Another Christian comes down with a case of the common sense. Reverend Gregory A. Boyd of the Woodland Hills Church in St Paul, Minnesota caught it a few years back and hasn’t been the same since… luckily.
Rev. Boyd preaches to some 4,000 members of the church every week and spreads a surprising message… well surprising to Christians anyways. Annoyed with church members asking him to promote their anti-gay agenda, endorse ONLY Republican candidates, and hang Americans flags in the church to support the war effort, Rev Boyd sent a clear message.
He wrote up six sermons called, "The Cross and the Sword" to clearly outline the purpose of their faith and their church. Boyd says,
The church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.
Those are powerful words that sit well with me. In this one sentence, Boyd sums up what is ruining Christianity today. Unfortunately, that sermon didn’t sit well with his flock. The church lost 1,000 of its 5,000 members because it didn’t fit their broken concept of Christianity. But is there anything wrong with what Boyd has stated?
I really would like to hear from the Christians on this one. Do you agree with Boyd’s statement and why?
I’d like to thank Michael Lawrence for sending me this story.
Related posts:
Why stop there:
1) Organic matter (I’m no biologist, but think carbon, etc…) is a potential human.
2) One has the ethical rights equivalent to that of its potential.
Thus
3) Organic matter has ethical rights equivalent to that of a human.
Clearly this isnt right.
Science and Christianity accept the first statement (“ashes to ashes, dust to dust” comes to mind, but I wouldn’t know for sure) and I’m sure most christians don’t accept the deduction.
I glad some of us moderates are getting some air play for once. There’s more of us than people realise. We don’t yell quite as loud but we are here.
Matt
eclectic itchings
@sidfaiwu:
Sorry for the delay in replying…. work, life, etc… ;) I guess I don’t really have anything to add to what I said before, except to try and clarify.
I’m not objecting to the accuracy of how you’ve broken down the “argument from potential” there. (btw, note that I only mentioned it as a passing example and wasn’t trying to rigorously defend it!) What I am saying is that from a Christian perspective, the human is a special case. That is, having the potential to be come a living human being brings a whole new set of ethical standards into play… standards which simply do not apply for any other entity. I can offer theological support for this from a Christian POV, but I don’t think that will really add to this discussion. Do you see what I’m trying to get at though? Yes, your deductive reasoning holds from a purely critical, logical perspective. However, I believe that a discussion of this sort that involves human life necessarily invokes a unique set of ethical rules.
Hello Ben,
Alas, I believe here we reach an impasse. My question would be “Why do humans deserve any special ethical consideration?” And I already know the standard Christian answer: “Because humans were made in God’s image.” Unfortunately, that answer is fact-less claim that can only be taken on faith. But please note that this means your defense of treating a fetus as a human relies solely on faith and not on reason. Of course you are free to do so, but this means that outlawing abortion is equivalent to legislating faith. For the protection of all religions, Christianity included, the government is forbidden from legislating faith and should thus make no laws restricting abortion. That is, unless there is a logical reason to restrict it.
Yes, I agree that this is an impasse – that’s what I was trying to say before when I said that the two opposing schools of thought were irreconcilable.
On assessing the issue as fundamentally being reason vs. faith, however, I have to again point out that this is a false dichotomy. There is certainly such a thing as a reasonable faith, and if only more Christians would engage their minds before they open their mouths, we would probably be listened to a lot more.
I’m saying that for the Christian, human rights are a unique case and should be protected at all costs. You say that that belief relies on a theological assumption which can’t be empirically proven, fine. In the absence of that assumption, then on what non-arbitrary basis do we protect human rights at all?
While the Christian idea that we should protect humanity on the basis that they are uniquely greated in the image of God is certainly based on the scriptures, it is at least a reasonable and logical conclusion. I just want to do all I can to dispel the idea that being a Christian necessarily means you have to throw your intellectual integrity out the door, because it simply isn’t the case.
Ben,
You said:
“I’m saying that for the Christian, human rights are a unique case and should be protected at all costs.”
Historically this is not the case (think slavery). Unless you want to start splitting hairs over who is a “real” Christian and who is not, it would be wise for you to not attempt to speak for all Christians. Fact is that Christians across the world have a broad range of specific beliefs and values.
And also:
“You say that that belief relies on a theological assumption which can’t be empirically proven, fine. In the absence of that assumption, then on what non-arbitrary basis do we protect human rights at all?”
That one is easy: We all desire to be free and alive. So we seek a system which can accomplish that.
In my opinion, controlling a woman’s reproductive choices is antithetical to the above principal. You can’t force someone to give birth.
Hi Matthew,
I’m not saying that Christians are ever (or have ever been) perfect. Nor do I believe that everyone who claims (or has claimed) to be a Christian is speaking the truth. (Again, I can offer substantial theological support from scripture for these beliefs). However, claiming that “some (so-called) Christians have at times supported slavery, and therefore they do not believe in human rights” is a textbook ad hominem attack. I am arguing from the perspective of what I believe is the scriptural Christian ideal (and I’ve tried to make that very clear), not the flawed and pale imitation of it which is practiced by so many and gives us a bad name.
Your stated basis for protecting human rights (“we desire to be free and alive”) rises or falls on the definition of a human; as we’ve stated, we’re at an impasse on that issue. If a fetus is simply an unborn human, which is my view, then the basis that you gave is a sweeping condemnation of abortion.
Either way, as I’ve said, I’m not really as concerned with the political fallout caused by the issue as I am with simply sharing what I believe to be true. I’m pretty sure that abortions are always going to happen, whether they are legal or not.
Ben,
“Your stated basis for protecting human rights (â€we desire to be free and aliveâ€) rises or falls on the definition of a human;” as we’ve stated, we’re at an impasse on that issue. If a fetus is simply an unborn human, which is my view, then the basis that you gave is a sweeping condemnation of abortion.”
The issue of whether or not a fetus is human is a red herring. It *is* an unborn human, by definition. There is no question of that. Question is, does an unborn human fall under the protection of society? I say no because it is within the mother’s private care inside her body. It has not been born into society and thus gets none of the protections that society can provide.
Think of a woman’s body (or anyone’s body) as a sort of “international waters,” if you will. For most practical purposes, man’s law stops at your skin. Within your body…your mind, you can do and think whatever you want. Doesn’t matter how libelous or threating your thoughts are. They are your own. There is no thought police. Just as there should be no reproductive police. It is bad enough that was tell people what they can and cannot put into their bodies when it comes to drugs.
Condemn abortion all you want. Just don’t legislate it. You have no right.
I was actually trying to be generous (rather than diversionary) in making sure I mentioned that some do not agree that a fetus is an unborn human. If you are happy to concede that, which you seem to be, then I find it much easier to make a compelling case against abortion.
In fact, I am happy to just quote John Piper on this; he has already said what I would say with a lot more lucidity:
—-
We Know What We Are Doing
1. States Treat the Killing of the Unborn as a Homicide
We know what we are doing because 27 States (including Minnesota) treat the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide (see United for Life). That is, they have what are called “fetal homicide laws.” Other states (besides these 27) have different kinds of penalties for attacks on women that result in harm to the baby she is carrying.
For example, in Minnesota in 1987, a teenage girl 6 ½ months pregnant went with her boyfriend on a suicide pact into the woods. She shot herself in the head, and he changed his mind and covered her over with brush and walked away. He was apprehended and charged with assisting a suicide and “inadvertently murdering the fetus during the commission of a felony.” The fetal homicide law carried a stiffer penalty than assisting in a suicide. The verdict was upheld in 1991.
As I read about this in the newspaper one sentence leaped off the page because of its stunning implications. “The law makes it murder to kill an embryo or fetus intentionally, except in cases of abortion.” Think about that for a moment. We have some laws that condemn the killing of a fetus as murder, and we have some laws that condone the killing of a fetus as abortion.
Why is this? What is the basis for the difference? Usually the proposed basis for the difference is simply this: It is illegal to take the life of the unborn if the mother chooses that it not be taken, but it is legal to take the life of the unborn if the mother chooses that it be taken. In first case the law treats the fetus as a human with rights; in the second case the law treats the fetus as non-human with no rights.
Do you see what this means? It means that according to our laws in Minnesota (as well as other states), the humanness of the unborn is determined from case to case not on the basis of its intrinsic qualities, but on the basis of someone else’s choice. If the one who has the power says it is right for the unborn to be killed, it is right; but if the one with the power says it is wrong for the unborn to be killed, it is wrong. There is a name for this state of affairs. We call it anarchy: Each one who has the power defines what is “right” on the basis of what he or she wants to be right.
Now at this point those of us who care about racial justice should hear some ominous and threatening sounds. And those who care most about justice for the unborn should see the profound implications of this for racial justice – and every other form of justice. And there should be no sense that you can pick one of these issues to care about with no concern about the other. When human justice is disconnected from a person’s intrinsic humanity and made to depend simply on the choice of the strong, no one is safe from being arbitrarily defined out of personhood – whether it is a Jew in Nazi Germany or Black Slave in South Carolina or an unborn infant in the womb. If the right to life and liberty hangs merely on the will of the strong, there is no justice. The issue for racial justice and justice for the unborn is: What constitutes human personhood and the human responsibilities and rights that flow from it.
—-
Taken from http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/02/012702.html
If you have the time, I would encourage you to read the whole article (sermon), as it fleshes out where I am coming from rather well. Obviously, it is from a Christian perspective!
“I was actually trying to be generous (rather than diversionary) in making sure I mentioned that some do not agree that a fetus is an unborn human.”
Straw man… No one is saying that a fetus isnt *potentially* an unborn human, mearly that an unborn fetus isn’t a human.
“Do you see what this means? It means that according to our laws in Minnesota (as well as other states), the humanness of the unborn is determined from case to case not on the basis of its intrinsic qualities, but on the basis of someone else’s choice. If the one who has the power says it is right for the unborn to be killed, it is right; but if the one with the power says it is wrong for the unborn to be killed, it is wrong. There is a name for this state of affairs. We call it anarchy: Each one who has the power defines what is “right†on the basis of what he or she wants to be right.”
A woman allowing someone to have sex with her: legal
Someone having sex with a woman by force: illegal
Is this anarchy too?
What if a woman didn’t want her child to watch pg rated movies. She is defining the rights of the child then too. Is that anarchy as well?
A baby is body/life changing even if the baby is given away. No matter how much precidence you throw at it, it still boils down to the basic viewpoints of a fetus. Religious vs. logical.
Ben,
Ah, but you see, that article/sermon delves into exactly the issue that I feel is a red herring. I’m not particularly interested in that argument because, as I am said, I don’t think it is important here. I diagree with laws that make it a homicide to kill and unborn fetus as much as I would disagree with laws against abortion. The current set of laws in some states may be inconsistent, but I am not.
If you want the law to treat a fetus as a member of society, why don’t we fill out a death certificate for every miscarriage (you’d be surprised how many there are)? Why not hold a funeral? Maybe we could charge women who have miscarriages with neglect or even murder. To be truely consistent, you’d almost have to do these things. Do you really want to go down this road? I don’t. I say keep the law out of people’s bodies… even in the case of pregnancy. It is really that simple.
-matthew
Ben,
Here is an example of the kind of ridiculous laws (only a bill so far, thankfully) that come when you start treating an unborn fetus as a member of society:
http://democracyforvirginia.typepad.com/democracy_for_virginia/2005/01/legislative_sen.html
Hello Ben,
Now it’s my turn to take too long to respond :). First let me start by saying that I didn’t mean to imply that all Christians lack intellectual integrity. This is something I do not believe. You are a clear example of a Christian with such integrity. I’ll pick up the discussion based mostly on your post @55.
There is such thing as reasonable faith. Those that practice reasonable faith do a number of things. The important ones I’d list as follows:
a) They recognize which assumptions of theirs rest entirely on faith.
b) They don’t expect everyone to have faith in all the same assumptions.
c) When pieces of their faith contradict one another, they reject one of the pieces (no double-think, for 1984 fans).
When you wrote, “we should protect humanity on the basis that they are uniquely created in the image of God is certainly based on the scriptures, it is at least a reasonable and logical conclusion” you are relaying of the assumption that the Bible is the word of God. While the conclusion is logical, the underlying assumption is not. The assumption is based on faith. Again, it is dangerous to legislate based on faith because it could unnecessarily restrict freedom.
Also in post #55, you asked if we don’t rely on some assumption taken on faith then “on what non-arbitrary basis do we protect human rights at all?†This is an interesting question often brought up by the religious. It basically asks “Without God’s law, how can we know what is moral and what is immoral?†The answer is so fundamental to secularists that they seldom stop to think about it. As a mater of fact, the religious believe the answer as well, they just believe that it is one of God’s laws. It is the golden rule: do onto others as you would have them do onto you. The source of the tenant need not be divine. It is the logical conclusion one reaches once we realize that people are fundamentally the same. We see evidence for this similarity constantly. When I see someone get stung, they react just as I do. When I see others loose a loved one, they grieve in much the same way I do. They demonstrate similar desires for food, water, shelter, etc. Thus other people are like me and deserve the same ethical treatment that I expect.
Notice that a fetus does not behave like other people. It does not express pain, grief, or similar desires. Therefore, it does not deserve the same ethical treatment as people do. It may deserve some lesser ethical treatment, but such would have to be reasonable demonstrated.
I’m really enjoying the discussion as I hope you are. I hope that we can continue.
**Apologies if this comment appears twice – I posted it once but it didn’t appear on the page**
Hi all,
Sorry for taking so long to respond (again) … I had written a long reply at work the other day, and then I thought “hmmm… maybe I shouldn’t be posting this from here”. I’m still happy to continue the discussion when I have time… perhaps gasmonso will post an abortion-related topic soon and we can shift it to there!
@YF:
“Straw man… No one is saying that a fetus isnt *potentially* an unborn human, mearly that an unborn fetus isn’t a human.”
I was responding to Matthew, who said “The issue of whether or not a fetus is human is a red herring. It *is* an unborn human, by definition.” Perhaps you both hold different view on the matter, or maybe you’re both saying the same thing in different ways. I’m just going on what you’ve both been saying – I don’t want to put words in either of your mouths! Currently, my understanding is that you believe that a fetus != human, whereas Matthew has said that fetus == human, but that it does not deserve the same protection that is commonly afforded to post-birth (!) humans.
I still disagree with your summing up – why is a non-theistic view the only “logical” one? While you may disagree with the basic premises of what I’m saying, our differences are more to do with epistemology and philosophy than anything else. “Religious vs. non-religious/non-theistic” would be a fairer conclusion, I think.
@Matthew:
I don’t really see how conflating abortion and miscarriage gets us anywhere. Obviously, there’s a fundamental difference between the deliberate act of terminating a pregnancy and losing a pregnancy through an unfortunate miscarriage. re: the article you linked, I agree that it is a completely ridiculous law, borne out of “pro-life” idealism/fundamentalism gone mad.
Why do you feel the need to say that I’d be surprised how many miscarriages there are? I am aware that a miscarriage is a relatively common and very sad event – even in my own circle of friends I can think of three or four families who have experienced a miscarriage at some stage in their lives. While Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their cohorts of rabid, cynical Pharisees may give you the idea that all Christians are a bunch of unfeeling whack-jobs, it simply isn’t the case. ;)
@sidfaiwu: (where does that name come from??)
I have been thinking about the whole “argument from potential” thing. I really just made it up off the top of my head back in post #38, as an example of a possible non-overtly-religious argument against abortion. On further reflection, it’s not really something that I’m interested in defending. I’m not even sure that it’s really something that I believe in (ie. that a fetus is a “potential” human) … I think I might be more honest if I just said that I believed a fetus to be a human, period. I believe that a case for affording the same rights as a human to a fetus is fairly easy to derive from my theology… which, of course, is our irreconcilable difference that I was speaking of earlier: you would discount scriptural theology as a basis for determining values (right?)
I’m glad that you at least have an answer for the basis of non-theistic ethics! Many non-theists that you raise the issue with simply get angry and rant about “how dare you imply that I have no morals, etc. etc.” without really saying anything of substance. In a way I agree with you – the golden rule still holds as a universal truth whether or not you believe in a deity! However, from a Christian perspective (without wanting to pen a sermon), it is sufficient to note that those famous words of Jesus were only a small part of a larger body of teaching (the “sermon on the mount”), in which he was basically describing how people notice a distinction between the behaviour of Christians and others, and how that may in turn lead them to the true source of the benevolence – God himself. I guess I’m just trying to point out that while it is certainly a wonderful rule of thumb by which to live (for Christians and atheists alike), it is by no means a complete summation of the basis of Christian ethics.
I have been reading Jim Wallis’ book “God’s Politics” recently – really identifying with its message! (I’d highly recommend it to anyone, regardless of your religious beliefs (or lack of)). On this issue, and others, I guess my desire is to be what he calls a “wind-changer”. I’m not primarily concerned about the legal status of abortion – I’m much more interested in simply speaking my values in a compassionate way into the public debate, and working on the myriad of other factors which contribute to abortion rates, such as the welfare of poor single-mothers, poverty, etc. It is so vital for people of faith to realise that combatting things such as these has as much to do with their religion and moral constitution as a single issue like abortion. After all, Jesus explicitly told us that the way we treat the poor, needy people will ultimately indicate whether or not we know him at all! It is both stunning and terribly sad that the Religious Right claim to have the monopoly on issues of faith, and yet they are defined as much by warmongering and a disregard for the poor/regard for the rich as much as they are by speaking on personal morality.
Hello Ben,
Your post was well worth the wait. I’m glad that you’ve abandoned the ‘argument from potential’ and stuck to your religious reasons. There may be non-religious defenses of the right-to-life side of the argument, but that certainly isn’t one of them.
I’m also thrilled that you accept that the golden rule can be a non-religious basis for ethical behavior. I know the rule is widely considered to have Christian origin and I did not know it was from the Sermon on the Mount. Thanks for pinning that down for me. This rule, however, has roots in just about every major world culture, not just the western, Judea-Christian one. For instance, this rule can be found in the teachings of Confucius, whose life pre-dates Jesus’ by about 500 years.
Finally, your last paragraph is dead-on. It sounds like Jim Wallis’ book encourages Christians to seek out and fix the root causes of behaviors that they find objectionable as opposed to banning the final outcomes. I bet you’d find that such an approach would have broad support from the pro-choice community and other liberals. Such an approach certainly has my support.
PS “Sid Faiwu” is a name that came from my imagination when I was about twelve. Later in life, I adopted it as my online pseudonym.
Ben,
I wasn’t conflating abortion and miscarriage.I was merely pointing out that no matter how sad it may be for a mother and family, miscarriage is not considered a death of a member of society. It is a very private matter. Beyond the possible public health rammifications (was the the miscarriage cause by bad water or soemthing?), the government is not involved. Similarly, if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, the government need not be involved. As with a miscarriage, it is a very private matter.
Government involvement is essentially what we are talking about here. That is, if you want to actually enforce your idea that abortion is wrong. Think about what it means to give government the power to force a woman to give birth. You’d have to investigate every miscarriage to make sure the mother didn’t intentionally induce it. And youd have to require women to report pregancies. Do you charge a woman who has an abortion with murder? This is a very sticky legal issue. Do you really want to go there? Or are you content with simply making it known that you abhor abortion?
Ben,
Sorry, I should have read your entire post before replying. It sounds like you don’t want to legislate abortion. That is good to hear. It is certainly a good common ground on which to talk about the moral issues.
By the way, I should let everyone know that I was party to an abortion 10 or so years ago. I got my girlfriend of 2 years pregnant and we both decided that the best thing to do would be to terminate it because she said she would not be able to give it up for adoption if she carried it to term. Also, she didn’t want to have to tell her family that she was pregnant. It really didn’t have to do with poverty or anything like that. It was just a matter of bad timing and family shame.
I think family/social shame is probably one of the biggest reasons for abortion. And ironically enough, I think it is because of religion. A girl from a highly religious family with strict rules about premarital sex and all that is very likely to use abortion as a way out.
I’m not really sure what poverty has to do with it at all. I can’t see why a poor woman would be more likely to have an abortion than an affluent woman. Come to think of it, I would imagine that women with more resources and education would be MORE likely to have an abortion. Think about it. Lets say a college bound senior in high school who gets pregnant. She’s got college to think about. A child at this point would make college very difficult and giving up a baby for adoption is not an easy thing to do. Abortion is the “logical” option. Where someone who doesn’t have college or a career ahead of her might just go through with having the baby. And the way welfare works, she’ll just get more money… so what the heck?
While you’re attacking root causes of abortions, why stop at poverty. How about the christian mindset toward sex and sex education? Christians don’t preach safe sex… they preach no sex, but kids are going to have sex no matter what they say. The only problem is, that when they do have sex, despite christian morallity, and a large number do, some don’t practice safe sex because they’ve only been taught not to have it. Not only that, but some girls out their would rather abort than admit they’ve been bad christians.
Abstinence worked before safe sex practices were around, and now it’s outdated, but because it is tied in with christian values, it won’t go away.
Hello Matthew,
It seems that income is a factor in abortion rates. Women tend to be poor at the time of their abortions. Note, however, that women tend to be young at the time of their abortions, which is tied to both the likelihood of abortion and income. This will skew the results. A more telling stat would be abortion rates by education level obtained. From the link above I found abortions by education level:
EDUCATION LEVEL
No Answer……………….5%
Under 12 yrs…………….6%
High School (12 yrs)……..39%
Associate or Trade (13-14)..26%
Bachelors (15-16)………..19%
Masters (17-18)………….4%
Ph.D. (>18)……………..1%
I decided to add a little more value to these results by weighting each category by the percentage of women who obtained each of these education levels. I found the stats on the website for the National Center for Education Statistics and pulled them from one of their annual report from 2005. The actual table is linked here. After the weighting I get the following results (rounded to the nearest whole percent):
No Answer……………….5%
Under 12 yrs…………….3%
High School (12 yrs)……..73%
Associate or Trade (13-14)..8%
Bachelors (15-16)………..11%
Masters (17-18)………….0%
Ph.D. (>18)……………..0%
Note that this analysis is in no way scientific (I had to make a lot of assumptions about each survey), it just serves to demonstrate that education level seems to be an important factor.
Another thing to think about is the unwanted pregnancy rates by each income group. Sure, a smaller percentage of poor women may not have the means to get an abortion, but they probably have a very high rate of unwanted pregnancies. The product of the two rates would combine to determine the actual abortion rate. So don’t rule out poverty as a contributing factor.
the silution is to update the christianity,and for this you can enter this site :-
http://www.update.js/christ
and to download christianity version 9.6 or if there any newer download it.
however for other religions there is no updates yet.
kidding
Very nice blog post I like your website carry on the amazing posts
I am not sure about this one, after getting the fleshlight mouth that I seen on the website fleshlights.tv I don’t think any other sex toy for men can beat it – and that is after experimenting with other good masturbators like the Tenga Egg. But I still have to say very few of these sex toys can match a fleshlight – There is no doubt in my mind, it feels better than any of most other fake pussies!
This sort of information need to be valued by every person – it’s a thing that I believe we can all draw upon. I really very much like the theme you are making use of the following which I believe is wordpress isn’t it? I’ve been looking all-around for one thing simular but have yet to discover one thing suitable for my web site. I looked at the link on your footer and will try and download a copy of it for myself – thanks.
That is such an awesome helpful resource that you simply’re offering and likewise you give it away for free. I like seeing websites that perceive the value of offering a top quality useful useful resource for free. It?s the outdated what goes round comes round routine. Did you acquired a lot of hyperlinks and I see numerous trackbacks?
Im trying to start my own blog, so ive been searching and this is the best one if seen so far, Great Job!!!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter[...]…
[...] Read the rest of this excellent post here…. [...]…