Justin Taylor's Blog, page 245

Attacks on Incremental Pro-Life Legislation: Unfair and Dangerous

I strongly believe that abortion is the greatest civil rights and social justice issue of our day. Tragically, many of us have become numb to its effect (namely, the murder of an innocent, defenseless life) as well as its prevalence. As Al Mohler recently pointed out, "Abortion is now one of America's most common surgical procedures performed on adults. As many as one out of three women will have at least one abortion. In some American neighborhoods, the number of abortions far exceeds the number of live births."

In response to this, many conservative Christians have become absolutists in terms of pro-life legislation. They view any form of realism, pragmatism, or incrementalism to be indicative of moral compromise. The result is that in their supposed moral purity, they accomplish practically nothing. And they sometimes attack the moral integrity of those who think that given the choice between having no abortions (impossible in our current culture and political system) and reducing abortions (which is possible), we should only stand for the former option.

In response to this sort of thinking and these attacks, it's encouraging to see the clear thinking of  Scott Klusendorf (author of the excellent The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture) and Jay Watts—both of prolifetraining.com—who offer these five arguments:

It doesn't follow that because we can't save all children we shouldn't try to save some.
We should reject the premise that pro-lifers who support incremental legislation are deciding who lives and who dies.
Because the court-mandated abortion license is already extensive, the only thing state and local laws can do is limit that license around the edges—which they do quite effectively—while educating the public on the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion.
Personhood advocates should be careful about making claims about pro-lifers compromising the cause.
Incrementalists have good reasons for shying away from outright bans on abortion.

You can read their explanations here.

For more on this, see Clarke Forsythe's Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square.

Turning Back the Clock of Salvation History: How the Apostle Paul Reads Leviticus 18:5

The Apostle Paul twice cites Leviticus 18:5 in the midst of important arguments about justification.

In Galatians 3:12 he says, "But the law is not of faith, rather 'The one who does them shall live by them.'"

And in Romans 10:5 he  says, "For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them."

One of the more common recent readings is that Paul is not talking about the actual Mosaic law, but rather about a legalistic misuse or misunderstanding of it. In part this is because we know that salvation has always been by faith, even under the Mosaic covenant, and yet Paul appears to be contrasting the law with faith (see Gal. 3:11 and Rom. 10:6 for the contrasts).

However, this "misuse of the law" interpretation simply can't account for Paul's actual flow of thought and argument. Tom Schreiner points out one of the reasons in 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law: "the misinterpretation view suffers from a major defect. Elsewhere Paul always cites an Old Testament text positively to advance his own argument, and we are lacking any clear evidence that he responds to a wrong understanding here. It is most likely, then, that Paul cites the Old Testament to advance his argument."

So what is Paul really doing? I think Schreiner's understanding is exactly right, and if you don't see Paul's strategy here, you'll misread a good chunk of Paul's contrast between the old and new covenants.

Paul reads Leviticus 18:5 redemptive-historically.

Perfect obedience is demanded from those who place themselves under the law, for the atonement provided by Old Testament sacrifices no longer avails with the coming of Christ.

Perfect obedience was not demanded in one sense under the Sinai covenant, for the law provided forgiveness via sacrifices for those who transgressed.

In Paul's view, however (see Gal. 3:15-4:7), the Sinai covenant is no longer in force. Hence, those who observe circumcision and the law to obtain justification (Gal. 5:2-4) are turning back the clock in salvation history. The coming of Christ spells the end of the Sinai covenant (Gal. 3:15-4:7). Hence, those who live under the law must keep it perfectly to be saved, for in returning to the law they are forsaking the atonement provided by Christ (Gal. 2:21; 5:3). Returning to the law is futile, however, for the sacrifices of atonement under the Sinai covenant pointed ahead to the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore animal sacrifices no longer provide forgiveness now that the definitive sacrifice of Christ has been offered (Gal. 3:13).

In the chapter on this verse in his book, Dr. Schreiner also explains what Leviticus 18:5 meant in its original context, how it was interpreted in the rest of the OT, and why we should reject the reading that sees Romans 10:5 and 10:6-8 as both describing the life of faith.

Jonathan Edwards and Race in America

A couple of interesting talks coming up from the Henry Center and the Jonathan Edwards Center at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School:

Jonathan Edwards and American Racism: Can the Theology of a Slave Owner Be Trusted by Descendants of Slaves?

Jonathan Edwards is arguably the most important theologian that North America has produced. He is a hero to many Christians. Yet he also owned slaves, a fact that has raised important questions about his moral credibility. Should we really be holding Edwards up as a theological role model? Should we be trying to learn from him? These are live questions here at Trinity and beyond. Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile has thought about these questions-as a pastor, an African American, and adherent to Reformed theology. We invite you to listen in as he reflects about them personally, engaging two other African-American pastors and the audience in an edifying installment of the Edwards Center series 'Jonathan Edwards and the Church,' moderated by Dr. Sweeney.

This event is cosponsored by the Henry Center and the Jonathan Edwards Center at TEDS. Pastor Anyabwile's lecture will take place on Wednesday, Feb 1, 1-2:30pm in the ATO Chapel on the TEDS campus. The responses will be from Pastor Louis Love of New Life Fellowship Church, Vernon Hills, and Pastor Charlie Dates of Progressive Baptist Church of Chicago-Q&A to follow.

How Race Works, and Why it Matters for the Church

On the following day, Feb 2, Professor Michael Emerson will continue this important conversation about race and religion. Dr. Emerson is a sociology professor at Rice University and co-director of the Kinder Institute for Urban Research. He has written important works on the relationship between race and religion. Some of his well-known books are Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America (co-authored with Christian Smith; Oxford University Press, 2000), which was named the 2001 Distinguished Book of the Year by the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. He is also the author of People of the Dream: Multiracial Congregations in the United States, published by Princeton University Press in 2006.

Dr. Emerson will speak in the ATO chapel on Thursday, Feb 2, at 11am on: "How Race Works, and Why it Matters for the Church." His talk will be based on Ephesians 6:12. After chapel, there will be a free luncheon for all in attendance. Dr. Peter Cha, associate professor of pastoral theology at TEDS, will moderate a conversation with Dr. Emerson and the audience. A TEDS alumnus, Rev. Peter Hong, will also be a part of that conversation. He is a second-generation Korean American who planted a multiracial church in Chicago ten years ago. The church is called New Community Covenant Church and now has about 600 members.

After the luncheon is over (1pm), interested local church pastors and other students can remain for a longer conversation with the speakers (till about 2pm).

You can check back at the Henry Center for info about livestreaming and audio being posted later.

Update: Both events will be livestreamed here.

The 200 Million "Missing" Girls

A new documentary, It's a Girl! The Three Deadliest Words in the World, explores the systematic gendercide taking place in India, China, and other areas of South Asia.

Ram Mushru, reviewing the film the Independent, writes:  "The trailer's most chilling scene is one with an Indian woman who, unable to contain her laughter, confesses to having killed eight infant daughters." That line makes me think of Romans 1:32: "Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things [like heartless, ruthless murder---see vv. 29-31] deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

You can watch it here:

 

HT: Matthew Schmitz

One of the Reasons I Love Being a Part of Christian Publishing

Testimonies like this:

"I will reread, assign to my students, and give away Fred Zaspel's book Warfield on the Christian Life, not because it is an excellent commentary on Warfield—though it is—and not because it is highly readable—though it is—but primarily because I am a better Christian for having read it. I was mentally and spiritually invigorated, and you will be as well."

-Joseph Pipa, President, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary

You Either See This One or You Don't

One of Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli's 20 arguments for the existence of God in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (IVP, 1994), p. 81:

The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.

Therefore there must be a God.

You either see this one or you don't.

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Personhood of the Unborn

The Palmetto Freedom Forum, held on September 5, 2011, allowed the GOP presidential candidates a forum to reflect upon and engage in "first principles."

Here is the question asked by Professor Robert P. George:

Many believe that we need a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly empowers the Congress, by appropriate legislation, to enforce the guarantees of due process and equal protection contained in the Amendment's first section.

As someone who believes in the inherent and equal dignity of all members of the human family, including the child in the womb, would you propose to Congress appropriate legislation, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, to protect human life in all stages and conditions?

It is a thoughtful question, and I'm glad Professor George asked it. The reason he chose this question was because he wanted the candidate to reflect on three interrelated issues: "(1) our obligations to human life in the era of Roe v. Wade; (2) the relationship of federal to state power in our federalist system when it comes to protecting basic rights; and (3) the options available in the face of judicial edicts that violate constitutional principles, as the Roe decision infamously did, by usurping the authority of the people acting through their elected representatives."

You can read his later reflections on the candidates' responses and on criticisms he received for asking it.

Why did he ask about Congress rather than the Supreme Court? Perhaps in part because the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled on this interpretation, and ruled against it.

Clarke Forsythe, Senior Counsel for Americans United for Life, explains in his very good book Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square why it will be virtually impossible to see the Court reversing itself in the foreseeable future. Here is the relevant excerpt from an interview I conducted with him a couple of years ago:

The Fourteenth Amendment says that no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Roe declared that an unborn child is not a "person" protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Some pro-life advocates would like to see the Court revisit this holding. Why, in your view, is that improbable?

It is not simply "improbable" but almost certainly impossible in our lifetime.

That's because every single justice since Roe has rejected it (the proposition that the unborn child is a "person" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment), including the most anti-Roe justices, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. And Scalia and Thomas have rejected it for at least two or three reasons.

First, the words "abortion" and "unborn child" are not in the Constitution; they weren't specifically considered by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

Second, Justice Scalia and Thomas believe that the abortion issue was and is an issue for the states to decide, as a constitutional matter.

The third is perhaps the most powerful and the one most often ignored by pro-lifers: Scalia and Thomas want the Court out of the "abortion-umpiring business," which they think has undermined the integrity of the Court as a constitutional and political institution. The declaration that the unborn child is a "person" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment would not extract the Court but thrust it more deeply into the "abortion-umpiring business."

So, for both constitutional and institutional reasons, Scalia and Thomas have at least implicitly rejected 14th Amendment "personhood," and it's almost certain that any justice nominated by even a pro-life president and confirmed by the Senate in the next 20 years will be heavily influenced by the reasoning of Scalia and Thomas. We don't have to agree with that, but we do need to understand it.

As a practical matter, then, some President would have to nominate, and the Senate confirm, at least six justices who are willing to adopt what Justices Scalia and Thomas have rejected. That might happen in 2050, if, between now and then, Roe is overturned and a majority of states enact and enforce prohibitions on abortion, thereby exhibiting a national political culture that opposes all abortion. But that's not political reality in 2010.

Last but not least, federal constitutional "personhood" was argued to the Supreme Court by Texas and Georgia in the oral arguments in 1971 and 1972 leading up to the Roe decision in 1973, and has been argued to the Supreme Court, in legal briefs, at least 25 times since Roe. So, it's not a new argument that the Court hasn't heard before.

Again, Professor George's question is different and intriguing. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the cause for life.

Good Distinctions = Good Discernment

This is an important article by Mike Horton, making the simple but crucially important point that good theological conclusions often depend on making good distinctions. As he shows, the formula "distinct but not separate" applies to many areas of theology.

What Is the Purpose of Law and Government?

During the last presidential election cycle First Things published Robert P. George's essay "Law and Moral Purpose." Professor George is Princeton University's McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and the Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.

You can read the whole thing on your own, but I thought it would be helpful to excerpt some of it, chopping it up like an interview format, adding italics and numbering to make it easier to skim. Since politics is on almost everyone's mind these days, I thought it'd be helpful to repost this.

What are the obligations and purposes of law and government?

(1) To protect

(a) public health,

(b) safety, and

(c) morals, and

(2) to advance the general welfare—including, preeminently, protecting people's fundamental rights and basic liberties.

Wouldn't this require the granting of vast and sweeping powers to public authority?

No; the general welfare—the common good—requires that government be limited.

You distinguish between government's primary and subsidiary roles. What are the government's primary responsibilities?

Government's responsibility is primary when the questions involve

(1) defending the nation from attack and subversion,

(2) protecting people from physical assaults and various other forms of depredation, and

(3) maintaining public order.

What are the subsidiary roles of the government?

Its subsidiary roles include:

to support the work of the families, religious communities, and other institutions of civil society that shoulder the primary burden of forming upright and decent citizens,

caring for those in need,

encouraging people to meet their responsibilities to one another while also

discouraging them from harming themselves or others.

You've said that political morality requires (1) governmental respect for individual freedom and (2) the autonomy of nongovernmental spheres of authority. Can you explain?

Government must not try to run people's lives or usurp the roles and responsibilities of

(1) families,

(2) religious bodies, and

(3) other character- and culture-forming authoritative communities.

The usurpation of the just authority of families, religious communities, and other institutions is unjust in principle, often seriously so, and the record of big government in the twentieth century—even when it has not degenerated into vicious totalitarianism—shows that it does little good in the long run and frequently harms those it seeks to help.

What is the relationship between limited government and classic liberalism?

Limited government is a key tenet of classic liberalism—the liberalism of people like Madison and ­Tocqueville—although today it is regarded as a conservative ideal.

Does belief in limited government entail libertarianism?

No. The strict libertarian position, it seems to me, goes much too far in depriving government of even its subsidiary role.

(1) It underestimates the importance of maintaining a reasonably healthy moral ecology, especially for the rearing of children, and

(2) it misses the legitimate role of government in supporting the nongovernmental ­institutions that shoulder the main burden of assisting those in need.

What truths is libertarianism responding to?

Libertarianism responds to certain truths about big government, especially in government's bureaucratic and managerial dimensions.

Economic freedom cannot guarantee (1) political liberty and (2) the just autonomy of the ­institutions of civil society, but, in the absence of ­economic liberty, other honorable personal and institutional freedoms are rarely secure.

Moreover, the ­concentration of economic power in the hands of ­government is something every true friend of civil ­liberties should, by now, have learned to fear.

What else does libertarianism respond to?

There is an even deeper truth—one going beyond economics—to which libertarianism responds: Law and government exist to protect human persons and secure their well-being. It is not the other way round, as communist and other forms of collectivist ideology suppose. Individuals are not cogs in a social wheel. Stringent norms of political justice forbid persons to be treated as mere servants or instrumentalities of the state. These norms equally exclude the sacrificing of the dignity and rights of persons for the sake of some supposed "greater overall good."

How do you respond to those who want to severe the ideas of limited government and moral truth?

It is a profound mistake to suppose that the principle of limited government is (1) rooted in the denial of moral truth or (2) a putative requirement of governments to refrain from acting on the basis of judgments about moral truth.

Why?

Our commitment to limited government is itself the fruit of moral conviction—conviction ultimately founded on truths that our nation's founders proclaimed as self-evident: namely "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

What's at the foundation of this proposition?

That each human being possesses a profound, inherent, and equal dignity simply by virtue of his nature as a rational creature—a creature possessing, albeit in limited measure (and in the case of some human beings merely in root or rudimentary form), the Godlike powers of reason and freedom—powers that make possible such human and humanizing phenomena as intellectual inquiry, aesthetic appreciation, respect for self and others, friendship, and love. This great truth of natural law, which is at the heart of our civilizational and civic order, has its theological expression in the biblical teaching that man, unlike the brute animals, is made in the image and likeness of the divine creator and ruler of the universe.

You can read the whole thing here.

An Actual Pro-Life Conversation

Sam Crabtree:

On a very cold Minnesota winter morning I was bundled thick against the icy Canadian wind as I marched with several thousand others to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The march route was adorned by occasional pro-choice protesters with large placards chiding our pro-life efforts as being antiwoman. The setting was cold not only meteorologically speaking, but the air was chilled with icy looks and cold shoulders. In one part of the march a shouting match had erupted and it was ugly. It seemed to me that the pro-life marcher did a particularly poor job of winning friends and influencing people, and a pretty good job of making all of us marching with him appear to be angry, rude ruffians.

Continuing the march and seeing one particularly large and provocative placard, I felt the impulse to ask its guardians about it, but thought it would only erupt into a charged argument, and so I walked on by. Ten minutes or so later, I thought, "No. I'm going to speak with them," and so I returned to the placard's double guards, one of whom would not look at me or acknowledge my presence in any way. He looked off in the distance, literally stiff-necked. It had to be pretty hard work for him to ignore me and avoid me. And hard work it is when affirmation runs thin in relationships.

"May I ask about your placard?" I queried with a genuinely respectful tone, for these were human beings made in the image of God. There is more than one good way to jump-start an awkward relationship, and "May I ask you a question?" is one good way. Like a British Royal Guard, the one continued not to make eye contact with me and didn't even twitch; to him I did not exist except as a threat to his placard and mission. But the second fella said, "Well, what?" (meaning, what's your question?).

I took it as an invitation to continue. In strained relationships it can be very important to not proceed without an invitation, like playing "Captain, May I?" or "Simon Says." Show deference to the captain and heedful respect to Simon. "I'm noticing your placard, here. I don't know who designed it, but its graphics are strikingly attractive and its message is powerful." There were no words on it, just a huge rendering of a coat hanger encircled with a slash through it. It was a graphic not hastily thrown together by some amateur, but was colorful and simple, and though we were on opposite sides of a controversial issue, I could affirm the graphic skill. So I did.

And then I took another figurative step forward, "I take your poster to mean that you oppose self-inflicted coat hanger abortions, am I right?" In tense situations, it can be good to not jump to conclusions, even when you're pretty sure you already understand what the other side means. Slowing down to confirm the other party's meaning is another way of affirming them as human beings who might like the opportunity to correct me if I have misunderstood. I am not beyond the possibility of misunderstanding, a healthy and humble admission to make.

"Right," he replied, meaning that his poster was explicitly against coat hanger abortions.

Proceeding I said, "Well, I think we have something that you and I can enthusiastically agree on." He looked at me as though I had forgotten which side of the issue I was marching on. "We both are in favor of the safety of women. We are men, and the safety of women is important to us, even though we aren't women ourselves. I appreciate your willingness to come out here on a very cold day, seeking to protect women from a procedure that will never threaten you personally. That seems altruistic to me." I'm not sure that he understood the word altruistic, but I am sure he took it as a compliment, which it was.

"May I ask another question?" While his sidekick still stood stiff as a poker, this man was opening up to me. By asking permission to pose another question instead of just charging forward, the conversation was kept from shutting down, like the shouting match that had erupted elsewhere on the march route.

"Sure," he replied. The first time I asked permission to ask a question, he gave me a tentative "well, what?" because he was uncertain about what I might do. In response to my second request to interview him further, he replied casually with a "sure." The cold was thawing. The door was opening.

So I asked my next question: "Could you tell me how many women have been injured by coat hanger abortions? Do you have that information, or could you point me to somebody who does?"

His stammering response was something like, "Hmm . . . nooo . . . no, I don't." His pokerfaced partner offered nothing, not even a flinch. "I suppose you could check at the library or somewhere," was the best he could do. He wanted to help me do my research and get the facts. He was warming up.

On to my next question, "Well, can you tell me now many women have been injured by legal abortions in medical facilities?"

Same answer: "Hmm . . . nooo . . . no, I don't, uh, have that information. I would think you might be able to get it at a library, or you could try to go online."

He's conversant now, and I moved on to my last question: "What do you say to the person who does have that information—the person who knows approximately how many women have been injured by coat hanger abortions in the United States and how many young women have been injured by legal abortions—what do you say to the person who has that information and knows that the number of woman inured by coat hanger abortions is less than one percent of the women who have been injured by legal abortions?" Checkmate. He looked embarrassed, which is appropriate.

He hung his head and looked at the ground. But he wasn't angry, not with me. That is, he didn't see me as his opponent; he saw the data as his opponent. He was awakening. Do you see how affirmation—looking for something to commend—opened the door to talk about the issue that divided us? And he was backing away from his hard stance. His partner walked off, having never said a word; we won't win them all, and the practice of affirmation is no ironclad guarantee. Our conversation ended when the public address system fired up and the rally program began.

I hasten here to say that beautiful graphics should not be used in the service of killing defenseless children. But if I started my conversation there, I suspect our discussion would have quickly gone in the direction of the shouting match. My goal isn't just to protest, but to persuade.

—Sam Crabtree, Practicing Affirmation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), pp. 76-79.