Dead babies who don't count: The Pill's bloody future...
...the proven ‘anti-implantation’ action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. (Pontifical Academy for Life)
(Tim) Today, twenty-two percent of our nation's children are murdered in the womb, and a growing proportion of those murders are what our nation's merchant of death, Planned Parenthood, euphemistically refers to as "medical abortions"--abortions committed by chemical rather than steel weapons. Pro-life leaders have been dreading this change for decades knowing how much more difficult it will be to oppose abortion as it moves toward the earliest weeks and days of pregnancy, and into the privacy of the home.
The change has come quickly...
Already, chemical abortions comprise over twenty percent of current abortions, and the proportion is growing rapidly. In a private e-mail sent to Planned Parenthood Federation of America on July 9, 2007, Danco Laboratories LLC (the pharmaceutical firm distributing one of the chemical abortifacients, Mifeprex) reported: "In the five years following FDA approval (2000-2005), more than 750,000 U.S. women have used Mifeprex."
This means over 150,000 women per year are taking Mifeprex to kill their unborn child. But Mifeprex is only one of the growing list of chemical agents being deployed...
Chemical abortions privatize murder
This is a sea-change in the practice of abortion. Mothers now take direct responsibility for their child's murder and the disposal of his body--there's no medical professional paid to get rid of the gore. The mother swallows the pills and waits for the expulsion of her baby's body. Then she chooses how to dispose of him.
With this murder there's no need to hide the victim's body. Mom may do with him as she pleases. She may choose to bury her child in her back yard. If she wishes, though, there's nothing to stop her from taking him out with the garbage or flushing him down the toilet. She's at home. Alone.
Here's Planned Parenthood's clinical description of the little one's final hours...
At-home administration of the second drug — the prostaglandin — allows a woman to control the timing and location of the cramping and bleeding associated with the medication abortion process. Studies have shown at-home administration to be both safe and effective.
"Safe" for the mother's body, maybe; but what about her conscience or her soul? What about her baby? Would her child understand Planned Parenthood speaking of his murder as "both safe and effective"?
When these chemical weapons were first deployed, both anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists expected that many physicians who'd previously kept away from the abortion business would now enter it. Things haven't turned out that way. Most medical abortions are still being done by those already bloodied by surgical abortions. Thus Planned Parenthood remains the largest trafficker in both surgical and medical abortions, charging about the same for both: $400 to $600 per child.
Shepherds' conspiracy and silence
It's apparent the church has not thought through and prepared for this change. While medical abortions continue to grow in frequency and percentage, there's little discussion of the implications this has for the battle for our nation's conscience or the care of the souls we shepherd.
This came home to me, recently, when the wife of one of our elders handed me an article from our local paper dealing with this massive movement toward chemical abortions. Noting the change would be accomplished through the work of pharmacists, the article's author (himself an evangelical Christian) went looking for local pharmacists who might have a conscience problem with fulfilling prescriptions for these poisons.
Some felt one way and others another, but my attention was riveted by the statements of one pharmacist I knew, personally. A former Indiana University campus staff worker for a national parachurch organization, this pharmacist had been one of my elders back in the late nineties. In the article, he told how his mind had changed about when human life begins. He explained he'd come to have no objection to fulfilling prescriptions for chemical abortions very early in the mother's pregnancy. (For an opposite example of a Christian who hasn't changed his definition of "conception" or "life," and thus refuses to fill prescriptions for these abortifacient drugs, see this testimony in favor of legislation protecting such pharmacists' freedom of conscience.)
This brother had come to believe that life did not begin at conception, but rather sometime during or after the little baby attaches himself to his mother's womb. Thus, as he saw it, filling prescriptions for chemical poisons prescribed to rid the mother's body of her child in the first week or so of the child's life was Scriptural, Christian, moral, good, and right.
Of course, he stated the matter using different words, but the long and short of it was that this brother in Christ has crossed the Rubicon and is now no opponent of the early abortions of human beings made in the Image of God. It's only that he denies they're human beings, and therefore that they bear the Image of God, and therefore that they're abortions, and therefore that he's an accomplice to murder.
Reading the article, I recalled a conversation I'd had with this man years earlier during which I asked him what he was going to do when abortions moved earlier and were committed by drugs he was called on to fulfill prescriptions for in his pharmacy? He'd responded then that, if he had to, he would quit his job.
Yet now, reading this article, I saw he didn't "have to." He'd changed his mind. Grieved, I posted on his public statements supporting the early murder of unborn children. But he was ready with his reasoning, even daring to use Scripture to support these murders.
This is happening in churches around the country. Doctors who are evangelical; pharmacists who are reformed; fathers who are confessional; and mothers married to these men are murdering unborn children. And with no scruples at all; "Everyone's doing it. What's the problem?"
Tragically, they haven't heard warnings from the pulpit of their churches. They haven't read editorials in their denominational magazines or posts on leading evangelical blogs calling them to repentance. They have never known of a mother being called before an elders board for aborting her child. No elder of their congregation has ever been removed from office for fulfilling prescriptions for Methotrexate or Levonorgestrel. (Levonorgestrel's method of action is not limited to the prevention of implantation.)
Think about this: have Leadership, byFaith, or the Journal of Biblical Counseling run any articles providing counsel on the pastoral issues involved in working with fathers and mothers who took poison and then awaited the arrival of their baby's body in the privacy of their own home? Not likely.
Abortion's prevalence in our churches
If we think this isn't going on in our church's homes and marriages, we're foolish.
Around the world, one out of every twenty-eight women between the ages of fifteen and forty-four has an abortion each year. Over the course of twenty-nine years of childbearing age, four out of every ten women are likely to have an abortion. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated the total first abortion (prevalence) rate among U.S. women of childbearing age at forty-two percent, and that was back in 1992--seventeen years and twenty-five million abortions ago. So a random group of one hundred women between fifteen and forty-four years of age today is likely to include even more than forty-two women who have had at least one abortion.
Think about the mothers of children in your Christian school or home school co-op; the women in your Bible study; the mothers and daughters of your congregation.
"But Christians don't do those things!" you say?
Well then, what is a reasonable estimate of the abortion prevalence in your church? Half the national average? A quarter the national average? Come up with an estimate and then consider the implications for how we preach and teach and counsel.
Meditate prayerfully and with love on those women of our congregations whose hands are stained by their child's blood and we'll read Isaiah 40 with new eyes. We'll train the next generation of shepherds to be on the watch for consciences afflicted by this horror, locked in a terrible prison of secret guilt and shame.
Babies neither Planned Parenthood nor National Right to Life count
But there's more. The wickedness of child slaughter is so deeply entrenched in our nation and congregations that one form of killing is off the charts. Literally.
Doing research on the chemical abortions done earliest in the life of the unborn child, I found that no one's keeping track of these little ones' deaths. Here is a group of children slaughtered each year who never even make it to the relatively public category of "just a statistic." When these little ones die, Planned Parenthood doesn't count them. Planned Parenthood's partner in research, the Guttmacher Institute, doesn't count them.
Not even National Right to Life (NRL) counts them.
Their reasons differ, but the result is the same.
On two occasions, I spoke with a Guttmacher spokeswoman at their New York City office. Also, I spoke with several individuals at National Right to Life, including NRL's Director of Education & Research, Randall K. O'Bannon. Both organizations--one the main proponent of abortion in America and the other abortion's main opponent--acknowledged they do not include the victims of early chemical abortions in their abortion statistics.
When I objected to their dismissal of these little victims, the two organizations' reasons differed. The Guttmacher spokeswoman told me they don't keep track of these abortions because "they're not abortions." She was adamant about this. NRL, though, didn't deny abortions were occurring. Rather, Mr. O'Bannon was firm in stating that it's impossible to count these abortions because "we don't know whether or not an abortion has occurred."
Different reasons, but the end result is the same. These victims don't count.
How can Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute deny these abortions are, in fact, abortions? To understand this denial, we must go back a few years.
Birth control requires the redefinition of murder
Midway through the twentieth century, the western world underwent a sea-change on birth control. Courts reversed laws prohibiting its distribution (see this summary by Margaret Sanger's grandson), churches reversed their historic condemnation of birth control with Anglicans leading the way, and physicians put their shoulders to the project by changing one small definition, hoping thereby to solve some tender souls' conscience issues.
It's this change in definition that's critical to our understanding of what's happening with medical abortions today.
In September of 1965, the American College of Gynecology (now the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) issued a bulletin containing an edict that its members were to reverse their terminology concerning conception and pregnancy. Up to that time, everyone agreed conception (and therefore, pregnancy) occurred the moment the ovum was fertilized. Here's how a 1963 U.S. Government public health pamphlet stated the matter:
All the measures which impair the viability of the zygote at any time between the instant of fertilization and the completion of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for inducing abortion.
Then, by fiat ACOG changed the definitions:
[I]n 1965, American College of Gynecologists, a long-standing supporter of abortion and family planning, issued a medical bulletin that sought to change the accepted definition of “conception” from union of sperm and egg to implantation: "Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum [egg]." (from Americans United for Life, the legal arm of the anti-abortion movement)
What was the result of this change in the definitions of "conception" and "pregnancy"?
Protestants swallow the whole bloody mess
The floodgates opened and Americans, unchurched and churched, began to use birth control with no thought to such technicalities as the definition of conception or the beginning of human life. Christians were on the bandwagon, too, and threw out two thousand years of Christian doctrinal commitments to join the throng. Opposition to birth control became just one more example of Roman Catholic legalism--much like going to confession and eating fish on Fridays.
There was a wholesale abandonment of the Church's historic commitment to the bearing of children as an act of Christian faith; to obedience of God's oft-repeated command to "be fruitful and multiply;" to the celebration of the fruitful womb as one of God's principal blessings; to "the propagation of a godly seed" (Malachi 2:15) as the third purpose of marriage declared alike in the historic wedding liturgy and the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Over time, some began to question this revolution, but the results were so unmistakably beneficial to an evangelical culture lost in the pursuit of pleasure and security that reform never got very far. There were occasional books lauding the bearing of children as an integral part of God's plan of sanctification within Christian marriage. And some on the margins of the community sniped at the birth control pill, warning that it was clinically known to function, at times, by causing the fertilized ovum to be obstructed in his efforts to attach himself to the uterine wall.
But it was the work of a moment to dispense with such unreasonable zealots. Christian physicians assured couples that, if the Pill ever prevented implantation, it was extremely rare and they shouldn't bother themselves about it. It was not their intent to prevent implantation, but rather conception; and God knew their hearts.
"Now, off with you. Be carefree. Have fun. Make love. Go to church Sunday morning and send your two children to youth group. But don't forget to take the Pill."
Having sown the wind, we're now reaping the whirlwind. Our consciences seared by decades of drugged recreational sex as well as the assurances of Christian physicians that the Pill doesn't kill anyone, we have been caught flat-footed by this latest growth area in medical abortion.
NRL between a rock and a hard place
It leaves National Right to Life in a rather ticklish position.
On the one hand, those opposed to abortion ought to agree that our defense of unborn children should extend to the protection of babies aborted even at the earliest moments of their lives. Human life is human life, whether the child is two days, two weeks, two months, or two years old.
On the other hand, the Pro-Life faithful--particularly Protestants--have never been zealous to learn the intricacies of the way the Birth Control Pill works, and it's a little late in the game to start the massive educational effort needed if we're to mount a new offensive against medical technologies variously referred to as Plan B, Emergency Contraceptive Pills (ECPs), or morning after pills. How do we explain the mechanism of action of ECPs without also explaining the mechanism of action of the Pill which many of our constituencies' marriage beds and lives were built upon? There will be too many questions, too many tender consciences wounded. Too much of a ruckus.
Now, to be sure, no one at National Right to Life actually said as much to me when they admitted they didn't count the deaths of little ones killed by ECPs. They only spoke of the impossibility of knowing when ECPs actually killed a child. Thus the difficulty of keeping track of their deaths, and NRL's decision not to.
But deaths there most certainly are. And as the use of ECPs quickly rises, the deaths they cause rise, also.
Redefining conception, pregnancy, and abortion
The Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood are consistent in not counting these babies. For them, the matter was resolved long ago with ACOG's redefinition of conception and abortion. Again and again and again (note this site is hosted by Princeton) in their literature, one reads assurances to potential users that ECPs do not cause abortions. But of course, they can say this because all the medical and governmental authorities have conspired to deny that to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum is to cause a child to be aborted. The following is typical of such assurances repeatedly found across the literature:
ECPs do not interrupt an established pregnancy, defined by medical authorities such as the United States Food and Drug Administration/National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as beginning with implantation. Therefore, ECPs are not abortifacient.
Yet immediately following this dogmatic declaration intended to silence the debate, we find this bit of casuistry, taking back with the second hand what was just given with the first:
To make an informed choice, women must know that ECPs—like all regular hormonal contraceptives [sic] such as the birth control pill, the implant Implanon, the vaginal ring NuvaRing, the Evra patch, and the injectable Depo-Provera ...may prevent pregnancy by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, inhibiting fertilization, or inhibiting subsequent implantation of a fertilized egg.
Or this statement, almost identical to the prior one:
The way emergency contraceptive pills work depends on where you are in your monthly cycle when you take them. They may prevent or delay ovulation (release of your egg), affect the movement of egg or sperm (making them less likely to meet), interfere with the fertilization process, or prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
When did National Right to Life make a policy decision they wouldn't list these methods of birth control among the tools of death plied in a mother's first trimester of pregnancy?
The silence of National Right to Life
Note, for instance, this National Right to Life page listing each abortion technique for each of the three trimesters. In the first trimester, the methods listed and defined are suction aspiration, dilatation and curettage, RU 486, methotrexate, and dilatation and evacuation. That's it--no mention of Plan B, ECPs, or morning after pills. Yet here's NRL's definition of abortion:
The term 'abortion' actually refers to any premature expulsion of a human fetus, whether naturally spontaneous, as in a miscarriage, or artificially induced, as in a surgical or chemical abortion.
Again, when asked why NRL doesn't include early medical (chemical) abortions in their literature, O'Bannon responded, "We only count abortions we know have occurred," meaning that the precise number of medical abortions early in the first trimester through Plan B, ECPs, and morning after pills is not certain, so no one's counting. A baby may have been murdered; a baby may not have been murdered. We don't know whether or not a child has lost his life, and so we don't include such birth control processes among the methods of abortion employed during the first trimester, nor do we include any estimate of the number of deaths they cause in our abortion statistics.
Thus it may safely be said today that no one in the pro-life community will be aware how many victims early medical abortions cause. After all, they keep up with the research and read the publications of the Guttmacher Institute which defines abortion in such a way that the preventing of implantation never qualifies as the killing of an unborn child. And National Right to Life gets its statistics from the Guttmacher Institute.
Vatican not silenced: ECPs are "Chemically Induced Abortion"
As I researched the growing use of ECPs and related drug regimens, I came across the name of a professor at Princeton University who is the world's leading advocate of ECPs. He is leading the movement to make ECPs available as over-the-counter drugs, cutting out the embarrassment of asking a physician or other health care worker to prescribe the drugs or a pharmacist to fulfill the prescription.
Interestingly, I was not put in touch with this man by National Right to Life, but by the public information officer of the Guttmacher Institute. She told me the expert on ECPs was Princeton Professor James Trussell.
Professor Trussell estimates close to half of the decline in abortions seen in the past few years is due to the growing use of ECP's:
Trussell and colleagues have estimated that for each pregnancy that occurs after use of emergency contraceptive pills, three pregnancies are prevented. In 2000, 1.3 million abortions were performed in the United States. If 17,000 (1.3%) pregnancies that ended in abortion occurred after the use of emergency contraceptive pills, approximately 51,000 pregnancies that would have ended in abortion were prevented. By comparison, only 0.1%, or 1,400, of the 1.4 million abortions in 1994 occurred after use of oral emergency contraceptives, and about 4,000 abortions were prevented by their use. The increase in the use of emergency contraceptive pills may account for a significant part of the recent reduction in abortions nationally: The number of abortions in 2000 was 110,000 fewer than in 1994, and an estimated 47,000 more abortions were prevented by emergency contraception in 2000 than in 1994; thus, emergency contraception could account for 43% of the decrease in abortions.
An article co-authored by Trussell and Frank Davidoff MD (chair of JAMA's Journal Oversight Committee) that appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) made every effort to dispel the notion that ECPs--specifically Plan B--prevent implantation. Yet the article admitted the Vatican had declared "the proven ‘anti-implantation’ action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion."
Note that well:
Huffing and puffing about the Vatican "subverting sound science-based public policy," Trussell and Davidoff went on to say:
Driven by the belief by some that interference with implantation is a form of abortion, the politics of doubt about Plan B’s contraceptive mechanism appears to have contributed not only to the delay in its OTC availability but also to the continuing refusal by some emergency services to provide the drug to rape survivors as well as refusal by some pharmacists to make it available to individual patients.
The authors' personal commitments on the matter are clear. Had we any doubt, under a "Disclosure" heading at the bottom of the page, JAMA printed the following:
Drs Davidoff and Trussell were members of the joint FDA advisory committee that voted to approve the OTC (over-the-counter) marketing of Plan B in the United States.
Following a survey of the literature concerning Plan B's mechanism of action, Trussell and Davidoff concluded:
In the absence of absolute proof about Plan B's mechanisms of action, the right to make personal decisions about whether its use is morally acceptable must be respected and for that reason women should continue to be informed, as they are now in the Plan B labeling, that its use may affect postfertilization events. At the same time, however, all women should be informed that the ability of Plan B to interfere with implantation remains speculative, since virtually no evidence supports that mechanism and some evidence contradicts it. Women should also be informed that the best available evidence indicates that Plan B's ability to prevent pregnancy can be fully accounted for by mechanisms that do not involve interference with post-fertilization events.
Note their admission that there is an "absence of absolute proof," and that "women should continue to be informed, as they are now in the Plan B labeling, that its use may" prevent implantation.
The hour of decision
There is no question the armies of birth control are militantly promoting early medical abortion as well as every form of emergency contraceptive pharmaceutical. There also is no question truth in labeling has required all the pharmaceutical companies selling these chemicals, as well as the physicians and health care workers writing prescriptions for them, to admit women taking these medications are risking the life of their unborn child through the prevention of implantation of the child on the mother's uterus.
The Guttmacher Institute has no problem with this. The Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health have no problem with this. The American College of Obstreticians and Gynecologists has no problem with this. Why?
Because all of them agree with the redefinition of conception and pregnancy as the moment when the little baby successfully attaches himself to his mother's uterus.
But what of the people of God? When do we believe that little child's life begins? And what of National Right to Life--when do they believe that little child's life begins?
The number of surgical abortions will continue to decrease, first in the developed world, but quickly following in the developing and undeveloped world. And as surgical abortions decline, medical abortions--both those done by drugs whose mechanism of action is exclusively the sloughing off of the unborn child attached to the uterus and those done by drugs which work both by preventing fertilization and by preventing the implantation of the tiny child--will grow exponentially. We've know this was coming for decades, and now it's come to pass.
The commonplace use of Birth Control Pills by believers is a large obstacle in the path of leading the Church today to confront this sea-change in our growing culture of death. But confront it we must.
After the Flood, God commanded Noah:
Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. As for you, be fruitful and multiply; populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it. (Genesis 9:5-7)
Sooner or later, believers will face the fact that we have turned our back on these commands--both the command to be fruitful and multiply, to populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it; but also (and at the same time) the command, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed."
Most of the use of birth control in the Church today violates both commands. Not always. Maybe not even very often. But often enough that pharmaceuticals and the birth control lobby are conscience bound to warn prospective mothers of the possibility that they are murdering their unborn child. They, at least, believe in full disclosure.
It remains to be seen whether pastors, elders, deacons, seminary professors, and Titus 2 women also believe in full disclosure, or whether there are some truths too, too inconvenient to our sterile and lavish lifestyle to allow to be mentioned.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (17)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Kamilla on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Craig French on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Abram Hess on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Kamilla on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Shaun DuFault on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
Comments
It will be interesting to see how many people respond to this post. The seat squirming this will cause with "Christians" will be great I imagine. As someone who at one time thought nothing of the "pill", I can tell you this is a major blind spot in many if not most churches. It all really comes down to us really believing children are a blessing. Many think keeping it from happening is somehow better than visiting a "clinic". Where is the scripture for that? When was "avoiding pregnancy" viewed as fine?
Scott
>It will be interesting to see how many people respond to this post.
I'm not sure what that would tell us. I wasn't planning on responding because I agreed with in its entirety.
We went through pastoral counseling before we married nearly 25 years ago and NO ONE told us the pill might cause abortions. It took reading this information in a couple of places before we were horrified and convinced of this truth. We tried discussing this information with other Christians and found it to be something few wished to discuss. Thankfully, God has blessed us with 7 children. We did however have 2 miscarriages which research has indicated was probably cause by previous pill usage.
The interesting thing is that when we married we had no intention of using any form of birth control since it made sense to let God decide when He wished to bless us with children. Other Christians convinced us we should wait for a couple of years. We figured we should heed counsel of older, "wiser" Christians.
God has blessed us through our children, teaching us grow in our trust of Him. God in His mercy overlooked our faithlessness.
I agree with Deb above, we used the pill for a number of years not knowing about the pill. I think that with many Christian doctors prescribing them, people think it is okay. We have told several couples about the aborting effects of the pill and they have all been unaware. Most were aware of the IUD though.
When it comes to having children, most Christian couples follow the world's standards. I have been guilty of that myself in the early years of my marriage. I was told by many to wait till you are out of school etc. and really didn't seek what God wanted me to do. Also, when you consider that most of the families had only 2 children it just reinforced everything that I was believing.
We now have 4 children and lost one due to miscarriage also. I think that the whole child agenda is taboo for most pastors to touch. There is that "Christian liberty," card that most believers want to "throw down" when you get into that topic. Doesn't seem to be much of a problem for the mormons and muslims that I know. They statistically have larger families and will quickly tell you why.
I am starting to see more than 2 children families in our small church. It is approximately 3 now and then they stop. I think what all this boils down too is believer's just trusting God. We trust him for our salvation and that is about the extent that we are willing to let Him have control of our lives. Our nation's pastors don't for the most part, have any more trust then average parishoner or I hope they would be exhorting from the pulpits a different message. I know that I need to pray more for our church both locally and nationally on this matter that God would raise up more Godly men and women who would find joy in having larger families. Also for pastors that would deal with the subject in their churches.
>We trust him for our salvation and that is about the extent that we are willing to let Him have control of our lives.
Is such a man a disciple of Christ? And are pastors who don't preach, teach, and live faith in the particulars true or false shepherds?
This weighs on me heavily. Please pray for me.
"I'm not sure what that would tell us. I wasn't planning on responding because I agreed with in its entirety."
By "respond" I not only mean on this blog but also make a change/preach/teach, about this subject. I am grateful that I attend a church that does discuss this subject in view of God's Word.
>By "respond" I not only mean on this blog but also make a change/preach/teach, about this subject.
How do you intend to "see" that?
Well said, Chuck P.
>How do you intend to "see" that?
The same way that I "see" it's not happening now.
>The same way that I "see" it's not happening now.
Your vision is better than mine.
Dear David,
Sorry, but I must agree with Scott on this one.
When I write on abortion, the silence grieves me. It's no way to build readership or dialog on the comments section. I've observed (seen) this for years. Take a look at the SiteMeter stats and you'll note how few readers there are for posts on this theme. Granted, this post is very long and that will account for some of the lack of readership. But it's the same with short posts.
Then, Scott's even more on the money concerning preaching, particularly in reformed pulpits. Getting reformed shepherds to preach on any of the gaps--particularly the death culture and its inroads in the church, as well as the connection between sex and authority--is impossible.
Someone once characterized the pulpit ministry of a PCA pastor he'd sat under for ten years as endless sermons that said, "You're even worse than you thought, but God loves you more than you could ever imagine."
Note not a single comment on the section of this post dealing with abortion prevalence rates in our churches.
The duty and privilege of shepherds standing in the gap for the souls they defend is largely absent from reformed pulpits, yet our Lord said this is the key determinant of faithful shepherding. (See John 10.)
I'd love to hear from pastors who disagree with this assessment.
With love,
Pr. Tim,
"I'd love to hear from pastors who disagree with this assessment."
Disagree with John 10? You can't mean that, so it must be that you want to know if any disagree with this: "The duty and privilege of shepherds standing in the gap for the souls they defend is largely absent from reformed pulpits,..."
Otherwise, I'm confused on your point here.
But, from outside "strictly Reformed" circles though I keep close fellowship with some thoroughly Reformed pastors, I'd offer this observation: shepherds standing in the gap for the souls they defend in their flocks is largely missing across broadly evangelical American Protestantism of just about any stripe you care to name.
I say this because (as you know) part of my ministry brings me into contact with broadly evangelical American Protestants of every stripe in connection with efforts to educate the same folks on elementary Biblical theology of the sexes. My contacts occur at two levels:
1. Laity. These are people in the pews who are dismayed, confused, alarmed, and otherwise anxious with the way evangelicalism has more or less thrown itself into the feminist abyss in the past couple of decades. Such folk eagerly receive our ministry "under the radar" of their ecclesiastical environs, in home Bible studies, or campus studies, or in some parachurch Bible studies.
2. Clergy. Here I refer to pastors, CE directors, men's and women's ministry directors, ruling/teaching elders, and similar folk. From these we usually get a very cold shoulder because "gender issues" in the church are known to be controversial and none of these church leaders wishes to foul the nest over which they preside.
So, yes, shepherds of all stripes have acted as hirelings for a long time here in America. Teaching and preaching of doctrine and Bible has been neglected so thoroughly now that my college-aged daughters refuse to go to campus ministries (including RUF) because the meetings remind them of Liberal Methodist Sunday School classes -- nothing heretical; just endless fluffiness.
Frankly, Tim, I wonder if you understand how blessed you and your colleagues are in your own ecclesiastical environs. One reason you are able to preach and teach as you do is that the Lord has blessed your sheep with ears that can hear and eyes that can see and hearts that can understand. I assure you that other pastors who would mimick you would be met with crowds carrying torches and pitchforks. Or pastor-sized crosses. Just like Jesus promised.
At any rate, the problem you sense within Reformed circles is not confined to them so far as I can tell. It's everywhere.
Why would we expect an organization that lends political support to men running for office who believe the state ought to protect the "right" of mothers and doctors to murder unborn children conceived through a crime to speak out against chemical abortions? Expecting NRL to have a consistent and coherent pro-life position is like expecting evangelicals to have a consistent and coherent political position. The Bayly brothers are rare in their clarity and courage, and I thank God for them. RCJR
All should realize that if this present administration has it's way and health care is taken out of the hands of the individual and placed under the auspices of the government we can expect far worse. Abortion is just the tip of the iceberg. You can add euthanasia to it and know that such practices will not only be allowed but dictated as sanctity of life is replaced with quality of life. The qualifications for life (ones usefulness to society weighed against one's cost of maintenance) will be determined by the state. How comforting. We are about to experience a health care system with the efficiency of the post office and the compassion of the IRS.
Dear Tim,
Thank you for taking the time and length to give more detail here. I knew about the abortifacient nature of "the pill" and the deception practiced upon and by doctors to avoid conscience-conflicts. But I did not know that the ACG officially changed the definition of conception to make their lies true-in-letter.
... it is difficult to maintain mental awareness of this mass-murder and go about life in any sort of normal fashion. I have to mentally numb myself to it to be able to read, eat, sleep, talk, write programs, etc... I do not think that God desires us to live constantly in sackcloth and ashes, but what is the proper countenance?
Blessings,
Keith
Tim,
My guess is that it is not being preached from the pulpit because it is not taught in the seminaries - and that covers anything from "emergency contraception" to the "surplus embryos" of IVF to something like Natural Family Planning (which is, in my experience, dismissed as a "Catholic" thing). Of course, these same seminaries are entirely given over to "Egalitarianism" and the neutering of Holy Scriptures. Funny thing, that.
I recently asked a local pro-life director if anyone kept stats on the incidence of abortion in the church. She said the last information she saw (it was about 10 years old) indicated it was about 30% in the church. And that was BEFORE medical/chemical abortions became available.
Kamilla
My wife worked at as nurse practitioner at a local CPC and many women were professing Christians. There were wives and daughters of ministers and some traveled quite a distance to discuss the issues. The main thing my wife revealed to me was the pressure that they got from parents and boyfriends. Mostly men. The women knew it was wrong but felt trapped and had no one to turn too (except the CPC which often gave them hope.) She told me that the women often felt hopeless because they depended on them for moral and physical support and the men of course would threaten to withdraw that. It takes quite a woman to see "I will go it alone."
Fr. Bill,
I can't say for certain but I would have thought that Tim having people who will listen is about faithful preaching rather than being at the right place at the right time.
This whole issue is so tied up in how we raise our children and how we behave in our churches. Are large families treasured or are they seen as a liability. When I was starting my family I didn't really know any large strong families, it all seemed impossible to trust God with our "family planning" - this wasn't helped by the fact that it was impossible to find anyone to babysit our kids and by child #3 I was feeling like I was going a little crazy. A few years back it had been 8 years since my wife and I had been away for even one overnight without the kids.
There are so many practical ways each of us can create a culture of life in our churches and help destroy the idols of our day.
Fr. Bill,
As one of Tim's sheep, I will certainly say that it is the truth of the Word in the preaching by Tim, Dave Curell, and Stephen Baker that keeps me coming. They refuse to preach what will tickle ears, and constantly warn us of the dangers to our souls if we do not heed God's Word. That is the power of God in drawing His Sheep to Himself. To other pastors, I'd say, "Be faithful and preach the Word, and God will draw the sheep with it." I wouldn't want to be told anything BUT the truth, and I praise God my pastors are obedient.
'...She told me that the women often felt hopeless because they depended on them for moral and physical support and the men of course would threaten to withdraw that. It takes quite a woman to see "I will go it alone." '
After a woman, who has been used, and left, keeps her child, who in our churches will marry her?
Fr. Bill,
You comments about how Tim's preaching would be received in other congregations reminds me of Chesterton's statement on Christianity:
"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."
Tim doesn't meet with literal torches and pitchforks every week, but he has multiple people furious with him every week for preaching the Word. That said, God has given him sheep with eyes to see and ears to hear, but I'm convinced that the Holy Spirit used the very practical means of faithful preaching to open those eyes and unstop those ears.
Having read and appreciated your comments in the past, I suspect you probably agree with what I'm saying. I'm just trying to clarify some of what you said for other readers. There are probably many hirelings out there who salve their consciences by pointing to the fact that their sheep don't have eyes to see and ears to hear bold preaching. So instead of faithfully pursuing the means the Holy Spirit would use to turn hearts of stone to flesh, they tone it down (or worse yet, preach a different Gospel) to "be all things to all people."
>I'm convinced that the Holy Spirit used the very practical means of faithful preaching to open those eyes and unstop those ears.
That is very true but I think it is also true that on occasion ministers pay a very stiff price at the hands of their congregation for being faithful. To my mind I think the Church of the Good Shepherd should be thankful for Pastor Bayly and Pastor Bayly should be thankful for the Church of the Good Shepherd. And I suspect both are.
>And I suspect both are.
Hear hear!
There are many flocks and shepherds who are faithful, but I am not. May God make me so. Though I prophesy in His Name, but have not love...
David has a similarly godly congregation which spurs him on to faithfulness--but particularly, elders; don't ever think small thoughts about the impact of godly elders on the faithfulness of pastors.
As for anger, it's often due to my failure to meet expectations of what a good sermon should be after the soul has been conditioned by other pastors who have "a helpful thought for the week," as Rita Cuffey would put it. Honest pagans are interested, but evangelicals furious.
If an evangelical returns for three or four weeks, it's a good sign of God's grace and he then begins to lose the inoculation against the authority of God's Word his time at Wheaton/Calvin/Taylor/this-or-that-evangelical-church-or-parachurch-ministry cultivated in him.
* * *
By the way, there's only been one blogger who's linked to this post--and even that, not a pro-life blog. If any of you can help with this, please do. This is a post that needs to be read widely. And in five years, I've never said that before. Please, then, don't accuse me harshly for asking your help.
Love,
"That is very true but I think it is also true that on occasion ministers pay a very stiff price at the hands of their congregation for being faithful. To my mind I think the Church of the Good Shepherd should be thankful for Pastor Bayly and Pastor Bayly should be thankful for the Church of the Good Shepherd. And I suspect both are."
David,
Couldn't agree more.
Adam
Dear David Gray,
"That is very true but I think it is also true that on occasion ministers pay a very stiff price at the hands of their congregation for being faithful. "
Yes. Every pastor will pay a stiff price for preaching truth. Not only on occasion, but consistently and constantly. David and Tim are probably at the head of this list. Tim was kicked out of a church several years ago for his faithfulness in preaching and his unwillingness to tickle ears. The church he now serves numbers in the hundreds in Bloomington, not the thousands in Wheaton or Denver, or Chicago, or LA, or NYC.
These are men who are evangelical blue bloods. Descended from a famous evangelical author and Tim married into the family of Ken Taylor, either could probably have had any church in the country after putting in his time. They could BE Tim Keller or Dobson or any manner of others RIGHT NOW.
They not only have paid the price in worldly stature, but continue to pay the price for faithful preaching and teaching. Daily. And this is the primary reason that I count myself among the most blessed on this earth to be sitting not only under Tim's preaching, but in his family as well.
The focus of other pastors should not be on the price that they will pay, but rather on faithfulness to their Heavenly Father and on the price that they will pay if they are NOT faithful stewards of His word. Take encouragement from looking at Tim and David. They too have the scars of their faithful service to Christ that Paul boasts about in 2 Corinthians 11. Moreover they suffer it consistently. If you are a pastor, look hard at your own life. Do you see evidence of this cost of faithfulness?
If not, why? Are you the exception to suffering at the hand of others in your service to Christ? Or are you not preaching, teaching, exhorting, and disciplining faithfully, consistently, daily and with tears?
God is faithful. He does not require of us what He has not already given us the grace to do. (I Cor. 10:13) Yours is a high (indeed the highest) calling. Do not treat it like a job. Serve your Maker as if He were watching. Love us, your sheep, by feeding us from the Word faithfully. Go and lead your flocks to the true, living water. And anticipate - and indeed welcome - suffering for it. It is proof of your inheritance.
I'm not sure you understood what I wrote if it prompted this.
Dear David,
I didn't think that was what you were saying, necessarily. I guess I just used your comment as an opening to exhort all pastors to faithfulness. I wasn't addressing you specifically. (Guess I shouldn't have titled it just o you then, huh?) I don't think from my recollection of what you write here that you are one of those that is unfaithful. However, even when I am being faithful in my job, I need exhortation and encouragement to continue to be so as it is costly. Please forgive me if I offended.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Pastor Tim, it's a most excellent post.
Observations: I would say that a very, very, very small percentage of pastors would consider themselves to be hirelings. What does that tell you? Furthermore, I would say that there are very few pastors who would tell another pastor face-to-face, one-on-one that they are a hireling. What does that tell you?
I would surmise that many pastors who read articles or posts decrying the growing number of hirelings in the pulpit oftentimes think it's about other pastors, not themselves. If so, what to do?
If one writes a general lament and the target audience thinks it's referring to someone else, to some unknown others, and not to himself, and because of it takes no action, then what?
And if a pastor calls out another pastor (which many are very loathe to do, and understandably so) and the relationship is injured or not strong enough to withstand the critical feedback, then the Adversary can benefit from that scenario as well.
After a bruising election season, and ongoing gay marriage fights, and Obama and FOCA, many in the Church are shirking back from the culture war for fear of being stigmatized and for fear of the gospel being diminished because they are associated with the "Religious Right" and these two so-called "wedge" issues. In fact, there is an article by Michael Spencer, otherwise known as the Internet Monk, who is asserting that there's going to be the Death of Evangelicalism because of being too closely associated with political conservatism and the boogeyman known as the Religious Right.
What does that tell you? So while you're advocating for more boldness of preaching in the pulpit, others are telling pastors and preachers to refrain from preaching on "culture war" issues. What say thee?
>Please forgive me if I offended.
No problem, just wondered if I'd missed something.
When asking myself how have we gotten to this point of numbness, of coldness towards murder, I can't help but think back to being a 23-year-old mother with 3 kids age 3 and under and the comments I received from Christian women. Not: "You go girl! Raise up the next generation." Not: "I know you are busy right now but what a tremendous blessing God has given you." But instead I remember women at Bible study (this was before we attended Tim's church) indirectly looking for reassurance that I, well, knew what caused this (said with a nervous chuckle) and I, well, was taking all responsible measures. I got the message from them loud and clear: You having another baby right now is unthinkable!
That one idea is what gives birth to the desire to take all measures to prevent pregnancy and not care if the method is abortafacient. If we allow God's people to believe that lie, that there are times when a pregnancy is unthinkable, we've lost the battle.
On a lighter note, I was refreshed to visit Tim's church once from out of town and hear him pray from the pulpit, "Lord, thank you for so many dirty diapers." Nobody cracked up, he was entirely serious, and went on to thank God for all the babies crying in the nurseries as well.
It brought tears to my eyes because I was exhausted with my kids and it hadn't occurred to me to be thankful for my exhaustion. We had been in the car all day the two days before with my baby and 2 year old crying most of the time (my husband had a business trip, I didn't have to come, I just thought it'd be so "fun") and then our transmission had broken down in forever-cornfield Illinois, we had to rent a car that all our stuff didn't fit in, and we were late to church that morning and we had been short with each other because we left my Grandmother's very proper house littered with cherrios and various other trip chaos (she didn't seem to mind but it bothered my husband) and the 2yo old who had been potty trained for month before this trip kept wetting her pants (it's all true people)--and then: Lord, we thank you for the blessing of dirty diapers. I suddenly realized that all those things that I was so muffled about were really blessings.
"Meditate prayerfully and with love on those women of our congregations whose hands are stained by their child's blood and we'll read Isaiah 40 with new eyes. We'll train the next generation of shepherds to be on the watch for consciences afflicted by this horror, locked in a terrible prison of secret guilt and shame."
Amen! This is so important. We meet these women every day and we do not even know who they are. We can't see it because we are all so busy trying to hide our own sin that we can not see the pain of past and maybe even current sin in the eyes of our fellow Christians who we worship with every week; those we are called to love like family.
"And are pastors who don't preach, teach, and live faith in the particulars true or false shepherds?"
Again, Amen. All I know is that sitting under pastors who did not preach, teach and live faith in the particulars for twelve years did not help me. I was never called to true repentance and therefore I questioned if God's grace really was sufficient for even the sin of murder through abortion. Yes, it makes me cry every time that I hear Tim preach about abortion and call me to repentance, but I know that he does this because he knows that I and the other women who have committed this evil need to repent and let the grace of God's gift of salvation cover us and heal us through Christ Jesus.
"After a woman, who has been used, and left, keeps her child, who in our churches will marry her?"
Great question Rachel. If we hope to end this in our churches we have to take the passages about helping the widows and orphans and in our day and age young, unwed mothers literally. An unwed mother has to have her life size Scarlett Letter sitting by her every Sunday for everyone to look down at her for, but a woman who has killed her child to spare herself from the humiliation of her own sin, like I myself have done, can sit in a church for 12 years pretending to be perfect. This is the sad, sad state of our churches today. May God have mercy on us all.
-Ginger
Leslie,
I couldn't agree with you more. Thank you for raising a family and not giving in to obstacles you described.
It's clear in our culture and even our churches (in general) that children aren't wanted. We expect that if people do have families that somehow they should be perfectly neat, tidy, independent and anonymous. We are not a culture of life but sterility.
But you know isn't it nice that we have beautiful sterling white carpet in our 8,000 sq. ft. homes and no children to dirty it.
Families are messy but so is life.
"After a woman, who has been used, and left, keeps her child, who in our churches will marry her?"
This presupposes that she should get married. Loneliness is an awful thing. Getting into a bad marriage because you're lonely is worse. I've seen such bad transitions too many times.
>"After a woman, who has been used, and left, keeps her child, who in our churches will marry her?"
Is anyone under an obligation to marry her? Every man must make the choice of who he wants to pursue in a wife but if all other things are equal is it reasonable to expect a man to prefer a woman who didn't save herself for marriage over one who did? There may be good cause to on a case by case basis but this woman in a church will not likely be the only unmarried woman in the church. How should a woman feel if she was chaste when she was single and would then find the church's men preferring women who had not been chaste?
In light of President Obama's 100% approval rating with NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the most natural question is which Protestant church will withhold him from the Lord's Supper and discipline him for his pro-abortion views and his recent executive order regarding embryonic stem-cell research?
David, Nick,
Of course you're both right but I'm really saddened that you missed Rahchel's point so completely. The point here is that we should consider our motives and realize that the only reward for not aborting your child in our churches is a lifetime of loneliness that apparently some will have no sympathy for.
Sorry, that last comment was by me not Ginger.
David,
After all, the woman who has an abortion has the luxury of looking chaste whereas the foolish woman who has the child (because perhaps her family did not teach her to have the proper level of pride such that she covers one sin with a far worse one).
Thus you've clearly illustrated why abortion happens in our churches.
>After all, the woman who has an abortion has the luxury of looking chaste whereas the foolish woman who has the child (because perhaps her family did not teach her to have the proper level of pride such that she covers one sin with a far worse one).
Yes, we don't actually have any women who actually are chaste, do we. Just women who have abortions and those who don't.
>Thus you've clearly illustrated why abortion happens in our churches.
With all due respect that is a foolish statement (unlike a good many of your statements). We don't have abortions in churches because we value chastity, we have abortions in churches because we do not.
>The point here is that we should consider our motives
Our motives for what?
>and realize that the only reward for not aborting your child in our churches is a lifetime of loneliness that apparently some will have no sympathy for.
The only reward God offers for being contrite and doing what is right is loneliness? It may involve loneliness but I think you're off the track. God honours those who are repentant and offers more than just "a lifetime of loneliness."
My grandmother spent fifty years alone after my grandfather died from his 25 years of trials on the mission field and I know it involved loneliness at times (as well as raising her children) but it is also true that marriage is not the only antidote to loneliness. She was poor but had a life rich in those whom she prayed for and aided while she was alone.
PS The woman who does not kill her child but raises her child avoids a kind of loneliness that can't be remedied with marriage I suspect.
>the most natural question is which Protestant church will withhold him from the Lord's Supper and discipline him for his pro-abortion views and his recent executive order regarding embryonic stem-cell research?
What Protestant church holds him in membership? If the OPC withholds the Lords Supper from him isn't that a bit of a pose? At least when Donald Cargill excommunicated Charles II the king was at least formally a member of the Kirk.
David,
I think the way you're choosing to look at this is very cold.
The point here is that many men and women both have sexual sin in their pasts but the woman bears the unique "choice" of how to handle it and the man has the ability to go on and turn away from his sin and marry a "chaste" woman in the church while his ex has to potentially live a life of loneliness.
Is the average man in the church today truly concerned that a woman he's interested in is a virgin or merely that she has no children? I would argue mostly the latter.
Of course obeying and glorifying our Heavenly father is a woman's reason for not killing her child through abortion after the initial sin, but this is a hard thing to face.
We give our women this option do the right thing and be alone, do the wrong thing and be able to repent and still have her choice of the "best" men.
I don't think me, Ginger or Rachel's point was that unmarried mothers need to be married off first or that anyone has any obligation to marry these women but that it is a shame that in reality such women would never be considered at all, even to the extent that it would be right to consider them.
Of course there are real consequences to sin but lets not make it worse than it has to be. Do we have to look at these women as damaged goods the rest of their lives when in reality there are many many impure men and women in the church who have no obvious sign that they are thus?
You're assuming that we suggested that these pure chaste men in the church have to marry tainted women, this is not what we were saying but as for myself, it is sad that the only men who would typically consider marrying a women who has children is a man who is somewhat damaged goods himself and thus ensuring that a good marriage cannot be made.
All we're saying is that in an ideal world, there would be men who would take these women and help them - not out of pity but because we could truly love them.
Also, why is this the point that's being jumped on instead of the load of others in this post?
David, Nick,
Sorry for coming off sounding so annoyed. From what you said - the trouble is that we don't value chastity we value the appearance of chastity, this is huge hypocrisy in our churches and the world sees it. Also each week at Planned Parenthood we see people pull up taking their daughters in for abortions driving cars with little fish on them and crosses hanging from their mirrors. Also, we see people in such dress that you can tell they come from churches with strict legalistic guidelines on dress such that they cannot even break them while going in to murder their children and grandchildren.
I was talking Wed to one of the directors of our Crisis Pregnancy Center here in Bloomington and she said tons of the girls who come in after having had abortions are from Christian homes where the appearance of sin is worse than sin itself.
That's all we're saying, we need to avoid true sin and not reward covering of sin in such a heinous way.
With respect and affection,
Clint
>I think the way you're choosing to look at this is very cold.
I am not surprised to be told that. It would be a standard part of this sort of discussion.
>Is the average man in the church today truly concerned that a woman he's interested in is a virgin or merely that she has no children? I would argue mostly the latter.
But if he's actually concerned with genuine chastity then that isn't a problem. Good. And I don't know that "mostly the latter" would be my experience.
>We give our women this option do the right thing and be alone, do the wrong thing and be able to repent and still have her choice of the "best" men.
Really? If choosing between somebody who killed their child and somebody who loved their child enough to save it who do you think I'd want caring for my children? If you want to suggest that I'm marrying somebody who's lying to me about their past abortions then maybe I've been taken in but it isn't because of indifference to abortion or a hostility to children.
>I don't think me, Ginger or Rachel's point was that unmarried mothers need to be married off first or that anyone has any obligation to marry these women but that it is a shame that in reality such women would never be considered at all, even to the extent that it would be right to consider them.
I'm glad that is the case because the words used suggested that and if it hadn't been phrased in such a way as to suggest marriage is required I'd have probably have thought, "well written" and gone on. I don't know that we inhabit the same universe. I have close family that will likely be marrying a good Christian single mother in the near future. And he's a genuine gentlemen, a fine catch in my opinion.
>We give our women this option do the right thing and be alone, do the wrong thing and be able to repent and still have her choice of the "best" men.
Then presumably you're calling for the ostracization of repentant women who've had abortions? But I can't imagine that is the case. And again, as my wife pointed out to me, the woman who doesn't have her child killed ISN'T alone, although she may be without husband. If a man looking for a wife is indifferent to abortion then he really isn't the "best." Although presumably you don't want to call for a marriage ban on repentant mothers who've had abortions.
>All we're saying is that in an ideal world, there would be men who would take these women and help them - not out of pity but because we could truly love them.
I've no problem with the church helping them and having compassion. It was the linking of marriage as a requirement in the original quote that seemed quite off kilter. As worded the original post seemed to suggest that the only way a church could show itself to be compassionate was to make sure its young men married available single mothers.
>Also, why is this the point that's being jumped on instead of the load of others in this post?
Because so much of what has been said in this post is spot on and doesn't require comment except maybe, well done?
>That's all we're saying, we need to avoid true sin and not reward covering of sin in such a heinous way.
Amen and amen. Pass the ammunition...
I apologize for hijacking this post. It was not my intention. I for one, have been convicted by this and other posts here.
I was not born a Christian. I am not good by nature. I was found bloody and dirty and dead by my Savior, and He gave me life and cleaned me up and He loves me, hugely. I certainly did not deserve a husband, but God gave me one. I did not deserve any children, but God gave me two.
I know all about lasting consequences of sins. I know all about the abounding grace of the just and merciful God, who delights in me.
My comment was probably too vague. My intention was to get people to think. My concern is not particularly about marriage. There are many heartaches in life that are lasting effects of our sin, our fathers' sins, or just Sin. I know we live in a fallen world.
My question, and it doesn't need an answer, was more about the extent of our love. Do we love those who are different from us (either as evidenced by their clothing, their education level, or their obvious sin, even by the number of generations of faith through which they come) completely, with abandon?
We love them. I won't deny that. I've seen it. I've felt it. I wonder, though, do we love them from above, or from within? Do we love them with our hearts covered or naked?
With Tears,
Rachel
>I wonder, though, do we love them from above, or from within? Do we love them with our hearts covered or naked?
Even the most noble things I've done are tainted through with sin and even my best motivations are mixed at best. I suspect I'm not unique.
> I am not surprised to be told that. It would be a standard part of this sort of discussion.
Why should it be? Tim Bayly's comments are often the most abrasive any of us will ever hear but I don't remember ever thinking that they sound cold regarding truly repentant people. We don't have to sound cold in a discussion like this to speak truth.
Rachel's (thanks Rachel) comments often get to the heart of issues (issues we don't want to think about) which is that do we really love people in our midst, despite their sin as Christ first loved us?
This sort of love is very rare, and I'm not arguing that I have it but I wish I did.
Rachel's comment was surely intended to cause us to see the depths of our own vanity and also the depth of the love we can have and show in Christ.
The world sees our love or lack of love through how we treat people in our churches. There is one such unwed mom I know is a huge witness, good and bad, to the world about how the churches treat such sins.
David, surely you know we do agree on almost all of this - we're just looking at it from different angles. We both could use to step out of our typical thinking and see things differently with the help of our brothers and sisters. I thank you.
>We don't have to sound cold in a discussion like this to speak truth.
Absolutely. But judging who sounds cold is a subjective matter.
>Rachel's comment was surely intended to cause us to see the depths of our own vanity and also the depth of the love we can have and show in Christ.
And I think her last comment did a great job of that.
>David, surely you know we do agree on almost all of this - we're just looking at it from different angles.
Pretty much and we bring different experiences to the table.
>We both could use to step out of our typical thinking and see things differently with the help of our brothers and sisters. I thank you.
As you and your wife so often do for me. I envy you your church just a little bit...
Rachel,
Without disagreeing with much of what Clint or David has said, I do thank you for your comment. I can and must understand and proclaim the heinousness of the sin of abortion, the necessity and benefits of repentance, and also the lingering sorrow of even forgiven sin. Yet how hard it is to truly enter into the sorrow of a woman who is, at that moment, Jesus to me—and how easy it is to be rather a clanging cymbal.
Thanks for having a tender heart able to say things just hasty enough to be convicting.
Warmly,
Josh
My Christian brother and I didn't talk for six months after I tried to discuss the abortifacient nature of the Pill. He told me that he totally trusted his wife's decision. Both he and his wife view my attempts to address this issue as 'contentious'. It's too bad that Christian husbands are caught up in the feminist movement, too.
Pages
Add new comment