Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts

Friday, May 17, 2013

Five Thoughts on the Gosnell Conviction

Here are five brief thoughts on the conviction and sentencing of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion provider. Recently, Dr. Gosnell was sentenced to life in prison for performing "abortions" on multiple children born after 24-weeks, including children born alive.

1. Gosnell exposed the true horrors of abortion. 
This case exposed to a wide audience the horrible practices of abortion. Dr. Gosnell committed these crimes by an unspeakable practice he called "snipping," i.e. the cutting of children's spinal cords with scissors. That this practice (or a similar technique) could ever be performed on any infant--much less those born alive--is beyond comprehension. This trial brought the bloody mess that is the practice of abortion to our collective conscience, and forced us to reckon with its sheer monstrosity. 

2. The power of conservative social media. 
Although the mainstream news media was slow to cover this trial, Gosnell eventually began to receive the coverage it deserved to have from the start. Whether it was shunned because of the terrors of the details of the trial, or because the liberal-leaning media knew that it was damaging to an "abortion on demand" ideology, we may never know. What we do know is that it was conservative bloggers, including users of micro-blogs like Twitter with its #Gosnell campaign, who brought this case to the attention of the world.

In case you were wondering, FOX News and CNN covered the sentencing of Dr. Gosnell on live TV. When I flipped over to MSNBC, they were eagerly promoting a new movie about Wikileaks: disgusting. 

3. Our existing laws are in serious need of revision.
Roe vs. Wade made the rubric of dividing pregnancy into trimesters the universal language of our medical system. Unfortunately, most states' abortion laws are governed by medical science and knowledge that is decades old. Today, premature children are able to live outside the womb weeks--or even months--earlier than they were in the 1970's. A child that was considered "viable" then, may be viable much earlier today.

Although I consider life to begin at the moment of conception, (as do most serious Bible-believing Christians), even those who do not share our conviction must now reckon with the fact that a baby is clearly alive--by any medical, philosophical, or theological standard--long before 39-weeks.

That this is the case cannot seriously be disputed by any rational thinker. Today's 3D ultrasound technology is a major player in convincing our society of the true miracle of life in the womb. 

4. These horrible acts are likely to be much more widespread than we are ready to admit. 
Already--just a week later--there are allegations of another case in Texas that may be even worse than the Gosnell case. The practice of "snipping" live-born children was apparently not restricted to an obscure location in inner-city Philly, as many would have us believe. The reports of one Dr. Douglas Karpen are rumored to be more despicable than Gosnell, if that is even possible. This case, if reports by observers and witnesses are to be believed, also includes the decapitation of infant children.

5. The failure of federal and state governments to regulate the entire industry of abortion providers is a disgrace.
Gosnell got away with his murderous rampage for years, decades even. No regulator would touch his so called "medical" practice. Sadly, he was never brought down by the incidents and reports related to infanticide; it was drug charges that eventually brought investigators looking. Our societal reluctance to regulate abortion providers because it seems to violate a "right" to abortion-on-demand is heinous indeed.


Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida.

Monday, January 21, 2013

'An Open Letter to the Beloved Opposition' on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday


(Listen to this sermon online here).


To My Dearly Beloved Unbeliever, 



Greetings. First of all let me say how much I love you, and miss you. There should never be any question about my affection for you. You are and always will be held dearly in my heart, and I pray for you daily. Nothing I write in this letter will compromise my love.

I am writing today because it has been so long since we have spoken face to face, and I felt that some correspondence was urgent. Some real dialogue. So much of what you have to say to me, and what I have to say to you has been reduced to the lowest forms of modern communication—Facebook posts, YouTube clips, bumper stickers, and rally posters. 

The last time we talked you mentioned to me “how much I had changed” in recent years; that you hardly know me anymore. I think you are right, and part of my reason for writing is to explain how that change has happened and why even more is yet to come. If I could only explain to you how my experience with Christ has changed my life, my thinking, my worldview, my ethics then perhaps we could understand one another better.

Therefore I am writing this letter to you today to respond to a few of the misconceptions that it seems you may hold about our beliefs and convictions as Christians.  I hope (and beg you) to listen with the open-mindedness and the tolerance that you so often accuse me of lacking.

1. First of all, you said we are ‘growing apart’ and don’t have much in common anymore. It pains me to say it, but I completely agree. I’m noticing it too; the gap between us is widening daily! And I am not surprised that we both feel this way. My master the Lord Jesus Christ told us that this would happen. He said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34-35).

Now, before you go off again accusing us Christians of trying to establish some kind of ‘theocracy,’ –jamming our religion down people’s throats-- let me explain what Jesus meant when He spoke of 'peace' and 'the sword.'

Let's not take this verse in Matthew out of context. Jesus did come to bring a kind of peace. He came to bring the ultimate peace that can ever be had—peace with God through the forgiveness of our sins. The Apostle Paul said, Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1). 

I have that peace with God now that I am a believer, and it has totally renovated my entire life. I cannot tell you how freeing it is to have my guilt, my shame, my regrets, my pain all wiped away in His blood!

The division that Jesus speaks of here (the sword He came to bring, vs. 34) is a division of ultimate allegiances. A division of worldviews. A division of values. A division of convictions. Most of these differences run so deeply that—by way of analogy—it is as though we are on opposite sides of a war. Not a literal war, of course, but a cultural, spiritual, moral war. You might say that we are serving two different ‘kings’ with completely contrasting claims of sovereignty.

As one of our great writers J.C. Ryle once explained, “So long as one man believes and another remains unbelieving, so long as one is resolved to keep his sins and another to give them up, the result of the Gospel must needs be division. For this, the Gospel is not to blame, but the heart of man.”[i]

That “growing apart” that you described, is us both growing closer to our respective king.

2. And that leads me to answer the second question that you posed to me in your letter, i.e. to explain why it seems that I have become so radical these days. I think the exact words that you used were “religious nutcase.” Or was it “Bible thumper?”  I can’t exactly remember, and in any case, I’m getting used to it now. I’ve been hearing it more and more often lately.

Please let me explain that when Jesus saves a man—snatches him up by the power of His irresistible grace--He intends to redeem  the entire man, not just to make him “religious.”  In fact, Christ makes exhaustive claims over his life. Jesus said in this same chapter, 'And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it' (Matthew 10:38-39).

Do you see how all-encompassing His claims are over me? That I cannot just give Him a part of my life? He did not give us that option. If anything, to my own shame, I am not yet radical enough! 

So please don’t be astonished or startled when I choose to live my life in sharp contrast to yours. For instance, when I don’t laugh at your jokes, or enjoy the same films, or treat women as sexual objects to be used, or smirk at your porn addiction. I’ve “lost” those things (vs. 39).

Please don’t be offended when I refuse to go golfing or boating on the Lord’s Day anymore. It’s not that I don’t value our time together. I do. But I’ve found something so much greater in Christ.

And when I do unexplainable things that seem crazy to you—like give away a tenth of every paycheck before I even cash it, even if I have to drive this Chevy Prism for ten more years— it’s because I’ve come to see that I owe everything ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING to Christ!

In fact, the further I “carry the cross” of obedience, giving up the things of this world, the more joyful it becomes to me. This is the great paradox of obedience, and I can’t expect you to understand fully—yet.

And now, my Beloved Friend, let me take up a specific ethical issue that has deeply divided us. Jesus’ warning that 'A man’s enemies will be those of his own household' have proven true for us. It would seem that the chasm separating us cannot possibly be wider than here.

3. You asked me how I could possibly believe something as ‘judgmental,’ ‘narrow,’ and ‘backward’ as I do in regard to abortion.  To my great sadness, you even called me a ‘bigot,’ and alleged that I ‘just want to take away women’s rights to choose.’ Let's be honest: we both know that's a terrible lie.

Oh how I beg you to hear me out! How I plead with you to set aside the media’s caricature of Christians, and listen to our convictions for once!

If you would understand me at all, you must first see how highly we value the Word of God. Our position on this matter, is not our own. We believe it represents the very mind and heart of God as it is revealed in Scripture. And it is after all, God’s view alone that truly matters as Creator of Life.  

Everywhere we turn, we see the Bible underscoring the sanctity of human life. In fact, today is a day that we Christians call “Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.” This principle, that God created, loves, and values human life is everywhere in the Bible:

  • "But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows" (Matthew 10:31-32). If God values my course, graying and receding hairline, does He not value the soft tender locks of the unborn child in the womb?
  • And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward. (Matthew 10:42). I ask you, is there any “little one” littler than the unborn child? More defenseless? Helpless?
  • For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:13-14).
  • So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27).
For millennia now (literally two thousand years) Christians have been the one people on this planet who have striven--often at the cost of our own lives--for the preciousness of human life. It was the early Christians who ended the cruel ancient Roman practice of infanticide by exposure. This was the terrible act of leaving newborn children to die because of their gender, appearance, or handicap. We Christians rescued thousands of abandoned Roman children and raised them and loved them as our own. This is hardly “judgmental.”

It was we Christians who helped to end the horror of African slavery in England and America. Can I remind you that William Wilberforce was an evangelical, as I am? That the Quakers and Moravians--fellow Christ followers--led the charge on our own shores to end slavery? That Martin Luther King himself was a Baptist pastor? I cannot imagine what this society would look like today without the constant witness of the “sanctify of human life” from the mouths of Christians.

And since you, Dear Unbeliever, have not been shy to point out our failures and inconsistencies (for we have regrettably given you many opportunities), would I be too bold to point out one inconsistency of your own? Why is it that you who so highly value the “god” of scientific inquiry and empirical science have so obviously abandoned the consensus of that same scientific community as it relates to the the tiny embryo in the womb having all the genetic wonder of a fully mature adult?

But please don’t be mistaken. Our greatest difference is not abortion, or homosexuality, or the films we enjoy. It is  in our view of Jesus Christ. Let me close this letter with one more quotation. 'So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven' (Matthew 10:32).

Let me remind you again how dearly I love you, my Enemy, my Friend. I have always insisted that I truly love you, and I will plead my case again with this ink. I have wept many tears for your soul. Would you do the same for me if you believed in such a thing? 

That peace that I described in having my sins wiped away can also be yours in Christ. The blood of Christ is sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world (even yours). But I must remind you that it is efficient only for those who repent and believe.

Unbeliever, I can say without hesitation that I would walk through fire for you. I would walk over broken glass for you. I would swim the deepest sea for you if I could. But I can’t. And I don’t have to. Christ has done all for you already on the cross.  

In conclusion, if I ever stop loving you, Unbeliever, you have every right to question everything I claim to stand for.   

Sincerely and affectionately yours, 

--Christian


Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville Fl.




[i] J.C. Ryle Commentary on Matthew 10:34.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Book Review: John Frame. The Doctrine of the Christian Life.

John Frame's The Doctrine of the Christian Life is a massive volume, at approximately one thousand pages, and weighing in at nearly half as many pounds! As the third installment of the Theology of Lordship Series, this volume written by the Reformed Theological Seminary stalwart is an extremely important contribution to the field of Christian ethical theory. After reading the entire volume--as well as its several appendices--this reviewer has found himself far more widely informed in the arena of ethics generally, and Reformed Christian ethical foundations specifically.

The volume unfolds in several significant parts. Frame opens the book by defining several key terms that will be used throughout. He distinguishes terms such as; ethics, morals, values, norms, and virtues so that the reader has a useful working understandings of the same. In these early pages, Frame lays the technical tools on the table, as it were, with which he will be working for the remainder of the volume. Those who have not read widely in the area of ethics will find themselves gradually dipped into the deeper concepts and terminology in the early stages of the work.

Next, Frame begins to unfold his typical tri-perspectival formulations that are key to understanding most of his works. Neophytes simply must have a working knowledge of his familiar rubric. This requires some brief explanation. In both theology and ethics, Frame sees reality from three primary angles, or perspectives. The normative (the objective, absolute standards of God), the situational (what is going on around us in our present context), and the existential (what is happening inside of us as human beings).

New readers or those already familiar with Professor Frame will be able to see a general connection to the Trinity here: The Father, all-powerful, reigning, ordaining and controlling all things (normative), Jesus Christ the Son incarnate who came into the world  to dwell among us (situational), and the Holy Spirit living and reigning in the hearts of believers (existential).

These three perspectives, are general and ought not to be pushed too far or held too rigidly, as Frame often reminds us. A basic understanding of John Frame's tri-perspectivalism, however, is crucial as these angels will be used throughout the work to analyze all things pertaining to ethics by this grid. The normative perspective will show what is expressly commanded by God's holy Law.  The situational  will seek to show how the Law is to be applied in our context today as Christian believers. And the existential will establish how we are to think, feel, and believe in the inner man. All three perspectives are each indispensable to ethics, he argues forcefully.

In the next major section, Frame delves into the major ethical systems held by non-believers. Here Frame reviews many of history's primary contributors to the field: Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, and Hume to name just a few. Frame sees some of these thinkers as helpful to a limited degree, but ultimately finds them all lacking, as none are founded upon God's infallible revelation, the Holy Scriptures.

As a Van Tillian presuppositionalist, Frame assumes (rightly I believe) that the Word of God is our ultimate epistemological foundation. What we know and believe must necessarily comport with revealed truth; and that which is contradicted by the Word must be rejected, no matter how compelling to the natural mind.

All other ethical systems, then, cannot discern or perceive a true normative perspective and are left to grope blindly in the dark through the situational or existential, often desperately near sighted. Thus, all non-Christian ethical systems will inevitably crumble and fail. Even those systems which claim to have a true "norm" are woefully inadequate, as Scripture alone is a sufficient plumb line for ethical truth.

Natural reason alone, he argues, is hopelessly unable to inform the human race as to our purpose and our duties. As with most Reformed theologians, Frame holds tightly to a high view of Scripture and seeks to relentlessly apply the Bible to all areas considered from this point onward. Thus he proceeds sola scripture, by Scripture alone. Those who share this view (as I do) will begin to find this volume more and more powerful. And thus begins the lengthiest section of this volume (and its greatest contribution in this writer's opinion), a significant and weighty exposition of the Ten Commandments.

Frame holds, with some minor exceptions, to the Westminster Confession's view of the Ten Commandments, by beginning with the narrow definition of each commandment (such as 'Do not murder') and then expanding to general applications of the Law (such as just war, abortion, capital punishment etc.).  As in the Confession, each commandment prohibits certain actions while mandating it opposite.

Each Commandment is treated in turn, often with several chapters for each. Frame begins each exposition with a brief grammatical and historical exegesis, showing the reader what the Commandment originally meant in the context of redemptive history. He does not leave it there however. Readers who are interested in contemporary issues will not be disappointed as Frame masterfully brings each commandment (normative perspective) into today's modern context (situational perspective).

For this writer, Frame's treatment of the Second Commandment and the regulative principle was greatly helpful. It is in this section that the Orlando Professor greatly helps the Church with regard to our corporate worship of our great God and Savior. His commentary here is both theoretical and practical.

Throughout DCL, Frame does not shy away from any topic, no matter how taboo to the Church at large. For instance on the Seventh Commandment, Frame treats on human sexuality, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, pornography, and masturbation.

Frame always upholds a conservative ethic that will frustrate progressives and fortify conservatives. His work on abortion, for instance, is particularly compelling and passionate as he defends the sanctity of human life, destroying all counter-arguments in so doing.

The book concludes with another major section related to Christ and culture. This portion would have more naturally been written as a separate, smaller work. But its inclusion here is appropriate as Frame seeks to show the ways that Christians ought to press for change and transformation within society.

Here, Frame enters into some of the intramural debates and in-house discussions common among Reformed thinkers today. Frame argues for a less sharp distinction between Law and Gospel, for example, suggesting that they are often intertwined, even within the same texts. Those who cut their teeth on the more sharply distinguished paradigm advanced by Michael Horton and others will find a congenial "second opinion" given by Frame.

Too, Frame has reservations about the increasingly influential Two Kingdoms view of culture which divides church and state, resisting their intermingling, by emphasizing the church's unique role in word and sacrament. Frame views this tendency as encouraging cultural disengagement rather than driving for real change in society. A Kuyperian (or more properly a Van Tillian), Frame sees Christ's Lordship as holding dominion over all spheres of life, and argues for a more intentional transformation of society on behalf of the church.

Readers of Modern Reformation, for instance, will find some of their convictions helpfully challenged as Frame presses some of these hard-and-fast distinctions to reckon whether they are truly airtight. Each reader, I imagine, must come to that conclusion for himself.

Appendices at the end of the book include reviews of some significant works in the area of ethics. Some are republications of essays Frame has put forward in other places. Their inclusion in the present volume is helpful, if unnecessary to the scope of the whole. Notable among them is Frame's evenhanded critique of Rushdoony's The Institutes of Biblical Law, a work advancing a somewhat radical Christian Reconstructionist view. Here as throughout the book, John Frame seems to give every argument a fair chance, even though he never shies from confessing his own protestations and reservations, often strenuously.

Overall, this work has greatly enhanced this reader's understanding of Christian ethical theory, Reformed applications of Biblical Law, and even non-christian worldviews. Pastors preaching through the Ten Commandments will likely find this work exceedingly helpful as they seek to apply the force of the Law of God to a contemporary context in desperate need of an authoritative normative perspective.

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida. Follow on Twitter at @matt_everhard.