Carl Trueman: We Lost the Sacredness of Things

 This is a really fascinating, at times provocative discussion.  I think he is definitely onto some things here...

Why so much mental illness and gender confusion among young people?

Many of us, especially those with children, have grave concerns about the dramatic rise in mental illness, anxiety, depression, suicide and other "deaths of despair", and also gender confusion and LGBTQPIAN+ lifestyle among young adults, and even children.
This is a great discussion between Megyn Kelly and mental health professional, Dr. Nicolas Karadras.  The good doctor is willing to say exactly what the evidence points toward, even if some may be afraid to state the obvious.  It is worth your time: 

Thoughts on Voting

 

Anglican Commentary on 'hot-button' issues

For some reason I get emails on occasion from the Anglican Church in North America, and even more occasionally I actually read them.  One such email linked me to a couple of recent articles on "hot-button" issues that - as a Methodist pastor and as a patriotic citizen - I am also very concerned about so I thought I'd share them with anyone who cares to think through these issues a little more.

The first is about doctor-assisted suicide being mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada.  The full article is HERE. I thought the commentary was very interesting, here is a quote:

Like previous legal decisions that have undercut the Judeo-Christian moral foundation of our society, this decision favours the few who have politically powerful advocates and whose stories have been given high profile in the media; but it ignores the harm that may come to the many who are politically weak, physically vulnerable, and have few if any advocates.
In anticipation of this decision, Father Raymond de Souza wrote in the National Post, “that to embrace euthanasia and suicide as constitutional rights involved three revolutions in jurisprudence: 

i) abandoning the legal principle that every life is always a good to be protected, 

ii) embracing the idea that suicide is a social good, and 

iii) removing the particular obligation of the law to protect the weak and vulnerable.”
Citing the experience of Belgium where euthanasia and assisted suicide were legalized in 2002 and where the safeguards have rapidly eroded and the categories of those eligible have grown to the point that even children can now be euthanized, Father de Souza, expects that soon “we will hear positive reviews from the telegenic advocates of expanding the number of suicides and people euthanized in Canada. They will have compelling stories to tell.  We will not hear from those who have no advocates — the isolated elderly, alone with no one to speak for them, judged to be burdensome to our health system. The disabled who will now wonder if their doctors are coming with counsels of death do not have fashionable advocates. The truly weak and vulnerable, the exploited and abandoned, do not hold press conferences. The Charter becomes a tool of the powerful against the weak, much like medicine will increasingly become in the age of euthanasia and suicide.” 

The piece goes on to suggest how Christians can pray and act given this situation.  Those of us in the US can make sure that our state and federal legislators hear our concerns as well.  As a United Methodist pastor, I am sworn to uphold the teachings of the United Methodist Church as expressed in our Book of Discipline; I've said before that if I could not in good conscience do so, I would not be a pastor in this particular denomination.  Certainly this is a difficult issue requiring careful distinctions, and that is reflected in our church's current statement on this issue, which makes a distinction between allowing death to take its course naturally on the one hand, and actively killing a person on the other:

There is no moral or religious obligations to use [medical technologies] when they impose undue burdens or only extend the process of dying.  Dying persons and their families are free to discontinue treatments when they cease to be of benefit to the patient...Even when one accepts the inevitability of death, the Church and society must continue to provide faithful care, including relief of pain, companionship, support, and spiritual nurture for the dying person in the hard work of preparing for death... We reject euthanasia and any pressure upon the dying to end their lives.  God has continued love and purposes for all persons, regardless of health.  We affirm laws and policies that protect the rights and dignity of the dying. (Para. 161.B, page. 109).

People sometimes appeal to our compassion in these cases - which is understandable because suffering can be so horrible - saying things like "You would put a terminally ill animal out of its misery, why not extend the same compassion to a human being?"  This seems a strong argument at first glance.  Yet there are many things we do with animals that we consider immoral to do to a human being, precisely because the dignity of a human life is of a completely different order: for example we lock animals in cages or keep them in zoos against their will, we force oxen to pull plows and horses to carry heavy burdens.  None of this we would do to people.  Our law assumes - as the Bible explicitly teaches in Genesis 1:27 - that human beings have a kind of sacred worth and dignity that sets us apart from the animals.  This truth is is the source of the legal principle, mentioned above, that every human life is a good to be protected.

The Second article is also about the possibility of (un-elected) Supreme Court Judges pushing a new legal standard on a nation without going through the messy process of democratic debate and decision-making; but this story relates to the United States.  In late April the Justices will hear arguments about forcing same-sex "marriage" on all 50 states, rather than allowing the states to decide this issue through our own democratic processes (it is my understanding that allowing states to regulate legal marriage has always been the legal tradition in this country - based on the 10th Amendment - and is the reason that age of consent has sometimes varied from state to state).  Again, here is a substantial quote from the Anglican Church's commentary (which you can read in full HERE):

The Alabama Supreme Court expressed the nature of marriage clearly in a recent ruling: “[M]arriage has always been between members of the opposite sex. The obvious reason for this immutable characteristic is nature. Men and women complement each other biologically and socially. Perhaps even more obvious, the sexual union between men and women (often) produces children. Marriage demonstrably channels the results of sex between members of the opposite sex – procreation – in a socially advantageous manner. It creates the family, the institution that is almost universally acknowledged to be the building block of society at large because it provides the optimum environment for defining the responsibilities of parents and for raising children to become productive members of society.”
Government has a strong interest in protecting children but very little interest in marriage under the romantic redefinition. The Alabama Supreme Court said, “In short, government has an obvious interest in offspring and the consequences that flow from the creation of each new generation, which is only naturally possible in the opposite-sex relationship, which is the primary reason marriage between men and women is sanctioned by State law.”
It would be hard to overstate the significance of what may come from the U.S. Supreme Court. “The only way one can establish the unconstitutionality of man–woman marriage laws is to adopt a view of marriage that sees it as an essentially genderless, adult-centric institution and then declare that the Constitution requires that the states (re)define marriage in such a way. In other words, one needs to establish that the vision of marriage our law has long applied is wrong and that the Constitution requires a different vision. There is, however, no basis in the Constitution for reaching that conclusion” (Memo to Supreme Court: State Marriage Laws Are Constitutional, by Gene Schaerr and Ryan T. Anderson).
Second, if we lose marriage, we lose religious freedom, as well. If the U.S. Supreme Court redefines marriage and, especially, if it declares that “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are protected classes, then religious freedom protections will crumble.
If the Court rules that sexual orientation and gender identity are constitutionally protected (the legal term is “suspect class,” meaning that any laws negatively impacting persons in those categories are “suspect” and subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny), then those who hold traditional views of marriage will be treated as equivalent to racists and vulnerable to legal sanctions.
If the Court issues an extreme “suspect class” ruling, we can expect attacks on every liberty and benefit which biblically faithful churches and believers now have under law, including tax exempt status, foster care and adoption rights, and school accreditation.
And we would see many more cases like that of Navy Chaplain Wesley Modder. This week, Chaplain Modder was relieved of his duties by his commanding officer for expressing traditional biblical views about marriage and sexual conduct. In fact, as a military chaplain, Chaplain Modder is required to uphold the doctrines required by the denomination that endorsed him (in his case, the Assemblies of God). Yet he has been disciplined for doing precisely what the Department of Defense requires! For more, see the Liberty Institute’s response to the action taken against Chaplain Modder.
All of this and more is at stake before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Once again the teaching of the United Methodist Church is substantially the same as that advocated by this Anglican Commentary, as the Book of Discipline currently states:

We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. (Para. 161.M, page 115).

I realize that these are indeed hot-button issues precisely because people of good-will disagree upon these issues, or disagree on certain aspects of them, and I respect everyone's right to think through these issues and make up their own minds.
However, I also am quite certain that (as with other political issues) many people do not really have well-informed or well thought-out opinions on these matters, but throw together a few ideas and slogans that they've picked up from TV or the internet or from a bumper-sticker without actually thinking carefully through the implications and the consequences of such ideas.  That is why I wanted to share these thoughtful comments from and Anglican author in light of the teaching of my own denomination of Christ's Holy Church.
I welcome any discussion and even disagreement from anyone who actually reads the articles (simple intellectual honesty demands that we should read and understand an article before presuming to engage or disagree with it) in the comments section below, provided that such discussion includes well-reasoned argument, not simply an exercise in name-calling, as is (sadly) so common on the internet today, especially when these sorts of issues are raised.

-Pax Vobiscum - Peace be with you all!

Inauguration Week thoughts

It has been quite a week in our nation's life and history:

Monday we honored the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the struggle of the Black community for civil rights.  This year that remembrance was especially poiniant for many as this year marks the 150th Anniversary of the Emmancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln and the 50th Anniversary of Rev. King's great "I have a Dream" sermon delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.

Monday, on the other end of the National Mall, across from the Lincoln Memorial also saw the second public inauguration ceremony of President Barack Obama who, as everyone knows, is the first Black president of this country, and the first Black leader of any major Western Nation.  Though we still have a long way to go, President Obama is a testimony to how far along our country has come towards Rev. Dr. King's vision. 

Tuesday we marked the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision paving the way for tens of millions of unborn children to be terminated in this country.  While some of those abortions were performed in cases of medical necessity, when the life of the mother was in danger or in the case of extreme birth defects, the great majority were simply cases of birth control in which the child, already living in her mother's womb, was seen as a burden: unwanted and unvalued.  How desperately sad that is if one really thinks on it.  Many of us this week have prayed not simply for changes in the laws concerning abortion, but even more than that, for a culture that is life and child-affirming and sexually responsible; we pray for a change in the American heart.

Mother Teresa said it best I think, "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."  That applies not only to the individuals who decide to have abortions (or who pressure a woman to do so), but also to the community that turns a blind eye to the poverty, family breakdown, and desperation of so many young women that pushes them towards that decision.

I can't help but reflect, now later in the week, that there is a complex symbolic connection between President Obama's swearing-in and these other remembrances this week.  The President even used Rev. Dr. King's Bible for his inaugural oath, deliberately tying himself and his work to the legacy of the great Baptist Pastor, and certainly there is a connection there that is worth celebrating, even if some in the Black community warn us not to blur them together (see here).  Yet I cannot help but see a partial connection between the plight of the Black community and the abortion-friendly policies of some leaders, including President Barak Obama.

 

 

Speaking of the President's policies, many in our country, myself included, were a bit disappointed that President Obama's inaugural address, while calling for unity, seemed to announce his intention to pursue a sharply ideological policy and to govern from the left rather than the center.  Even NPR and the New York Times saw the speech as a sweeping call for a Liberal/progressive programme.  Yet we feel to me like "a house divided that cannot stand" and what we really need today is unity.

 

That need for unity is why one of the more enjoyable aspects of the inaugural festivities (for me) this year was watching well-known United Methodist pastor, Rev. Adam Hamilton, preach to our nation's highest leaders at the National Cathedral's Inaugural Prayer service yesterday.  Rev. Hamilton preached upon the leadership qualities of Moses emphasizing his compasion for the oppressed Hebrew slaves, his humility, his unifying vision for the people, and his reliance upon God.  

 

 

The sermon did not address that whole Golden Calf incident (and the many forms of idolatry that it could represent for us) and when Rev. Hamilton spent some time emphasizing the types of social justice issues that Democratic politicians like the President already tend to champion, I began to wonder if the sermon would simply be a liturgical "high five" offered to the victorious President.  Yet as he continued, Rev. Hamilton spoke of the need for a unifying vision to bring people together, and not a partisan one (like the one the President articulated only hours before at his inauguration), and Rev. Hamilton, using the example of Rev. King's prayer in a dark time, spoke of our need for the living God to give us our strength, direction, and hope.  It was then that I thought, 'There is someone speaking the truth to power,' and I was glad that Rev. Hamilton is United Methodist.  You can watch Rev. Adam Hamilton's sermon here (sadly, or humorously?, you will mostly be watching the back of the preacher's and the President's heads).      

 

As I reflect on the events of this week, I feel myself moved into prayer: for our church, for our President and other leaders, and for the heart of our nation as well.

"After-birth abortion"?

"You shall not kill." -Exodus 20:13 (RSV)

"Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor." -Didache 2:2 (a late 1st or early 2nd Century Christian guidebook)

Drawing upon Scripture and Christian Tradition, Christian ethicists have condemned an article published in The Journal of Medical Ethics in which Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that newborn babies do not have a “moral right to life” because they are not “actual persons” but rather “potential persons”.

Read more at Christianity Today or at FoxNews.

You may need to re-read that because it is truly shocking. These medical ethicists are in fact arguing that it is perfectly acceptable to kill human babies, based upon a narrowing of the definition of "person." According to their argument laid out in the well-known British academic journal, there is a difference between a human being and a human person. Not all humans are, by their philosophy, "persons" in the proper sense. The Journal of Medical Ethics has even defending publishing the article, after some questioned why a prestigious academic journal would promote such an idea in the first place.

I would hope it was obvious that such an approach to ethics is extremely dangerous, not to mention completely contrary to the Judeo-Christian moral tradition that has insisted that there are certain absolute rights and wrongs that are derived from the commandments of our Creator God. It is dangerous because it means that nobody's right to life is safe (the most basic of all rights, the one upon which all the other rights depend). Once you have allowed that someone can be a human being without being a "true person" then it only takes a few jumps of rationalization to define people of a certain age or of a certain intelligence level as "non-persons." It is only a little past that to define people of low income or education levels as non-persons ("since they cannot fully value or appreciate their lives" seems to be the argument about the babies). Of course, such a view naturally raises the question "who gets to make that determination anyways?" The academics? Those with power? Those who can win a majority vote?

The Judeo-Christian Scriptures as well as the Enlightenment tradition enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence hold that the Creator God has fashioned humans such that we all (regardless of age or intelligence) posses an inherent sacred worth, to use the Scriptural language, we are created to bear the image and likeness of God. That sacred worth is the foundation and root of our notions of human rights and dignity. One of the problems with fully secular and god-less theories of human rights, as I have discussed before, is that they do not actually stand upon any firm and universal foundation. Universal human rights simply exist so long as we all (or the majority of us) agree that they exist. This is a subtle form of "might makes right" however, and it begs the question of what happens if we, or the strongest among us, decide that they no longer exist for certain elements of the poplution - as the Nazis once did.

Perhaps it should come to no suprise that the source of this dangerous and radically "anti-Christian" re-defining of "personhood" emerges from a largely atheistic academy in a Europe where religious perspectives have been somewhat marginalized. It is not that the people who make up this academy are necessarily malicious or bad (they may often be friendlier and more pleasant than many religious believers you'll meet) it is simply that their worldview does not provide that firm foundation for absolute human rights and dignities for all people, or absolute moral imperatives; instead their "ethics" are built upon shakier ground. And ideas always have consequences.

The Christian faith, drawn from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments has from very early on made the defense of the weak a core value of our faith. All people are created to bear God's image (Gen. 1), all people are loved by God (John 3), and each person is one for whom Christ has undergone passion and death (1 John 2). Those who have no one to speak for them, those who are on the margins or are not valued by society - the widows the orphans, the infant and indeed the unborn - have always been considered the special responsibility of the followers of Christ, who so often showed care for the unvalued. The early church surprised many ancient pagans by the ways that it valued babies (who were often thrown away if their sex was not "acceptable" or if they appeared to be otherwise "imperfect"). Infants are even capable of being baptized into the membership of the Body of Christ. The Didache is one early example of the Church's rejection of abortion and infanticide, which are now both being advocated by a "respected medical ethical journal."

It is difficult to believe at times how much our world has changed since my parents were born. Our moral consensus has collapsed into a mire of competing ideas; and now the Church must with clarity and grace, and with the authority of divine love stand up and say "I will show you a still more excellent way..." We must not only oppose any force, any idea, that preys upon and destroys the weak; but we must positively show the truer, holier, and happier life that is founded in love as the way, the only way, to Peace.

On Tebow's Super Bowl ad

Here is an interesting article from a pro-choice woman (who therefore disagrees with Tebow's views) that nevertheless praises Tebow and blasts the National Organization for Women (NOW) over that whole "controversy" about Tebow's pro-life Super Bowl ad. After having seen the ad itself with its theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life", it is hard to believe NOW really called it "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning." I guess that's what happens when you take a strong stance on an ad you've never actually seen. No wonder groups like NOW are losing credibility with larger (more moderate) public.

Church of England opposes euthanasia

I don't know if this is a new stand or not, other Christian communions have come out against euthanasia and medically assisted suicide long ago. But it is nice to hear some good news about the Church of England.

Click here to learn more. I was interested to read over the principles that form the base of this postion. It seems to me that these same principles apply to opposition to abortion in most cases as well:

Principles behind this position
• Personal autonomy and the protection of life are both important principles that are often complementary but sometimes compete.
• Personal autonomy must be principled and not without regard to others.
• Protection of life should take priority when there is a conflict between the two.
• When protection of life is impossible that does not undermine these principles.
• Every human being is uniquely and equally valuable, hence human rights are built on the foundation of the ‘right to life’, as is much of the criminal code.
• An obligation on society, doctors and nurses, to take life or to assist in the taking of life would create a new and unwelcome role for society.

Do men use abortion to manipulate women?

On occasion I run across an article by Albert Mohler, who was at one time the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, and is a widely read social critic. One time he randomly came into the Cokesbury where I worked on Southern Methodist University's campus. Now I have a few theological disagreements with Mr. Mohler, and often find him to be a bit to the right of me on some social and political issues, but if I do see a column of his that looks interesting I'll often give it a chance.

I recently read this one about how abortion has been used by men and ammunition to persuade women to have sex. In a cultural context when abortion was not legal "on demand" as a means of birth control, women could use the risk of pregnancy as a reason for saying "no" to sex, or the fact of pregnancy to persuade the man who fathered the child to propose marriage and help rear the child.

With legal abortion "on demand," men are more likely to expect their girlfriends to have sex with them (perhaps on threat of ending the relationship if they do not), because a potential impediment has been removed (or so the argument will go). And should such illicit sex lead to a pregnancy, the man can abandon his responsibilities in the matter by pointing out that it is (supposedly) "the woman's choice" - and therefore her responsibility alone - if the child is born or not. Whether she has the child or not, he will not feel pressured to marry her.

This, of course, reinforces a number of personal and social problems: the problem of female poverty and single-parenthood and the personal frustration that go with them; the problem of fatherless children who are more likely to get into legal trouble and less likely to succeed in virtually every measurable way than are children with fathers (minority communities are especially hard hit here); the various problems and social ills that result from these first problems (cycles of poverty, overcrowded prisons, etc.); and on it goes.

A practice that was hailed by feminists as liberating for women, giving them more control over their lives, may have - in many cases - had the exact opposite effect. An interesting fact presented in this essay is that the great majority (64%) of women who had abortions felt pressured by others to do so. I was reminded of a comment by bishop Willimon (which I have mentioned before) that a Duke study found that most women who have abortions do so because they feel they have no other choice. It is a sad irony that some call this "freedom of choice."

There is a lot to think about in this article that Mohler has written, and so I do recommend it. As I have argued before, I believe that abortion on demand as a means of birth control (so I am not now speaking of abortion in medical emergencies to save the mother or cases or rape or other rare cases that are sometimes mentioned) is deeply corrosive for our humanity: bad for our families, bad for our children, and therefore bad for our whole community.

Of course, reducing, or eliminating this practice would require a huge cultural shift - a sexual counter-revolution, so to speak. And given the attitudes of many young Americans (and indeed, given the content of the media which is continually fed to us) this does not look especially likely. But who knows what tomorrow may hold, for with God all things are possible.

Obama overturns Bush-era stem-cell policy

As you have no doubt heard, President Barack Obama plans to reverse a ban on federal funding on stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos today (the Bush-era policy only banned funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research, there are lots of other kinds).

Administration officials said this move was part of a pledge to "use sound, scientific practice and evidence, instead of dogma" in making decisions on scientific issues. But what does that mean?

The Vatican recently called research that destroys human embryos "deeply immoral" - because it destroys human life. Obama's policy will see the government (and us tax-payers by extension) support this very practice. But the question remains: are the human embryos human beings? Do they have unalienable rights? Is it intrensically immoral to destroy them? It seems to me that this question MUST be answered convincingly before funding this type of research can go forward (only if the answer is the negative of course).

So, let me put the question back to the administration: who then is being "dogmatic"? The administration is deciding - on behalf of us all - not to have a discussion about who is a human being (famously "above Mr. Obama's pay-grade," as he said at the Saddleback debate) and is just going to go ahead and begin destroying embryos as if they are not human after all. But the discussion has not occured. Who is being dogmatic?

The appeal to "scientific evidence" is no help here either. I have discussed the relationship between science and the definition of "human being" (the anthropological question) at length and hope you will consider that post carefully because (as I argue there) Scientific method, by its very nature (dealing with empirical evidence), is unable to provide a satisfactory answer to that question, "what is a human being," (which is spiritual or metaphysical by nature). And while it may sound nice, and make the campaign donors happy, for the White House to say "we are going to let sound scientific evidence guide our policies" in this case that is a non-answer. And, I suggest, an extremely dangerous leg upon which to stand (or upon which to base policy decisions) - because it assumes that scientists can answer metaphysical or moral questions that clearly fall outside the purview of empirical methodology.

Protestants and contraception

Last semester, a young man from the Catholic Campus ministry at ULL came to my office wanting to know what Methodists throught about contraception. He was writing a paper for a class on the subject of contraception and one of his campus ministers suggested that he come talk with me for an alternative view.

I explained to him basically that The Book of Discipline, in the Social Principles, contains official guidelines for social issues, but that (unlike the doctrinal and legal parts of the Discipline) they lack the force of Church Law. In any case, the Social principles don't really have much to say about birth control - except that we do not accept abortion as a means of birth control. So I did my best to offer a vague, situational, and "it's complicated" response to his question.

This is an issue of some interest to me because I feel it is likely that (as on the issue of divorce) Protestants in the West have by-and-large put the broader Christian ethical teachings on the back burner in favor of our own cultural assumptions (the Lambeth Conference famously flip-flopped on this issue after just a few decades).

As I began to read about this here and there, I learned that most of the anti-contraception laws that were struck down in the 50s and 60s had been put in place by the efforts of Protestant and Evangelical Church leaders in the 19th century. I began to wonder 'why are the Roman Catholics the only major US Christian group that holds this view today?'

One Sunday School teacher at the Methodist Church I attended in Dallas used this issue in passing to explain the four-fold way of theology (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience), saying "For example, the Roman Catholic position on contraception is simply not reasonable" without offering much further explanation, since it was (I suppose) self-evidently the case in her view.

I remember immediately wondering how well aquainted with Roman Catholic positions, or with ecumenical Tradition this person was. In my experience most Methodists are not very well aquainted with either (one reason the four-fold way of theology doesn't usually work for us - another is a tendency to assert that something does or does not "contradict reason" without doing the harder work of step by step logical analysis to back up that assertion).

From my barely cursory familiarity with Roman teachings on the body and sexuality, my impression was that they were generally much more thought out, deeply rooted, and internally coherent and intrinsically beautiful than Protestant teachings on sex which rarely go beyond "before you do it, first get in a Biblical marriage covenant." The Book of Discipline seems to stammer even in saying that much, though the Bible and the early Fathers do not.

I've been saying for years (and I said this to that young man who showed up in my office) that I need to just sit down and read Humanae Vitae, the papal encyclical that really articulated all this. I hear that John Paul II's Man and Woman he created them: A theology of the Body is also very good.

I know lots of Protestants are beginning to take interest in the theology of sex and reproduction, and Roman Catholic sources are usually more advanced intellectual touchstones for this (the rapidly rising profile of Homosexuality in our pop-culture in recent years is perhaps forcing us to think these things through more than we are accustomed to). I got to thinking about all this recently because I ran across this article at Duke Divinity School's website about Protestants who are taking interest in Roman Catholic teachings on 'natural family planning.' Now I'm not saying that I am endorsing a Roman position on contraception. At present I am not. But I am asking the question.

What about you guys? Have you given much theological attention to sex and contraception? Have you read Humanae Vitae? Do you feel threatened by the suggestion that the Roman Catholic Church might be right about some of this stuff? Are the historic Protestant Churches (Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.) prepared to have a serious biblical and theological discussion on these issues even if it means taking positions that are at odds with our culture?

Bishop Willimon on Abortion

Methodist Bishop Will Willimon was the featured preacher at a chapel service in The Methodist Building (next to the Supreme Court Building in D.C.) on January 21, the day of the National March for Life. The worship sevrice was sponsored by "LifeWatch" a pro-life Methodist group. I would love to find the entire sermon transcript if anyone has a link to it, here is an excerpt from the UMNS article:

When Willimon was a chaplain at Duke University, a graduate student interviewed women who had had abortions. Their No. 1 reason for doing so, they said, was that they felt they “had no other options.”

“Ironically, we call this freedom to choose,” the student remarked.

But for Bishop Willimon it pointed out a lack of imagination within the church. "The role of the church is to stoke, fund and fuel alternatives we could not have come up with if we looked only at the alternatives the world gives us,”

Canterbury speaks out on abortion

As you may have already heard, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has recently voiced concern that people in Great Britain and the West are insufficiently troubled about the commoness of abortion. He suggested that this signals a lack of respect for the human lives that are being taken through abortion. When abortion was legalized, it was still widely assumed that it was "profoundly undesirable" and was meant to give an option to women in extreme cases.

Now, abortion is easier, more common, and more socially acceptable in Great Britain, which has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe. Williams lamented that something had changed in people's assumptions about the unborn life of the baby and called for people to think harder about the consequences of their actions. In the face of home-administered abortion pills, Williams called for individuals to confer with others and not to make such a serious decision alone.

In keeping with my own Church's stance on this issue, I pray frequently for an end to abortion as a means of birth control (which, as I understand it, accounts for around 95% of all abortions), and I hope the Archbishop's statements will indeed cause people to re-think this issue.

Stem Cell Update: Progress being made

Charlie Cris (R), Governor of Florida, is recommending spending $20 million in Florida for stem-cell research so long as no embryos are destroyed. Cris noted recent findings that amniotic stem cell research may hold as much medical promise as embryonic stem cells - as I recently noted. It remains to be seen if the Democrats who recently won Congress will take note.

A way forward on stem cells?

I have often observed that the debates around "harvesting" embryonic stem cells for medical research, like the debates surrounding abortion have often been "adventures in missing the point" as they have neglected to decisively address the most fundamental issue: "is this or is this not a human being?" That makes all the difference in how we should treat the issue, especially if we are among those who believe that human beings are somehow the very image of God.

For this reason I have been deeply discouraged by the vollies of mindless rhetoric being exchanged over these issues since they do not often even approach the level of rational discourse, which our society seems increasingly unwilling or unable to engage in at a popular level. Maybe it was never possible to do such things at a "popular level" in such a large nation anyways (as I recall the Ancient democratic Greeks felt that a democracy by its very nature had to be a small community of only a few thousand citizens so that people were personally connected to one another and could actually debate important matters).

On the stem cell issue, however, it would seem that we may have been (for better or for worse) relieved of the burden of making a decision after all. According to this fascinating article, a new form of NON-embryonic stem cells have been discovered, harvested from amniotic fluid (which is routinely thrown away), that would present an endless and uncontroversial (since they do not destroy human embryos) supply of stem cells that are said to have incredible potential for medical research and treatments.

I only hope that enough people (namely congressmen and researchers) will hear about this apparently revolutionary discovery that could even bring an effective end to the embryonic stem cell debate. The article thinks we may learn a valuable lesson about patience from all this (Bush was right to put a halt to new embryonic research and by doing so, he allowed technology to 'catch up' and make such research obselete just in time for the new Democrat congress to change the law), but I wonder if we have only deferred the inevitable debate to another day.

Slaughter of the Holy Innocents

Today (Dec. 29th) in the Eastern calendar, and yesterday in the Western Church calendar, commemorates the slaughter of the Holy Innocents - the children of Bethlehem who were slaughtered by King Herod in a maniacal attempt to grasp hold of life, power, and security for just a little longer.

In the Church calendar darkness and pain are always closely associated with Christmas, as is also the case in so many people's lives for whom holidays are painful.

Every time we come around to this day of the year, I cannot help but reflect upon the practice of "abortion on demand" - which I consider one of the greatest evils of our time by which we in the US alone have slaughtered millions of innocents and most often for reasons not unlike those of the wicked king...all this in our "Christian nation."

Some will no doubt find this characterization 'offensive' - but I simply submit that the existence of a new human being begins at the moment of conception: physically this is true, genetically this is true. In what sense can it be argued otherwise? Can it really be argued that the fetus is part of the mother's body when it is genetically distinct from its mother? Can it really be argued that it is not a human life when it is most definitely alive (and thus, can be killed) and most definitely has 46 chromosomes of a human (that is, 44 autosomal and 2 sexual)? To argue that the fetus is not alive or not human flies in the face of what science has taught us. Certainly, it flies in the face of the Christian tradition as well that has always considered the fetus a human being (note the fetal John the Baptist is able to worship the fetal Jesus and honor the Blessed Virgin Mary who has only recently become "the mother of the Lord" in Luke 1:39-45 and also Gorman's book Abortion and the Early Church).

To be honest, I wish this were not true. I wish that my civilization were not responsible for the worst holocaust in recorded history. But the sad, dark - yes, even offensive - truth is that we, all of us, have the blood of innocent children on our hands. Sexual intimacy without its naturally adjoined responsibilities or commitments is more important to us than protecting the 'least of these.' And this evil cannot simply be laid at the feet of abortion doctors, or young women who get abortions, or politicians who support it - it is our whole society that creates and allows this arrangement of values and priorities and arrangements. We are all, in our own ways, tainted by this.

Today's Mere Comments post touched on this same idea, while noting a disturbing trend - the use of newborn babies, the cloning of babies, or the late-term abortion of babies specifically for the purpose of harvesting stem cells, especially in Eastern Europe.

The weakest among us are being exploited and murdered by the strong in order to maintain their strength - their lifestyle, their security, their comfort, their vigor, their longevity. This is, of course, the very opposite of the highest Christian virtue of charity - which means seeking the good of others - especially the weak - even if it means dying on a cross for their sake. I sometimes wonder how history will judge this age in which we live. But I am certain that the dawn of the Kingdom of the Lord (which must include the judgement of God) means the utter undoing of all the kingdoms of all the Herods in the world (including those in our very hearts).

Kyrie eleison. Christe eleison. Kyrie eleison.

The "problem" of Anthropology

“What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” This question-prayer echoes through the Psalms (see. Ps. 8, Ps. 144, etc.) of the Old Testament. I think this may well be one of the most important questions that gets right to the heart of the intellectual and philosophical crisis that has engulfed our civilization: What is Man? What is a human being? What makes him special; is he special?

A few days ago I commented about the Pope’s book Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures and suggested (in agreement with him) that post-Enlightenment modernity, which confuses “facts” with knowledge and truth itself, and thus reduces and flattens out “knowledge” into only what can be known as factual by empirical or scientific or rationalistic methods, that this philosophy is incapable of sustaining a civilization because of it’s incompleteness, its inability to address metaphysical questions, chief among them are questions about what it means to be human. It simply dismisses the very questions that make a difference in our lives and our world. As I reflected and discussed this with my father and some of my loyal commentators, it occurred to me that ultimately our problem is Anthropology: because we separate religion from the public sphere, we in the West today don’t really have a coherent account of human nature, but we act (and legislate) as if we did.

C. John Sommerville, in his book The Decline of the Secular University takes up exactly this question. (once again I came up with a really good idea, only to find 2 days later at the bookstore, that someone had already written a book about it…) He argues that the secular university has become a “credential-factory” and has lost any real intellectual influence in our culture, which is by-and-large “post-secular.” In the second chapter he argues that one of the chief weaknesses of the secular academia is that it cannot even offer an account or definition of what a human being is. If we accept a purely naturalistic worldview (which universities do in some ways implicitly, but often not on this issue), then the human being is nothing more than (perhaps) the most evolved animal on this particular planet, but just another animal, not morally different than all of the other animals (who themselves are not having such a discussion or bothering much about “animal rights” for that matter). Certainly, Man is not a being endowed with “unalienable rights.” Indeed, the academic discipline that we (perhaps erroneously) call “Anthropology” is not really the study of what Man is, since a secular worldview cannot address that question, only of what Man does.

This inability to address and articulate a full anthropology – since to do so is essentially a religious function – means that secular academia cannot provide sustenance for a political system like ours, as Sommerville points out:
“When Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, he could still assume creation and purpose. Darwin changed all that. But we cannot say that all men have evolved equally. So we have had to proceed with our analysis of politics, society, and economics without agreement on final principles.”

This is why I have argued that a democracy like ours cannot be a pluralistic “secular democracy” in which there are no “final principles” (and in which this pluralism is in fact dogmatically asserted). It is a sham. Democracy itself assumes certain things about the nature of human beings: that all are created equal and by virtue of that equality should have an equal say in the government. Thus the political system of democracy (or democratic republic in our case) assumes a previous position on the question of anthropology which is, by its very nature, a religious question (though some religions, such as Marxism, would never apply that word to themselves, but in fact use that word to dismiss other religions in order to give themselves and edge in competing – or actually to avoid competing - with the other religious views).

All political or communal arrangements make certain assumptions about the nature of Man, about anthropology and are arranged accordingly. Ours is democratic because we assume that humans are equal, yet imposes checks and balances because we assume that humans are not trustworthy for some reason. Think of the Hindu caste system. Certain people have certain positions in society because of their nature as determined by the religious ideology of Hinduism. Society is officially (or more recently, unofficially) organized accordingly. The same was true of the good regime of the Philosopher king offered by Socrates/Plato in Republic. The reason that was the best form of government was directly related to the nature of Man: he is reason at war with passions. Since the philosopher was led by reason and not his passions, he was most fit to govern. Likewise those who were “slaves by nature” – who were only ruled by passions and not reason (there are probably lots of these people)– were only fit to do slave-type work and wield no political power (this is also why he says democracy is the 2nd-to-worst form of government). The ordering of the society is based upon the anthropology, the previous assumptions about human nature.

A system of thought, such as post-Enlightenment Modernism/Secularism, that assumes an epistemology (a theory of what “knowledge” is) that rules out metaphysical questions (because they cannot be addressed “scientifically”) cannot therefore answer the question of the Psalmist: “What is Man?”

Think of the political ramifications of this deficiency: how shall we address whether keeping Muslims imprisoned in Cuba is a violation of their rights or not? How shall we address whether abortion should be legal or not? Is the fetus a human?? Does the woman have any “rights” in this matter at all? Why, or why not? Upon what basis? When is it acceptable to invade another country? What constitutes a just war if there is such a thing? Is our system of international trade inherently exploitative? If so, is that even a “bad” thing? What makes a thing “bad”? What constitutes a “marriage” and why? Where are the “lines” in bio-ethics or genetics? If we are able to create human hybrids to use for medical spare parts should we do so; would they be human; would they have rights?

And these are the questions that our intellectual leaders must address and these are all finally religious in nature (something that “values-voters” seem to understand better than scholars). These are the very same questions that post-Enlightenment/Secular Modernity is just incapable of addressing. This deficiency is also one reason why a dissatisfied “Post-modernity” has attacked and “deconstructed” Modernism. The problem with Post-modernity is that it destroys but does not create: it gives us no viable alternative upon which to build a civilization, only cynicism and suspicion and ambiguous relativism. Certainly it does not solve the problem of how we as a political community shall address these very concrete issues (and in many ways, Post-modernity further complicates matters).

Only Religion can really address our needs as a political community and as individuals. The question becomes which religion. There is a very real possibility that vigorous Islam could displace Secularism (which in turn has displaced Christianity) to become the new foundation of Western Civilization, especially in Europe. In Europe, Christianity is virtually dead and new waves of Muslim immigrants arrive every year – and this time Charles Martel will not come out to meet them, for he has no reason or resolve to do so. Islam has a very strong anthropology-derived political order that is enshrined in Sharia law and its long interpretive tradition. It asserts what man is, and how he should live before God, and arranges society accordingly.

Personally, I would like very much to not see Islam emerge as the new Western worldview. Rather, the Christian intellectual tradition, that helped build the West, is able to address the issues of the day in a persuasive way, if only secular Academia will allow it to have a voice in the dialogue. This is how we can begin to recover the intellectual rigor of Western Civilization that serves as the basis for our political community. (I might also point out that by-and-large, Roman Catholicism currently seems better suited to this task than does confused Protestantism, I can only hope we might catch up – and do my homework).

I think that there ought to be a conscious inclusion of religious perspectives within academic discourse, something at which Secular Modernity would have gawked. Universities like Duke, or Notre Dame, or Southern Methodist University, or Baylor – which are known as fine academic institutions and have clear religious roots and affiliations (even divinity schools!), should be on the forefront in encouraging sustained dialogue of a uniquely Christian perspective with traditional secular academia on these issues.

Last year, for instance, SMU’s Political Science symposium had a debate on stem cells and invited Roman Catholic priest and scholar Father Tadeusz Pacholcyzk (who has 9 stinkin’ degrees including a PH.D. from Yale and a post-doctorate degree from Harvard!) to debate a proponent of Embryonic Stem-Cell research, Eve Herold. The debate in fact re-enforces Sommerville’s (and my) point: Herold conceded that science was unable to answer the question of when an embryo becomes human – thus has nothing useful to say on the most critical hinge of this debate.

This sort of discussion needs to be fostered and sustained (more than just a one-time debate) within the academic world if it is to truly address the needs of our society. I think the traditionally Christian private schools are a great place for this to happen – so long as they are not afraid of sounding too religious! This is how we might begin to re-invigorate Western Civilization, the Lord God being our helper.

Abortion-related News

Two more women have died after taking the "abortion pill", RU-486. The pills were distributed by Planned Parenthood-affiliated clinics. I'm glad to see that Planned Parenthood is using MY taxpayer dollars (and yours) to "protect" mothers and children.

Utah Governor Jon Huntsman signed into law a bill that augments the older rule calling for parental notification when minors seek an abortion. The new law requires parental consent. This law sounds like a good one to me, it may save many lives. But I think we (who are pro-life) should take seriously the warnings of critics that this law could put some girls in the difficult possition of choosing between trying to get permission from an abusive father or having an illegal abortion (or some other desperate action). I doubt this would happen much, but the possibility seems real and should be addressed.

Abortion Delenda Est!

South Dakota bans Abortion

The State legislature of South Dakota has voted to ban all abortions save for those performed to save the life of the mother. Doctors who perform illegal abortions would face prison time. The governor has said he will look favorably on such a bill when it comes to his desk. The bill's main sponser, Julie Bartling - a Democrat (!) - said that the state seeks to protect the lives and rights of unborn children.

I thank God that people are working to protect the very "least of these" in our world today. The Christian faith does teach and has historically taught that all human living individuals are created in the image of God and should be respected. In addition science has taught us that embryos are human individuals, genetically distinct from both parents, that are alive and growing from the moment of conception. There is no moment after conception at which the nature of the baby in the womb changes. Only the size and location change as it grows and is born.

If we are a nation that values freedom, then we MUST value freedom of innocents to live. Furthermore, we must balance our emphasis on individual rights with an appreciation of the affects that individual decisions have on others in the community so that all freedoms must be balanced by personal responsibility, and for those of us who claim to follow Jesus, all our freedom must be always exercised the self-giving love that he has shown to us (most especially at the cross).

Obviously this bill will be challenged in court. In fact, it may have been designed to see if the newly (supposedly) right-leaning Supreme Court will overturn or at least qualify the Roe v. Wade Decision. So it will be interesting to see what happens, but as always it will take some time.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185991,00.html