It's Not As Simple as It Seems
This post is probably going to get me in some trouble. Actually it's probably going to get me blacklisted by some, but hey, an honest examination of Scripture is bound to cause controversy.
There are signs that the debate over abortion is about to begin anew. The face of the Supreme Court has changed and many from the Pro-Life camp see it as an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade. The court will hear at least one abortion related case later in the fall and it will be interesting to see what is decided. I've been thinking a lot about this subject lately and I think I have come up with some valid questions that reveal that a pro-life stance is not so cut and dry.
The foundational principle of pro-life thinking is that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder. The problem is that it is a stretch to claim that the Bible teaches this. I'm not saying that it isn't true, but I am saying that if it is true, then it is truth that exists beyond the scope of Scripture. Some like to use the passage in the Psalms where it talks about God forming us in the womb to show life @ conception. While painting a beautiful picture it certainly doesn't make a case for that. It could indicate that life exists in the womb but it doesn't reveal precisely when that life begins to exist. Using it in some sort of scientific way abuses the text and misses the point. Another example given is when God tells Jeremiah that he knew him before he was ever born. The problem with that is that this is more a reference to the omniscience of God and not the pre-birth existence of Jeremiah. The point is that God had established Jeremiah as a prophet before his birth. Furthermore Jeremiah was obviously born and any reference to him cannot automatically be translated to anyone "unborn."
Evangelicals are renowned for simplifying the complex. They take complicated issues and make them black and white, which is why many consider it wrong to drink or listen to "non-christian" music, or go to certain movies, etc. One thing that has come from my "awakening" is the realization that life is a lot more complicated than we like to make it and it can't be so easily fit into some mold that gives us auto-answers to what is sin and what is not. If you disagree then you're going to have to explain to me why it is wrong to kill an unborn child yet perfectly okay to let many die of starvation and neglect after birth, why it is wrong to kill an unborn child through abortion but okay when it is collateral damage incurred during a war against terrorists. You're also going to have to explain God's dealings with nations where he orders them wiped out including the children and those with child. Does that mean that God would favor selective abortion? We can kill the children of the evil but not the children of the righteous? Abortion is okay in judgment of wicked parents? See...not so simple.
My point in this diatribe isn't even about whether abortion is murder or sinful. My point is that the issue of when life begins isn't a certainty. And the problem with that is that we are asking a man-made institution to be the chief theologians when we ask the Supreme Court to determine that life begins at conception. In light of the many shades of gray, perhaps this is an issue that should be left to an individual. I sure don't want the Supreme Court creating laws based on their interpretation of Scripture. They are good, wise men and women (woman) I am sure, but perfect they are not, inherrent they are not, and I'm not sure I want such black and white decision.
For many this means that my conversion to the dark side is complete. From Republican to Democrat, conservative to liberal, and now from pro-life to pro-choice. I don't know what to say to that except that I feel my faith to be more real today than at any point in the past, my commitment to being like Christ more determined. I truly want to know Christ and live life following his example. I want to demonstrate his love to others as purely as possible. The problem is that for many I don't fit into their paradigm. They can't reconcile what I just wrote with my views on abortion and poverty and war. I guess in a black and white world with cut and dry answers the only definition many can give me is "lost."
posted by Paulicus @ 8:47 AM
1 Comments:
I enjoyed your post. It raises or points to many questions that are already apparent. First, can scripture tell us when life begins? If so, does it give one possible answer or a few? It seems that it gives us a few - (scripture is great like that I think. It fights against our black and white constructions of reality). One answer that has been taught within the church is that life begins at "quickening". I don't know much about the scripture that supported this view, but it seems interesting. From an old testament perspective, I think there are at least two routes to go: whenever the individual takes its first breath (i.e. whenever the breath of life is placed inside) or whenever it its own circulatory system begins (the life is in the blood). Although these first 2 routes are enough to consider, there should probably be a third which takes the first 2 into account yet also considers all of the scripture in which the mother's life is seemingly more important (since she is a part of society and the unborn is only potentially a part). I think one major issue that plagues this whole situation is the fact that there is no universal church position. Perhaps the Pope himself, along with the Baptist Pope (Billy Graham) should convene in order to establish the CHURCH's view. That might help things. I say that not so that our view will win out over others, but so evangelicals can be more confident in what they believe. I think if there was ONE evangelical view, that would affect how everyone saw things for better or worse. That will never happen, but it's good to have a wish list.
I am also at odds with the supreme court members necessarily beging the chief theologians. I say 'necessarily' because they have to made theological judgments in order to make judicial judgments. Nonetheless, they have interpreted documents for hundreds of years, trying to apply them to our day and speaking for the writers of such documents when the writers did not explicily address current issues. If this is not the work of a theologian, or at least a pastor, I am not sure what it is. So, at the least they do the same work as a theologian, though they are not bound to the ultimate author (God) as we are, and they do not have the illumnating light of the Spirit to help the interpret the scriptures as we do.
Post a Comment
<< Home