At stake is the most basic of all human rights—the right to live. Life is
the issue. To anyone that reads newspapers, watches newscasts, or has observed
with any sense of objectivity our own culture’s perception of the sacredness of
human life this fact is glaringly apparent; human life is growing cheaper by
the minute. Increasingly the decisions about who gets to live and who doesn’t
are being laid in the hands of women and men, who again in numbers that are
increasing, seem to believe that the choice of another being’s life or death is
theirs to make. Whether it’s cold-blooded murder in some dark alley, an
ill-thought suicide of the desperate, or completely legal and lawful abortions
in medical facilities my question is the same; is human life ours to take? I
can’t believe it is.
I don’t pretend that the argument is simple, just that it’s valid, and
that it needs to be made. Our rights as Americans to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness do not represent what is good and best about America if my
having them requires me to deny them to you. Liberty for the masses cannot
exist without limitations on the individual. My rights can only be mine rightly
if they do not trample on your rights to the same advantages.
It is at this point that our laws have failed in my opinion. They protect
the rights of some to secure an abortion by denying the right to others to
live. I realize there are those who genuinely disagree with my position that
life begins at conception. Therefore to them my argument is without merit
because no right to life has been violated if no life exists. If they are right
then I am wrong. But I do not believe that they are. I believe life does begin
at conception.
The Bible insists that life is God’s domain, that God created us in his
own image, and urged us to populate our world through the birth of children
(Genesis 1:27-28). If he is the creator of all life, as our faith agrees that
he is, then he is the creator of life even in the womb. That theological fact
immediately eliminates the argument over when life begins. The definition of
life cannot be limited to size, recognizable form, medical viability or
gestational trimesters. It cannot be argued against, theologically, that when
sperm and egg unite that a life has begun, because that it precisely how God
created us to populate our world with children. When life begins cannot be
separated from how life begins. They are two ways of describing the same event.
When a woman becomes pregnant that which is within her womb doesn’t look like a
human to us, and it can’t exist outside her womb, but whether it’s a zygote, an
embryo, or a fetus at the moment of conception it contains the forty-six
chromosomes necessary to develop into a unique and unrepeatable person. Given a
little time that fact becomes both observable and undeniable. When pregnancy
occurs life exists. It is how God has decreed, through his creation of natural
law, that life would be possible. All life, whether in the womb or out of it,
is the creative work of God.
Exodus 20:13 strictly prohibits us from the unjustified taking of
innocent human life. It isn’t ours to take. It’s his, as is declared in Psalm
24:1: “The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world and those that
live in it.” When we touch a human life, positively or negatively, we are
touching something that belongs to God. Unless we are both qualified and
prepared to take upon ourselves the divine role of supreme lordship over life,
we are not free to steal from God that which belongs to him.
Does it make sense that a woman should be free to decide what happens
with her own body? It would if her body was hers, but according to Christian
theology, it isn’t: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body…which is his” (1
Corinthians 6:19-20). To advocate the freedom of choice regarding the practice
of abortion requires a theological divergence both from the New Testament as
well as from God’s own declaration in the Old Testament: “It is he that made
us, and we are his” (Psalm 100:3).
What about accidental or unplanned pregnancies? What about unwanted
pregnancies? Those pregnancies too represent God’s natural law that governs all
human life. Even then our faith allows us to reason that God will bring about good
from what our circumstances tell us is bad. Should we not believe that God
works in all things, including unwanted or accidental pregnancies, for the good
of people that love him, as is stated with such clarity and comfort in Romans
8? In fact we are compelled to believe it.
Beyond that we who are of the Christian faith believe in God as the One
that makes possible the redemption of all human life. Is it not the very fact
of humanity’s ill-fated desire for self-rule and autonomy that made it
necessary for God the Father to send his Son to reclaim us? We cannot believe
that his redemptive power and purpose lacks efficacy regarding the unborn child
whether its life was planned or not.
Maybe we don’t believe that abortion should be allowed or practiced. Maybe
we’re convinced that regardless of its lawful allowance that it’s still wrong.
Maybe we agree that from a theological position it is an untenable option to
pregnancy and indefensible as a just treatment of the unborn. If that’s all we
do we’re as much a part of the problem as if we believed the practice of
abortion to be just, moral and good.
Just how much of this problem is ours? If our position can ever lay claim
to legitimacy then it isn’t just their problem—those who favor it, those who’ve
chosen it, and even those who have performed it. It’s ours as well.
When a fifteen-year-old girl suddenly feels the stirring of life within
her—yet unknown to anyone else—her choices have become her problems, but not
hers alone. Because we are the church, because of the love of Christ, because
we are our brother’s keeper, it is no longer just her problem. It’s our problem
too. If “abortion is where the rubber hits the road,” as Pamela Maraldo of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America stated, then we have to build an
off-ramp.
Very often the promiscuous teen, the frightened collegiate, the welfare
client, and the abandoned fiancée all have this in common; they choose abortion
because they don’t know what else to do. They don’t think there’s anyone that
will help them if they choose otherwise. There must be a viable choice if we
expect them to make a better decision than abortion. In the case of the
unwanted, the abused and the anguished the church has to learn to see
opportunity rather than disgust and go to work to save children from an unjust
fate and, I believe, save the parents from a decision they may well live to
regret for the rest of their lives.
It is our responsibility to love the mother, to love the father, and to
love the baby. It is our responsibility to provide for them an atmosphere of
Christian hospitality, to tell them the truth about God, and to offer training
to them so they may become fully devoted followers of Christ, and raise their
baby as Christian parents.
It is also our responsibility to reduce the number of abortions by
learning to become proactive in the prevention of underage, unplanned, and
unwanted pregnancies. It seems unlikely to me that any law will change as a
result of my words or that any abortion provider will close their doors. So it
seems to me that the most effective way to help reduce the number of abortions
is to reduce the need for them. With our words and with our behavior we must
become a culture that teaches our values to our young. We haven’t always done
so as well as we might have.
How can we expect to convey a healthy respect for human sexuality to
penetrate the minds of our children when, through our various choices of
entertainment and personal habits, we allow them to see that we appear to
believe otherwise? How can we hope to teach and train our children to develop
biblical convictions and morals that will result in them having a healthy
respect for themselves, their bodies, and their own sexual expression if we,
their parents, teachers, and leaders, send them such mixed messages as we often
do through our own attitudes and actions? The vital need is that a proper
foundation be laid, healthy lifestyle principles be established, and that clear
lines be drawn between right and wrong, for we do believe that some things are
right and other things are wrong. For this we do not apologize. Children must
be given an opportunity to learn healthy patterns before they can be expected
to do so.
By teaching our children that the physical ability of performing sexually
does not mean that you’re supposed to, that sex doesn’t belong in the back seat
of a car, and that it’s okay as long as you practice “safe sex” is a myth maybe
we can begin to make a difference in the number of abortions by reducing the
need for them.
There are other ways to be involved. Become active in the political
process and let your voice be heard by contacting your elected officials. Offer
support to responsible organizations that exist to help unwed mothers or
adoption agencies that offer alternatives to abortion. And we can pray. The sin
of abortion may never become illegal, so we can pray that the minds of women
and men will change, and that a wholesome respect and attitude toward sexuality
will be rediscovered. We can pray for a resurgence of the belief in sexual and
marital fidelity. We can pray for those who are considering abortion as a
solution to reconsider. And we can, and most definitely should, pray for those
who have already made that decision to understand God’s grace and believe in
his love for them.
It’s important for me to speak clearly that regardless of my opinions,
and regardless of whether I’m right or wrong in stating them, this much is not
arguable; God loves each one of us as much as he has ever loved any of us. My
opinions don’t place me beyond his love, and neither do yours, because we are
his children, each and every one. He can no more cease to love us than we can
cease to love our own children. When I think of my own daughter, son-in-law,
and their three beautiful children I am amazed at how much I love all of them.
That’s how God looks at all of us and more so, and that’s how he feels about
all of our children…even those that were never given the chance to be
born.
(Ed Saucier)
MEMORY VERSE: Matthew 12:20
"a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory;"
DAILY READING: Matthew 15
FOR DEEPER STUDY OF MATTHEW:
When Jesus was asked for help by the Canaanite woman (a non-Jewish probably pagan) it has always bugged me that Jesus says in 15:24, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." I've been under the impression God was always, even from the beginning, to be for all nations. He told Abraham that he would use his decedents (namely Jesus) to bless all the families of the earth in Genesis 12:3, not just the Israelites. Clearly the mission that Jesus eventually sends the disciples out on at the end of the book of Matthew is to all nations, "go and make disciples of all nations." Why did Jesus say in this instance that he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel?
This is a difficult question to answer and I consulted a bunch of commentaries, scholars, and pastors to come up with this answer? I'm not sure. Which is o.k. I don't have to know everything about Scripture. Somethings are beyond my ability to understand. That doesn't rock or shift my faith. I'm alright with that, yet I also have a desire to investigate all difficult passages that I come across. When I have questions I usually want answers, even if the answer is God is way too big for me to understand.
One scholar that I read said, that it is a reference to the Old Testament book of Ezekiel, where the leadership of Israel were not shepherding their flock. So Jesus is basically pointing a finger at his present day leaders, the Pharisees, and saying these people have no leader and I, Jesus, am here to be Israel's leader. I will shepherd them. So in this scholars view it seems Jesus was not so much dealing with the woman or the disciples as he was trying to teach the Pharisees a lesson.
Another commentary stated that it was a testing of the Caaninate woman. Jesus was using this as a teachable moment for the people around her to communicate that faith in God is not something that is just lip service. It is not a formula of words that can be prayed or spoken that will just get you all that you want from God. Jesus wanted her to show the people around her, that she was serious. The woman needed to show humility in order to receive the blessing from Jesus. If she came in to the request thinking that she deserved to be granted her request then she didn't understand her real need for Jesus. Therefore he wouldn't grant that request. That is why he did what was customary of the day and said that dogs (non-Israelites) don't deserve the good things that are due God's children (Israelites). The lady in turn proved her humility, not to Jesus (he is God and knows the heart), but to the others around and maybe herself. Because she showed her humility by saying that even dogs get the scraps that fall from the table. In this she showed that she was undeserving and Jesus granted her request. Jesus in this view is teaching the disciples in particular that humility before God is of absolute necessity.
This question is one of many difficult questions found in Scripture, but I don't encourage you to shy away from difficult tensions that you find in Scripture. Dive into them. God will teach you something profound.
(Mark Kincannon)