Over the past weeks, I have received many questions on abortion and the current US debate. Below are a few recent thoughts that I have found helpful.

History
If you desire historical understanding regarding this current moment, I recommend John Davidson:

To the left, abortion is sacred. More than any other political issue or policy preference, it encapsulates a worldview that insists on limitless personal autonomy and recognizes no unchosen obligations. It declares that some people deserve absolutely no protection under the law. In that sense, it transcends politics. It is a kind of creed, an inversion of our founding creed: all men are not created equal.
That should sound familiar, because this is not the first time such a creed has been adopted by a vast swath of the country. There is no polite way to say it (and the left hates it when you point it out), but the historical antecedent to the modern fervor for abortion is the antebellum south’s fervor for chattel slavery. Like the abortion regime, the southern slave regime also had a rigid worldview at odds with the Constitution and natural law. It, too, was willing to destroy the country rather than relinquish its worldview and way of life. – John Daniel Davidson, “The Constitutional Crisis That Roe v. Wade Set In Motion Is Now Upon Us” The Federalist May 4, 2022

Language
For linguistic analysis, Ericka Andersen is spot on:

“The idea that we’re gonna make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court I think goes way overboard.” Those words were spoken by President Joe Biden on Tuesday.
Cue another crisis call for the POTUS communications team. Calling an unborn baby a “child” is strictly off-limits for pro-abortion advocates. To linguistically humanize a fetus makes it impossible to deny the reality of abortion: the purposeful termination of a child’s life.
Whoopi Goldberg also slipped. In an angry rift against the draft opinion on The View, she said abortion should be a decision made between a woman and her doctor and her “child.” …She quickly moved past the comment, perhaps recognizing her faux pas, but the camera was rolling. The logical inconsistencies required to uphold pro-abortion views are hard to reconcile and impossible to miss. – Ericka Andersen, “Accidentally Admitting that Abortion Kills a Child” World Opinion May 5, 2022

Ethics
Finally, the current ethical framework is captured by Ellie Reynolds:

Any sinful culture — as all are between Eden and glory — might allow or excuse the killing of an innocent child. But the times such an act has been celebrated have historically been tied to religious rituals in which a child was sacrificed to a supposed deity. In our post-religious culture, that sacrifice is laid on the idol of self.
…Selfishness isn’t unique to our moment, but it does manifest today in a particularly straightforward way. If we believe the highest telos of our existence is self-discovery, our lives cease to serve any higher purpose than ourselves. It makes sense, then, that our culture would glorify abortion because, by that paradigm, killing an inconvenient baby is a means to self-empowerment. If eugenicist abortionists pushed to kill off babies for the “good” of society a century ago, now they purport to do so for the “good” of the individual woman.
It’s why abortion activists can, in complete seriousness, advocate for the murder of a full-term child. It doesn’t matter to them that the baby is a living being — if he or she conflicts with a woman’s self-love, that baby doesn’t deserve to live. It’s perfectly consistent with our culture’s increasingly popular perception of having children as a fulfillment of their parents’ wants instead of a responsibility to cherish that requires sacrifice and self-denial.
…If self-gratification is our highest good, then any act (up to and including the murder of a child) becomes good if done in its pursuit. If we are our own arbiters of truth, then moral reality ceases to become an inhibition, and life itself ceases to become an inherent good. If limiting the licentious indulgence of our own desires is “oppression” and therefore the greatest sin, then the anti-abortion crowd becomes the bad guys.
Until we confront the self-idolatry of our culture, many people will truly believe abortion is not just a “necessary evil” but a self-empowering good. Merely convincing them that abortion takes the precious life of a baby does nothing to shatter that paradigm, if they value their own imagined “empowerment” more than that life. The message their mania requires is that something true, good, and infinitely worthy could exist that is greater than themselves. – Ellie Reynolds, “Why Today’s Left Is Willing To Admit Abortion Kills A Child And Still Support It,” The Federalist, May 10, 2022

God bless,

Wayne

Hot topics
Christians are to speak against evil on scriptural/moral grounds while at the same time sharing God’s grace with those committed to sin. In a recent NY Times op-ed, Pastor Tim Keller called this “the third way.” While there may be some flaws to Keller’s reasoning in the article, he is correct that we must be Christ’s ambassadors, speaking truth while caring deeply for each soul. For example, this leaves the Christian in position to love an eye-gouger while boldly standing against blindness. We see past the sinner’s pointed stick, speaking the message of rescue through God’s grace. Yet we never compromise on the scriptural stance against putting out other people’s eyes.

Third rail
The biggest problem for the Christian messenger usually comes from inside the body of Christ, which is the context in Ephesians 4:15 quoted above. Brethren who are emotionally vested in one aspect – either truth or love – will attack the Christian speaker when their “side” seems to be less-represented. Instead of “third way,” perhaps Keller should have called the biblically balanced approach to hot topics a “third rail.” [He lives in NYC where the subway’s third rail is the one full of electricity.]

For example, when I teach a passage that speaks clearly against abortion/infanticide, like Joshua 6:26, I will often receive angry notes from those who have had abortions or who are concerned about evangelism to the world. They fear I have uncompassionately shorted the “love side.” When I add a passage that speaks clearly about love and complete forgiveness, like Psalm 103, I will get shrillish comments from those who ache at the thought of each child murdered in the womb that day. They fear I have shorted the “truth” side.

As we speak the truth in love about abortion, eye-gouging, or whatever wickedness is the hot topic of the age, we must prepare for the electricity inherent in the third rail. Our brethren mean well and are faithfully speaking to what they see and know. When sparks fly, we must not react, but respond instead according to 2 Corinthians 10:3-5:
For although we live in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh, since the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but are powerful through God for the demolition of strongholds. We demolish arguments and every proud thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ. ^CSB

God bless,
Wayne

Follow Jesus

Mark records Jesus’ oft-repeated call, “Follow Me.” This is the core of the book and the way of abundant life – to deny self and follow Jesus. If taking up one’s cross seems difficult, comparison with the alternative adds useful perspective. The alternative to following Jesus is to be continually pursuing the ephemeral guidance of self or society. Pastor Kevin DeYoung does a brilliant job explaining the pain and confusion in following that:

Follow me in the following intellectual exercise:
Gender is a social construct. Period.
At the same time, it’s always good when women can break glass ceilings. We should celebrate all the firsts that we see women do because women are certainly not men.
By women, of course, I mean anyone who identifies as a woman, including people we used to know as men. Sex is a socially derived category that assigns certain physical differences and then labels those differences as “male” or “female.” There are no immutable distinctions between men and women. We are all on a spectrum. We can all change.
Unless we are talking about sexual desires. Coming out as gay or lesbian is something we should all be proud of because people can’t change the way they were born. In fact, it should be illegal for doctors and counselors and religious leaders to try to change people who were born a certain way.
But some people definitely should be able to change the way they were born in terms of gender—and doctors and counselors and religious leaders should do everything they can to encourage this change. Sometimes our bodies don’t align with our true selves. Never forget: Your self-identity is your genuine identity.
Except when it comes to race and ethnicity. You should never claim an ethnic or racial identity that isn’t yours. Be very careful what you eat and what you wear; you can’t just appropriate someone else’s culture.
But you can appropriate someone else’s gender. Or go with no gender at all. We have all been socialized into a gender system that tells us how to think and how to act. The sooner we do away with the notion of a gender binary altogether, the better.
But just remember, women have been held back by the evils of patriarchy. Women are oppressed; men are oppressors. That’s a fact.
Not that “women” or “men” are anything more than fluid and culturally conditioned modes of self-identification. Obviously.
Still, we shouldn’t do away with women’s sports. It’s essential that every college have as many sports for women as for men. We must have equal opportunities for both sexes. Sports for women, sports for men. Those categories are absolutely critical.
I know, it’s complicated. But don’t worry, the less you think about it the more it will make sense.
But if men want to participate as women in women’s sports, that’s also really good because the sexual differences upon which the existence of men’s and women’s sports rest—those differences don’t really exist.
But don’t get me wrong, women have it a lot harder than men, trying to balance being a mom and pursuing a career.
Just to be clear, though, men can also be mothers. Birthing persons come in all genders.
Not that gender is anything more than what our culture tells us it is. Don’t forget that.
And don’t forget that women get paid less than men in the workplace. And women are underrepresented in Fortune 500 companies. And we’ve still never had a woman president.
Or at least not a president that we took to be a woman. It’s hard to say what a woman is without biologists weighing in.
Not that being a man or a woman is rooted in biology. That goes without saying.
Well, whatever a woman is, we know this much for sure: Women have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Reproductive freedom is the most important women’s issue of our time.
But I’m not saying that only women reproduce. Men can menstruate too.
Being a woman has many challenges. That’s why it’s important we protect women and make them feel safe.
Except in restrooms, in locker rooms, and in prisons. Then it’s OK for women to feel unsafe around men because everyone knows those men are really women.
It’s also worth remembering that men and women don’t have to look a certain way. But if a man becomes a woman, he should definitely pick a woman’s name and try not to look masculine anymore
I mean, if there were such a thing as masculinity. Because obviously there isn’t.
But sometimes there is, and then it’s completely toxic.

Here’s the bottom line: Gender is a social construct. Period.
I know, it’s complicated. But don’t worry, the less you think about it the more it will make sense. – Kevin DeYoung in World Opinions, 29 March, 2022

Given that complicated and moving target, we begin to understand why Jesus said that His burden is easy and His yoke is light.

Thank you all for the blessing of studying in Mark together. Let’s follow Him!

God bless,
Wayne

Looking back

February is remembered in the US as Black History Month, because we dare not forget an inescapable truth of the past – that people with black skin were once enslaved in America. Thus, our African-American brethren look back during black history month.

They are remembering that their ancestors’ freedom was granted by God through a great sacrifice. The Lord used the deaths of 618,000 soldiers to buy freedom for the slaves. There is a reason that our black forefathers taught and sang about Israel in Egypt so often – because they could relate to what it means to look back on a history of slavery and see the glory of freedom bought at a blood price!

This explains why our black forebears in Christ felt such kinship with Joshua. When Joshua and company celebrate Passover in Joshua 5, they are looking back to Egypt. They are remembering that God saved them from slavery. God brought them to the Promised Land by eliminating the first born of Egypt – forcing Pharaoh to release the Jews. Only those who had the blood of the Passover lamb spread over their doorway were “passed over” by the angel of death that fateful night in Egypt.

Passover is significant because it looks back; and Passover also looks ahead.
Looking ahead

Over time, the Passover service became more stylized. And one of the beautiful practices in a Passover meal is the focus not only on looking back to Egypt, but also looking ahead to the Messiah. The scriptures make it clear that the Passover does not merely celebrate the freedom from Egypt. It also rejoices the coming freedom from sin – in the sacrifice of the Messiah, the perfect Lamb of God.

This was what John the Baptizer was saying through the famous encounter recorded in John 1:29. The people of John’s day understood that he was saying this Jesus [a form of the name Joshua] is the One you look ahead to every year when you partake of Passover. He is Messiah, the Passover Lamb of God.

Even today, at the modern family Passover, there is a cup of wine set aside for the prophet Elijah, and the door is left open so Elijah may join the feast. Why do Jews do this? Because Passover is about looking ahead to the triumphant coming of the Messiah. According to the prophets, Elijah will return and precede the Messiah in establishing His coming kingdom. Therefore, leaving space for Elijah is an act of looking ahead to the Messiah’s coming.

In a similar way, we should look ahead to history yet to be written. A day is coming when Jesus, preceded by Elijah, will return to establish His perfect kingdom. People of every color, tribe, and tongue will be judged on the basis of whether they trusted Jesus. The Messiah is the perfect blood sacrifice for you, and if you trust Him you can join in the Passover celebration for eternity. As our black brethren sang in the late 19^th century:

The Gospel train’s comin’
I hear it just at hand
I hear the car wheel rumblin’
And rollin’ thro’ the land

Get on board little children
Get on board little children
Get on board little children
There’s room for many more
God bless,
Wayne

Logos

I referred to the amazing Greek word “logos” in a recent podcast, summarizing that logos indicates that words have meaning. Translated into English as “word,” logos began as a counting term, used for the solidity of reality described by words much as numbers describe the reality of sets of things. In my study, I pointed out that the Greek thinkers especially used logos in contrast to mythos. Mythos may contain truth, but myth is malleable – developed by successive readers’ understanding. Logos is altogether different, based on reality – whether that reality is clearly understood by the reader or not. [See Plato’s Republic book III for what may be the best statement on this.]

In response, I received a great deal of mail showing the widespread absurdity of postmodern “thinking,” where all is treated as mythos. To hold forth any logos is viewed as a threat. Particularly heart-wrenching were the accounts of people castigated for what their “woke” persecutors called “worship of word meanings.” Here’s one example from an educator at a Christian school:

Will never forget the headmaster telling me that I and others like me tend to “worship the Bible.” He warned that we need to be careful not to do that lest we neglect “alternative lived experiences.” We have long known that materialist philosophy rejects the possibility of language communicating objective truth—but to hear a Christian man/church elder/Christian school administrator speaking against logos was (and still is) hard to believe. Evidently, it’s now part of the school association training.[1]

Materialist philosophers feel threatened by the possibility that language does communicate truth and that truth is compelling. Why else would they feel such a desperation to censor our speech?

Good point! My brilliant friend goes on with a call to action:

We need to be praying for Christians and non-Christians who are coming under persecution for speaking truth. The pressure to capitulate, as we learned, is very strong.

God bless,
Wayne