacy” did not include the privilege to endanger his fellow soldiers. Bergdahl, a soldier for the U.S. Army, who legally swore allegiance to the U.S. Army, and allegedly betrayed his fellow soldiers abandoning his post, going AWOL, with intent to ally with the enemy. If those reports are validated and Bergdahl is found guilty, he will not have a strong “right to privacy” defense in his favor.
[Editor’s Note: Bergdahl He was held captive by the Taliban from 2009-2014 despite his alleged efforts ally with the enemy. He was court martialed and found guilty in 2017, fined, and dishonorably discharged. In 2023 his case was appealed and his conviction overturned].
By swearing allegiance and signing his respective contracts he made a substantial commitment to the United States of America to loyally serve as long as he is able and allowed. He retains his freedom of conscience throughout (he could agree with the enemy if he wants). He retains some freedom of speech (he can say what he wants in his journals). He retains freedom of religion (he can worship or not worship however he sees fit). But his body is not fully his own, since he abdicated certain privileges of free citizenship for the sake of becoming a soldier.
Bergdahl is not unique here either. Most every working man or women abdicates some degree of personal freedom and privilege for the sake of conforming to a work environment. That’s the price people pay so they can bring home a paycheck. People can exercise their right to privacy by not working in those jobs. If they don’t want to agree to their terms they don’t have to work for that business. Fashion and film industry can have rigorous expectations of their employees, “You must dye your hair,” or “You have to be willing to do nude scenes,” or “you cannot let your body weight exceed 115 pounds.” People may also abdicate certain privacy rights as legal punishment. Some criminals are forced to wear trackers monitoring their location in the event of trespassing on a restraining order. One of the paradoxes of the right to privacy is that as a facet of bodily autonomy, people can exercise their bodily autonomy by sacrificing certain aspects of privacy.
Regarding abortion, a parent’s right to privacy might be restricted by parental duties but that very privilege to choose to get pregnant or raise a child is itself a rightful exercise of one’s privacy. Even if the pregnancy was forced on the woman, through violent rape, molestation, or incest, those horrific evils don’t implicate the child. It’s not like the child-in-utero did anything deserve a death-sentence. The mother’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy are grounds for prosecuting the rapist, not for punishing the child.
Parenthood has always been a normal constraint on one’s privacy. It’s a heavy blessing people assume when they are willing to invest some of their freedom as a sacrifice for the benefit of children. Reluctant parents may have a harder time coping with the lifestyle change, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are parents and parenthood naturally constrains our privacy. Those who do not want that constraint would do well to avoid parenthood. Killing one’s child, however is not “avoiding parenthood,” since parenthood has already begun at conception. That is more like willful failure as a parent.
So, What’s Left of ‘My Body My right’?
Bringing all these different qualifications together, a stiff critique emerges against certain liberal uses of the “right to privacy.” We can, and should, grant a qualified sense of the right to privacy without assuming that that right includes the license to kill innocent human beings by way of abortion.
References:
[1] The CDC reports the total deaths for the U.S. population as ranging between 1.9 million and 2.5 million between 1970 and 2011 per year not including abortions. In that same time frame, abortion rates ranged from 0.74 to 1.3 million abortions. In 2011, those reports estimate that there were 2,515,458 deaths (not counting abortions) and 1,058,490 abortions, making abortions about 1/3 of all fatalities in the U.S. Yet even these numbers are skewed because natural abortion (miscarriages) are not counted whereas natural deaths that occur as complications from old age are counted. Abortions might be better compared to preventable circumstances like workplace accidents, traffic fatalities, or preventable diseases like Type-II diabetes.
[2] One could argue that our legislation is due for updating since 1973. Some things that have since been legalized in the name of abortion create inconsistences for established laws, precedents, and ideals within our legal system. For example, mutilating a human corpse for the sake shipping purposes is illegal, but if it’s in utero then that is standard practice of dilation and curettage abortions. Likewise, a pregnant mother who is woefully derelict of her maternal duties cannot be legally tried for all the negligence and abuse inflicted on her preborn-child, yet if it’s a “wanted” baby that would seem to make her the aggressor against the child as in the “Lacy and Connor Law” so that if she kills the baby through drug and alcohol abuse, she could be tried for negligent homicide, manslaughter, or at least child abuse. Likewise, if a pregnant woman is assaulted on the way to the abortion clinic, intending to get an abortion, and miraculously the thief forgets to take her wallet but does push her down, killing the child on impact–he actually saved her time, and money by killing the baby in a much shorter fashion. He can be criminally charged for killing the child, for assault, and for theft, yet the thief was only incidentally involved in an abortion procedure intended by the mother. The mother’s “intentions” did not change the nature of that child any more than it changed the ethical status of that assault.
Recommended Resources:
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek
Sex and Your Commanding Officer (DVD) (Mp4 Download) by Dr. 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)
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.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4mBhosw
A TRUE Story That Will Change Your Life Forever with Greg Koukl
PodcastWhy is the world the way it is? Why are we here and how does the whole story of history—from the very beginning to the very end—fit together in a way that makes sense?
Frank sits down with Greg Koukl, CIA 2025 Instructor and president of Stand to Reason, to talk about his classic and bestselling book, ‘The Story of Reality: How the World Began, How It Ends, and Everything Important That Happens in Between‘. Think of it as a beginner-friendly guide to both systematic theology and apologetics, showing readers how God’s story of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration explains everything we see in the world today. Tune in as Frank and Greg answer questions like:
Biblical Christianity is more than just another religion. It’s more than just a personal relationship with God or a source of moral teaching. Christianity is a picture of reality. Consider this an invitation to hear a story that explains the world in a way that nothing else will. A TRUE story that will change your life forever!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
The Story of Reality by Greg Koukl
Stand to Reason
STR Weekly Podcast
STR #Ask Podcast with Amy Hall
Let’s Help Harvard Understand Intelligent Design
2. Does God Exist?, 3. Are Miracles Possible?Last week, my wife and I spent an afternoon at the Harvard Museum of Natural History, in Cambridge, MA, near where we live. We both were generally impressed by the exhibitions, particularly the dinosaur section, and would recommend the museum to anyone visiting Boston. I was, however, quite disappointed to see this notice at the entrance to the display on evolution:
It was disappointing to see the inaccurate representation of intelligent design (ID), along with the poor scientific epistemology.
A “Super-Natural Explanation”?
First, proponents of ID have long stressed that ID, in its purest sense, does not necessarily postulate a supernatural cause but is consistent with a natural or supernatural intelligence.
Furthermore, I would contend that the natural / supernatural distinction is problematic. What precisely is meant when a phenomenon is described as supernatural, and by what set of criteria is it distinguished from the natural? Often, the word “supernatural” is used to describe the capacity to perform miracles, defined as violations of natural law. I would, however, offer a more nuanced definition of a miracle, which is that a miracle describes an interruption in the way nature normally behaves when left to itself. A miracle does not violate natural law, because natural law only describes what happens when nature is left to itself – not what happens when there is an intervention by an external agent. I am not by any means the first to define a miracle in these terms. Indeed, the atheist philosopher John Mackie in his classic book, The Miracle of Theism, defines a miracle along similar lines.[1] As agents ourselves, we have the capability of interrupting the normal course of nature, determined by natural law. When I consciously choose to catch a ball with my hands, I am interrupting the trajectory it would have otherwise taken if left to itself. Agency itself is not governed by natural law, nor can it be reduced to material constituents. Human free will — my belief in which I take to be strongly justified by direct acquaintance — is, in my view, utterly incompatible with a materialistic reductionist perspective on the mind. Since, in my judgment, the strong burden of proof required to demonstrate that the strong appearance of free agency is merely illusory has not been met, this provides a strong prima facie justification for believing the mind to not be reducible to material components. Few would want to use the term “supernatural” to describe the human mind. A more helpful distinction, then, is between material and non-material causes. But non-material causes — assuming my judgment about the non-reducibility of agency to be correct — are already demonstrably a part of the natural world, since all of us have minds. Thus, the fact that ID postulates a non-material entity cannot be used to exclude ID from the natural sciences. Moreover, if our epistemology arbitrarily excludes one possible answer to an inquiry a priori, there is a real danger of being led to an incorrect conclusion about the natural world.
“Observation”
Second, the invocation of an unobservable entity should not be a demarcating factor that renders ID unscientific, for that would exclude other scientific disciplines, such as particle and nuclear physics, as well. Unobservable entities can often be detected by their effects, even without direct observation. For example, black holes are not directly observable since they do not emit electromagnetic radiation that can be detected with telescopes. Their existence and presence, however, is inferred by the effects that they exert on nearby matter, since gas flowing around a black hole increases in temperature and emits radiation that can be detected (their gravitational effects on surrounding objects, such as nearby stars, and the bending of light passing by a black hole, can also reveal the presence of a black hole).
“Testing”
Third, ID is testable in the same way that other hypotheses purporting to explain events in the distant past (including evolution by natural selection) are tested — by the historical abductive method of inference to the best explanation.[2] Given that functionally specific information content is, in every other realm of experience, habitually associated with conscious activity and no other category of explanation has been demonstrated to be causally sufficient to account for its origin, ID is the most causally adequate explanation of the relevant data.
“Predictions”
Fourth, a scientific theory can be well justified even if it does not make strong predictions; it just needs to render the evidence significantly more probable than it would have otherwise been. For example, the hypothesis that you were in the vicinity of a nuclear plant does not strongly predict that you will have radioactive poisoning (few such workers suffer this). But if you did have radioactive poisoning, it would be significant evidence that you were in the vicinity of a nuclear plant since that data is more expected (or, less surprising) given the truth of the hypothesis than given its falsehood. Thus, even if ID only weakly predicts the observed data, it can still be strongly justified if the data is extremely unlikely if ID is false. ID, I would argue, also has a reasonably high intrinsic plausibility (what probability theorists call prior probability) given the independent evidence of there being a mind behind the universe who has an interest in creating complex life (that is, the evidence of cosmic fine tuning[3] and prior environmental fitness.[4] It shouldn’t be too surprising, then, if the data also indicate that life was purposely brought about.
An “Inherent Conflict”?
Fifth, ID is not postulated because there is a perceived incompatibility between evolution and religion, but rather because we understand it to be the best interpretation of the scientific evidence. That being said, the “many scientists and religious leaders” who “do not perceive an inherent conflict between religion and the scientific theory of evolution” are correct that God and naturalistic evolution are logically compatible. However, naturalistic evolution, if true, would constitute significant evidence against theism and by extension religion. Why? First, if the conclusion that teleology best explains biological phenomena is evidence for theism, it necessarily follows that the falsehood of this conclusion would be evidence against theism. Second, atheism, and in particular naturalism (which, I would contend, is the most consistent version of atheism), strongly predicts that there be a naturalistic evolutionary account of life’s origins and development on earth. However, this is significantly less well predicted by theism. Therefore, though not by itself sufficient grounds on which to reject theism, unguided evolution — being more surprising given theism than given atheism — would, if true, constitute significant evidence against theism.
It is unfortunate that the administrators of the Harvard Museum of Natural History seem to have failed to do their due diligence to understand the claims of ID, and how its advocates propose to test it, before dismissing it as being outside of the scope of science.
References:
[1] John L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), kindle.
[2] Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2010).
[3] Geraint F. Lewis & Luke A. Barnes, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).
[4] Michael Denton, The Miracle of Man: The Fine Tuning of Nature for Human Existence (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2022).
Recommended Resources:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
This article was originally published at Evolution News & Science Today (http://bit.ly/45uuqkO).
This version was originally posted at: https://bit.ly/46L71xL
What Are You Going to Do With Your Guilt? with Dr. Bobby Conway
PodcastGuilt. Everyone has it. Where does this feeling come from, can it actually be good for us, and what can we do with it? Dr. Bobby Conway joins Frank from CIA 2025 to unpack his doctoral research on guilt, exploring how thinkers like Freud and Darwin tried to explain and resolve it without God, and why those attempts ultimately fall short. During their conversation, Frank and Bobby answer questions like:
As Greg Koukl puts it, “We feel guilty because we ARE guilty.” Frank and Bobby unpack why the Gospel offers the only real solution to guilt—and how this universal human experience points directly to the existence and nature of God. If you’re burdened by the weight and consequences of your own bad decisions, pull up a chair and learn how you can find freedom through the saving grace of Jesus Christ!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Bobby’s new YouTube channel: The Graphite Apologist
Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality by David Baggett
Uncomfortable Thoughts on Christians & Therapy with Josh Howerton
Sending Your Kids to College on F.I.R.E. for Their Faith!
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsIf you are the mom of a soon-to-be-college freshman, hang on. You will survive! But the more important question might be: Will your child survive college. . . spiritually? Even if he or she has checked all the boxes associated with growing up in the church, there’s always the possibility that their faith will end up no more intact than the couch at the frat house. But rest assured, I have walked in your shoes. Twice. And I can happily say that my young men thrived in college and graduated, still walking with Christ. (Thank you, Jesus!) We know this isn’t true of all of our kids, though, and we’re not trying to make anyone feel bad; rather, we hope that these blogs will help prepare you for what’s to come as a parent of a college-aged child.
Here’s the thing: We moms are experts at ensuring dorm rooms are well-equipped, meal plans are sufficient, and laundry bags are ready. After all, we’ve been doing this for the last 18 years, right? Unfortunately, statistics and experience show that we are not doing as good a job as we thought we were in one key area: spiritual preparation for college.
It’s never too early to begin this prep work, but don’t get discouraged if you think it’s too late. It’s not. The summer months, in particular, are a great time to prepare while also having bonding time with your almost-adult child before you send him or her off.
This can be an emotional time, especially if you are sending your first fledgling out from the nest. The inner conflict of letting your baby go often competes against the inner celebration of more freedom for yourself and celebrating your job well done. You will, however, feel better after that last hug, knowing you wrapped your child in tactical armor to navigate the spiritual landmines ahead. So, what do you say? How about engaging in a summer spiritual boot camp for college prep?
In this blog, we’ll introduce you to the FIRE method of preparing your kids, and then follow up with more in-depth blogs describing how to accomplish each step. FIRE is an acronym that stands for faith, environmental, intellectual, and relational. These are the four most important areas of prep work to prioritize before sending your freshman off to orientation. Now, before you throw your hands up in despair or throw your face in a bowl of Ben & Jerry’s, ask God for help, hope, and discernment. He knows your child even better than you and is willing to show you what to accomplish before the first-year orientation week.
Foundation #1: FAITH Preparation
Basic Spiritual Disciplines: Develop or reinforce Bible study and prayer. While this sounds like a no-brainer, we must remind our kids that having the discipline of personal Bible study and personal prayer goes a long way toward helping them retain the faith. In fact, six spiritual disciplines have been identified as helping youth who graduate from youth ministry to not leave the faith. These all focus on making their faith personal and not program-based. But at a minimum: Bible Study and prayer!
The six areas we alluded to above are referred to as “H.A.B.I.T.S.”: Hanging out with God, Accountability (with peers and intergenerational relationships), Bible study, Involvement in the church body (through ministry and missions), Tithing/stewardship (not just financial), and Scripture memorization.[i] And by the way, modeling these disciplines is key. Your kids are watching to see if you practice what you preach. Consider this a spiritual meal plan. Your child will be ingesting enough “junk food” on their own from peers and professors. He or she is a big kid now. No more milk. Time for solid food (see 1 Corinthians 3:1-2). Help your child lay a foundation that will support their beliefs when (not if) the ground around them shakes them to their core.
Foundation #2: INTELLECTUAL Preparation
Apologetics and worldview training: Build confidence for the truth and evidence of Christianity and a biblical worldview through the study of apologetics. If you have been following Mama Bear Apologetics [or Crossexamined.org] already, you are well on your way. High five! If you’re new to us and apologetics in general, we’re here for you. How about a different sort of ACT review before campus — Apologetics College Training!
Apologetics is a form of discipleship that gives confidence to the Christian that their faith is a reasonable, viable, and trustworthy worldview. It helps answer the “why” behind the “what” of what we believe. Be aware of other worldviews beliefs, what questions all worldviews have to answer, and how Christianity does that. Your kid’s faith will NOT survive as a hand-me-down faith on the college campus. They need to try it on for themselves.
Conversation training: Be ready for challenging conversations by training in tactics for defending the faith and bridge-building. Greg Koukl’s book, Tactics, is a great tutorial in having faith conversations calmly and respectfully. Our own Mama Bear Lindsey Medenwaldt’s book, Bridge-Building Apologetics, can help in this area as well.
Sharpen critical thinking skills: Can we admit that we, as a society, have almost completely lost the ability to think critically? Our kids are bombarded with information, but they do not know how to differentiate between the true and almost-true (or sometimes flat-out false!). The entertainment industry and its “professors” are two of the most influential worldview shapers our students will encounter. Does your child know how to spot logical fallacies? Do you? Merely familiarizing yourselves with these and discussing them as you encounter them in what you watch, read, and listen to will develop the brainpower to decipher false claims. And don’t forget to revisit or teach the Mama Bear ROAR method!
Discuss a biblical view of sexual ethics and why gender matters: These are two of the key issues facing the church today and may be the greatest moral issues on the college campus. Moral issues are a key way your child’s faith can be derailed in college. Help them stay on track through prayer and honest discussions. We’ll discuss this further in our breakout blog on Intellectual Preparation. To get you started, we recommend the Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality. You might also be interested in our series about biblical sexuality on The John Ankerberg Show (a new episode drops each week this summer).
Foundation #3: RELATIONAL Preparation
Open communication: Create a healthy atmosphere, attitude, and action plan for doubts[ii] about faith and for potential moral failures. Create a checklist[iii] of things to ask when they call home or visit. I pray no parent will ever have to deal with their child seriously doubting their faith or even walking away from it, but I have talked to too many parents and heard too many stories of it happening to know that it is a reality. Make sure your child knows he or she can come to you with their doubts and questions. And in the meantime, prepare yourself for responses if tough situations arise. Foster an atmosphere where their moral failures are not shamed but dealt with lovingly and biblically so that they will not hide them but confess them and be led to repent.
Pray: No, really. Start or join a Moms in Prayer group for moms of college kids. This benefits your child, the campus, and you! This is the only “approved” way to “go to college with” your baby. (Be honest, there’s a part of you who wants to.) Praying for your college child and the campus is one of the most intentional, strategic things you can do. If your child is open to it, it also can foster communication between you two as you ask how you can be praying for him in your weekly group prayer time. A great resource to begin with is our Honest Prayers book.
Foundation #4: ENVIRONMENTAL Preparation
Campus ministry and college church connections: Did you know your student can have a game plan for church and campus ministry involvement before they ever set foot on campus? This can be done with your own research or the help of ministries like Every Student Sent or Ratio Christi. According to Mark Whitt at Lifeway, your child’s involvement with a local church and campus ministry during the first two weeks of college is crucial to her spiritual health.
Additionally, maintaining intergenerational relationships at a local church bolsters faith and makes it more “sticky” down the road. Keep in mind that a campus ministry and a nearby campus church are not substitutes for one another. They play different roles in your student’s life. If a child has the foundational prep we mentioned above, it will be a natural transition to look for and attend a local church as well as a campus ministry. Have your student talk to returning college students at their home church about the campus ministries they are involved in.
Home church engagement: Do what you can to foster engagement between your home church and your student, both when they are at school and when they return home on breaks. Once they graduate from the youth group, encourage them to move on to a small group at your church. Does your church have a college group they can attend when they are home? As a young adult, can they move into a singles/young adult small group? Also, consider encouraging senior adults to “adopt” students while they are at college and foster ongoing contact through notes and care packages (because college students love snacks!).
The campus buzz: Know the latest issues on public and private campuses. These issues may catch your student off guard if they are not familiar with them and ready to respond. What is the spiritual, social, and political climate like on their college campus? Even a Christian college needs to be carefully vetted. What are the major events on the campus — for example, do they have a Sex Week? What does their student government support? What is their DEI policy? Are campus ministries allowed to meet on campus?
The Bottom Line
Reality check: If it’s June when you’re reading this, you’ve got about two months to prepare if you have a soon-to-be freshman. [Editor’s Note: If it’s August already, well, better late than never!] You can do it! As our mama bear-in-chief, Hillary, always says, “We’re all in this together.” Grab your spouse, a friend, and God, and go do this. If your child is headed to college in the not-too-distant future, consider this your Spiritual College Prep Guide. If your kid is already in college, you can still put many of these pointers into practice. Take this just as seriously, if not more so, as AP classes, building the resume, campus visits, applying for scholarships, and College Board exam prep.
Intentional spiritual preparation will go a long way toward helping all our college students leave campus without leaving their faith behind. Stay tuned for our next blog in this series – a deeper look into faith-based preparation. For now, tell us in the comments how you and your kids are getting ready for college.
(NOTE: This blog series originally appeared in 2016. Since then, the warp speed at which culture has accelerated in reaching even the youngest of children demands we start early in our training, just as the Mama Bear books have taught. Use our suggestions now for prep right before college if it applies to your family, but start this as early as possible with your younger children.)
References:
[i] These HABITS were originally found in Doug Fields, Purpose-Driven® Youth Ministry (Zondervan, 1998).
[ii] Over half of teens and adults (so, the U.S. general population ages 13+) report that they’ve experienced doubts about their religious beliefs at least sometimes (12% frequently, 16% occasionally, 24% sometimes) in the past few years. Similarly, exactly half of those who are Christian or who have some Christian background or experience (50%) say they have gone through a “prolonged” period of doubt. Barna, “What Do We Do with Doubt?” February 28, 2023. Read an excerpt here: https://www.barna.com/research/doubt-faith/.
[iii] For Gen Z, the top four causes for their doubt are: human suffering, hypocrisy of religious people, science, and conflict in the world. Barna. See excerpt here: https://www.barna.com/research/doubt-faith/.
Recommended Resources:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
Julie Loos combined her passion for prayer and apologetics in her contributions to three Mama Bear Apologetics books. Her apologetics training came from campus ministry and certificates from Biola University and the Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Julie has been teaching, writing, and speaking on prayer for Moms in Prayer International for more than 23 years. She lives in Missouri with her husband, Todd, has two married sons, two grandchildren, and enjoys working out, Bible study, chocolate, coffee, and deep conversations.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4lkzbDe