abortion

Questions Christians Fear

Sean McDowell — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:12:20 -0700

What are the questions you most fear being asked about your faith? Even as a trained apologist there are many tough questions I hope don’t come up in my discussions with non-believers. Some questions are simply difficult to answer. But we can’t ignore the tough questions. Such an approach is cowardly and counterproductive for the kingdom of God. We must—yes, must—be prepared with an answer for the toughest questions (1 Peter 3:15). We have nothing to fear because the truth is on our side.

I recently had the opportunity to endorse Mark Mittelberg’s upcoming book entitled, “The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask (With Answers).” This book is based upon a survey Mark sponsored with Tyndale Publishers through the Barna Group of one thousand self-proclaimed Christians. They asked each person what faith questions they would feel most uncomfortable being asked by a co-worker or friend. Some questions are expected but a few might come as a surprise.

In my opinion, Mark is one of the best “popular” level apologists today. He’s well aware of the scholarly research, but he makes it understandable, relevant, practical, and interesting. He has the same ministry heartbeat as Lee Strobel, his ministry partner and friend for over twenty-three years.

According to the Barna survey here’s the questions Christians hope no one will ask:

What makes you so sure that God exists at all—especially when you can’t see, hear, or touch him?

Didn’t evolution put God out of a job? Why rely on religion in an age of science and knowledge?

Why trust the Bible, a book based on myths and full of contradictions and mistakes?

Everyone knows that Jesus was a good man and a wise teacher—but why try to make him into the Son of God, too?

How could a good God allow so much evil, pain, and suffering—or does he simply not care?

Why is abortion such a line in the sand for Christians? Why can’t I be left alone to make my own choices for my own body?

Why do you condemn homosexuality when it’s clear that God made gays and that he loves all people the same?

How can I trust in Christianity when so many Christians are hypocrites-or, even worse, they're judgmental toward everyone who doesn't agree with them?

Why should I think that heaven really exists—and that God sends people to hell?

The purpose of this blog is not to answer these questions but to make you aware of how Christians are thinking. The purpose is also to challenge you to think about these important questions and to do a little soul searching. Sometimes it’s better to ask questions than to answer them. In fact, Jesus asked questions in the gospels, even though he knew the answers.

So, here are some questions for you: Are you prepared to answer these questions? Which one are you most confident to answer? Which one are you the least confident about? Why do you think Christians fear these particular questions? When was the last time you were asked one of these questions? How often are you in discussions with Christians (and more importantly, non-Christians) about these important topics? What does this reveal about you?

I suspect we fear these questions because we don’t want to look bad in front of others. None of us want to get caught off guard. But in reality, what this reveals is how self-focused we really are. Fear is always selfish. Love is always selfless. And that is why 1 John 4:8 says that perfect love casts out fear. When we focus on loving others we can often move beyond our fears. If we really care about our non-believing friends, we will take the time to think through these questions so we can provide a thoughtful answer when they ask.

If you want answers to these questions, and some practical advice of how to apply these answers to evangelism, pre-order a copy of Mark’s book! Or buy a copy for a friend. Either way, this books needs to get into as many hands as possible. It’s great stuff!

Can We Make the Pro-Life Movement "Cool?" -- Part 2

Brett Kunkle — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:36:49 -0700

Dobson and Pigskin Politics

bo.white — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:21:17 -0800

So I’m scrolling through my newsfeed on Facebook the other day and see a link to a story on ABC about Focus on the Family running an anti-abortion ad during Super Bowl XLIV starring Tim Tebow. I may have been the last person on the 'Interwebs' (that’s what my 65 year old dad calls it) to see this, but it sparked a few thoughts.

In the article, Gary Schneeberger, a Focus on the Family spokesman, is quoted as saying, “There is nothing political or controversial about the spot.” Are you kidding me? Nothing political or controversial… right. Focus on the Family has become synonymous with both politics and controversy due to its strong alignment with crazy right-wing ideologies.

Personal note to James Dobson: Stop sending me letters about gay people taking over America! Thank you.

Regardless of where one stands on abortion, the only thing most us will take away from this commercial is that Focus on the Family ran a commercial during the Super Bowl, and the message, however good it might be, will be lost. Look, I do think abortion should be avoided in most circumstances and there are many folks on both sides of the political aisle who agree on this. But how to actually reduce the occurrence of abortions is the point of contention and Focus on the Family has unfortunately become associated with the Christian Coalition/Pat Robertson political machine on this. (FYI, Robertson says things like, “The feminist agenda encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”)

If anyone who sees this commercial actually gets past the politics of Focus on the Family, then I’m guessing he (probably not a she) already adores James Dobson – of course in a purely platonic sense, not in a gay way. However if Focus on the Family is really interested in shaping a productive dialogue on the issue of abortion rather than having a shouting match, then I would suggest they spend their $2.8 million for a 30 second Super Bowl commercial elsewhere.

-jonathan

Can We Make the Pro-Life Movement "Cool?" -- Part 1

Brett Kunkle — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:55:06 -0800

Can We Make the Pro-Life Movement "Cool?"

Brett Kunkle — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:04:45 -0800

It depends. What do we mean by "cool" and what will we do to achieve it? But I think abortion is the greatest social justice issue of our time (despite a growing Evangelical aversion to the issue) and therefore, we've got to think carefully about how we communicate the pro-life message.

Check out part one of my "cool" discussion with the Life Training Institute crew, in their most recent podcast.

Part 2: Did Tiller Get What He Deserved?

Sean McDowell — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:50:24 -0700

Late-term abortion is despicable. Except for extremely rare circumstances, a baby at this stage is fully viable (it can survive outside the mother’s womb). An unborn child at this stage is a precious member of the human community who deserves our protection. Some people deny an embryo full human status because they say it doesn’t look human (this ignores the fact that an embryo looks exactly as a human being is supposed to look like at that stage of development). But the same reasoning cannot be applied to a baby in late term. It is obviously human.

Every clear thinking American—and in particular, Christians—ought to condemn the actions of Dr. Tiller. Taking the life of 60,000 precious unborn human persons is a grave wrong that we cannot, and must not, ignore. If we don’t speak out on behalf of these people, who will?

Why should we be so outraged at late-term abortions and the actions of Dr. Tiller? Ultimately, the answer is quite simple: it treats a human functionally rather than as a being with intrinsic value. In other words, the unborn is treated as an object and thus discarded because it is a costly inconvenience to the mother. We should be outraged when people are treated as objects rather than persons with intrinsic value. People should be loved, not used.

But before we get self-righteous and start thinking that Tiller got what he deserved, I wonder what Jesus would have to say to this issue. Would Jesus turn the critique around and use it as an opportunity to get us to examine our own hearts rather than be so quick to judge others? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made some startling statements that directly apply.

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…. ‘You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5, NKJV).

In other words, it’s not just the act of murder or adultery that makes one guilty but the lustful and/or angry thought itself. While you and I have (likely) not performed a late-term abortion, I wonder if we have treated people functionally in the same way. This would seem to make use just as guilty (in the eyes of Jesus) as those who have actually performed the procedure. Let me ask a few questions that may help clarify:

Have you ever made fun of someone else? If so, you treated that person functionally. Have you ever treated someone differently because he or she was popular or had more money? If so, you treated that person functionally. Have you ever looked at pornography? If so, you were treating that person functionally, as an object. While these are not the same acts as late-term abortion, and don’t have as powerful of a consequence, they are in the same spirit (just as lust is of the same spirit as adultery).

Rather than taking this opportunity to condemn Dr. Tiller, implying that he got what he deserved, I think we should take a minute to look inward and ask ourselves if we have ever treated people functionally (I know that I have). In fact, it seems to me that this is exactly what Jesus would do. Determining whether or not Dr. Tiller got what he deserved is up to God, not us. “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord (Romans 12:19).

In fact, if I read my Bible right, it seems to imply that all of us are deserving of death because we have rebelled against our creator. Romans 3:23 says, “We have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” That includes YOU and ME. As a result, Paul says “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Christians ought to be outspoken against atrocities such as partial-birth abortion, but we must not forget that we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s standard. Our hearts should be broken at how profoundly sin has infiltrated our world and lead to the death of both Dr. Tiller, and the 60,000 unborn precious human persons he aborted. We are no better than Dr. Tiller. It’s only when we truly grasp our own sinfulness, and the incredibly grace of God, that we can rightfully condemn such actions without hypocrisy.

Did Dr. Tiller Get What He Deserved?

Sean McDowell — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:34:24 -0700

The title of this blog may have shocked you. So I better clarify something right up front: I am NOT endorsing the actions of the killer who took Dr. Tiller’s life in ANY way. I agree with the conclusions of Dr. Robert George:

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. …No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted and punished. …Every human life is precious. George Tiller’s life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life.

My point is simply to raise some troubling questions about the justification that has been offered for why the killing of Dr. Tiller should be condemned. My criticism will be applied to both the right and the left.

Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly strongly condemned the killing of Dr. Tiller. Even though O’Reilly has been an outspoken critic of Tiller, he strongly condemned his murder. While I agree that the murder of Tiller should be strongly condemned, O’Reilly’s justification was troubling and unconvincing. He said, “Clear thinking Americans should condemn the killing of Dr. Tiller because what he did was within the bounds of Kansas law.” In other words, while Dr. Tiller’s actions were deeply immoral, murdering him was wrong because it is illegal.

This raises a troubling question and an inconsistency in O’Reilly’s justification. After all, weren’t Nazi atrocities “within the bounds” of German law? Would O’Reilly have condemned the killing of Hitler, had he been assassinated, even though what Hitler did was fully legal by the German law of his time? The power of the recent movie Valkyrie is that sometimes it is right to go against the legal code of a society for the greater good. Why would it be right to kill Hitler, who directed the deaths of 6 million Jews, but not Tiller who personally killed 60,000 fully viable members of the human community through late-term abortions?

You might be thinking, “But our laws do not give full human rights to the unborn ‘fetus.’ It’s not considered a full human person.” But the same was true for Germany. They intentionally avoided terms such as “human” and “person” when talking about Jews. Rather, they referred to them as “vermin” that needed to be exterminated. While the society considered them less than fully human, the reality is that Jews were fully human and deserving of life. On what basis can we deny full human rights to an unborn child in late term any more than we can deny it to the Jews? There is no convincing scientific, philosophical, or theological reason to deny them from full status as members of the human community.

Here’s the bottom line: just because something is legal does not mean its right (slavery also comes to mind). And just because something is illegal does not necessarily mean it is wrong. While the killing of Tiller ought to be condemned, O’Reilly and others who base their arguments on its legality need a better moral justification.

But there is also an inconsistency on the side of the left. President Obama harshly criticizes torture, even though it arguably has resulted in the saving of human lives. In other words, the ends do not justify the means. However, oddly enough, Obama also favors the bombing of Pakistan for the end result of saving American. The problem is that these actions result in the death of many innocent Pakistanis. Why is it okay to kill innocent Pakistani civilians, but not okay to torture (probably) guilty terror suspects who are not killed? Here’s my question as it relates to the killing of Dr. Tiller: If it is not acceptable to kill an abortionist, why is it okay to kill innocent civilians in Pakistan since both have the end goal of saving lives?”

From my perspective, the only justifiable reason for protecting human life (whether the unborn or Dr. Tiller’s) is that human beings are made in the image of God and thus have infinite dignity, value, and worth. Neither the left nor the right can give a solid foundation for intrinsic human value without God. Rather than Dr. Tiller getting what he (allegedly) deserved, could it be that our culture, which has abandoned the real basis of human dignity, got what it deserved?

Pro-Lifers, Make Yourself Useful

Kristen Howerton — Sat, 23 May 2009 00:20:59 -0700

There has been quite a bit of press this week about the abortion debate, fueled by a slew of protests at Barack Obama's recent speech at Notre Dame's commencement. Most notably, people in the crowd were shouting "baby killer" at the president, while a march outside the auditorium featured protesters pushing strollers that held blood-smeared baby dolls.

I am unembarrassed by my beliefs about abortion. I don't like it. But as Mark Meehan wrote in a recent blog post, it feels like the term Pro-Life Movement represents a contingency of screamers that are not taken seriously by those outside their camp. I'm pro-life, but I'm not sure I want to be a part of this Pro-Life Movement.

I'm concerned by a number of things, the scape-goating of pro-choice politicians being one of them. Abortion is not simply a political issue, and politicians are certainly not the ones responsible for the ambivalence our society holds towards the unborn. Vilifying a person or a political party is not useful when you consider the numbers of people in the general public (and medical community) who are pro-choice. If we're gonna start screaming "baby killer" at anyone who doesn't share our view, we are gonna be doing a lot of yelling. At neighbors, at friends, at our own doctors, at teachers at our kids' schools . . . there are a host of regular, good people who believe in a woman's right to choose. There are many, many people that I respect and even admire who hold different views than I do in regards to abortion. I have dear friends who have had abortions. Some who regret it, and some who think it was the right decision.

So in an effort to be useful, and in an effort to be a part of the solution instead of a part of the problem, I think it is time for the Pro-Life Movement to re-think their tactics. I believe that fervently shouting scripture at people who don't consider the Bible to be their authority is a misguided effort. Shock tactics like wielding bloody pictures of mutilated babies do not seem to change hearts and minds, and may only serve to solidify the reputation of pro-lifers as being fringe and extreme.

I would love to start a dialogue about how someone who believes in rights for the unborn can lend their time and energy to efforts that would be useful to our society. This is one of those issues that strikes me as needing a little less talk, and a little more action. And by action, I don't mean more picketing and yelling and condemnation. I mean acts of service, in the true spirit of Christ, that will make a difference in the lives of struggling people without causing more divide, hurt, or shame.

I certainly don't have all the answers, but there are some practical ways I have seen others reach out and try to make a difference:

- Educating children and teens about pregnancy prevention (in all forms)

- Making birth control accessible

- Starting a support group for women who are experiencing grief and loss issues after an abortion

- Supporting pregnant women who are struggling to make ends meet

- Advocating for better support and education for parents facing a genetic disorder diagnosed in pregnancy (I have a lot more to say on this one, but for now, read this)

- Adopting a child, or getting involved in the movement to make adoption affordable

- Mentoring an at-risk teenager

No matter where we stand on the issue, I think most of us would agree that reducing the number of women seeking abortions would be a good goal. What do you think the Pro-Life Movement can do to make themselves/ourselves useful to this end?

{Kristen}

How Pro-Lifers Lost Their Place at the Table

MarkM — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:42:52 -0700

We knew this was going to happen. A couple of weeks ago, as we were discussing the Christian support of torture, we could see it coming. Suddenly, without warning, Christians were going to emerge miraculously “Pro life.“ Like a mythological Phenix rising from the still hot ashes of a failed Presidential campaign, they would rise.

OK, so I’m being dramatic. But really, we did know this was coming, right?

I had to take a very deep breath the other night, as CNN showed the President looking campaign-like in glorious South Bend. Now,I’m no fan of Fox, but I have to say that he looked a little smug in the graduation regalia, with his blue velvet robe stripes glowing in the bright camera lights. Like he had won somehow, before he even spoke. And he was right. He did.

President Obama looked out into the crowd, and with that famous, confident, slight tilt of the head, intoned, “Unfortunately, finding that common ground -- recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" -- is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man -- our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin.”

And all God’s people said “BABY KILLER!!!”

The President paused, quietly calmed the crowd as the screamer was ushered out, and continued, “The question, then -- the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly hold convictions on the other side?”

And all of God’s people said “BABY KILLER!!!!”

President Obama paused again, as another wriggling “Pro-life” protester was escorted out of the cavernous arena. After a slight clearing of the throat, he said, “That's when we begin to say, Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions."

And all of God’s people said . . . well, you get the idea. All of the quotes are real, my friends, not necessarily in that order, but exact. And I wonder if that’s why President Obama knew he won before the event even began. He stands as a voice of reason, admitting the difficulty of the issue and inviting people to the table to begin some kid of dialogue. He acknowledges that we have been divided over the issue for decades, and that somehow, try as we might, it has not gone away.

And it won’t. Contrary to some belief, it is not a black and white issue, and regardless of the polls Focus on the Family promotes, our nation is deeply divided. I don’t know about you, but I have never won many arguments by taking the exact opposite, equally extreme view of an issue. Try it with your spouse tonight and let me know how it goes.

One more thought. What makes me most sad about the whole issue is that the “Christian Right” already gave away their right to say anything under the banner of “Pro-life.” Supporting torture is not Pro-life. Supporting the war in Iraq is not Pro-life. I can handle the protestors being called, “Anti-abortion” protestors, but not Pro-life, because they are not. They are pro some lives, but not all.

In our nation today, after years of such screaming, people are no longer willing to listen. President Obama invited people to the table, but some refused to sit down. I suspect that as the dialogue begins, we will hear screaming in the background. While they may feel justified in doing so, maybe even more righteous for not being there, their voice will not be heard. And their voice needed to be part of the discussion.

The issue of abortion

Sean McDowell — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:43:06 -0700

"Above is one of the most powerful speeches I've seen for pro-life (it's only 5 minutes). And it's by a 12 year old! This is a great video to show to your kids, students, and to study yourself. I wish there were many more young girl's like this out there. Enjoy!"