Preserving Life

In a culture in which you have a significant number of people who adverse to Biblical ideas, we can be prompted to suit up and pray up, recognizing we have heavenly resources to put into play as we
engage the culture. Ephesians 6 says:
11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

One of the elements of the armor of God is truth - and we have to make sure that our foundation is on the truth of the Scriptures, building our lives on His Word.  We also recognize that people are not our enemy - we may disagree with people over non-essentials, and we may see people depart from the ways of the Lord in various areas; we can be part of productive discussions about these differences, but we also recognize that the Word teaches that when we see the fruit of the enemy, we can address it in prayer.

+++++

Daniel was known as a praying man, and that placed him at odds with some of his fellow leaders in Babylon.  In a breathtaking and instructive prayer of intercession, he called upon the mercies of God
on behalf of his people, the Jews:
17 Now therefore, our God, hear the prayer of Your servant, and his supplications, and for the Lord's sake cause Your face to shine on Your sanctuary, which is desolate.
18 O my God, incline Your ear and hear; open Your eyes and see our desolations, and the city which is called by Your name; for we do not present our supplications before You because of our righteous deeds, but because of Your great mercies.
19 O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and act! Do not delay for Your own sake, my God, for Your city and Your people are called by Your name."

I have had the opportunity to spotlight the views of a number of pro-life organizations with respect to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee begin next week.

The President, in fulfilling a campaign promise to nominate pro-life judges, put forth Neil Gorsuch, who has become a reliable conservative voice, and now has submitted Kavanaugh for consideration. So far, it appears that the Republican majority, combined with a handful of Democrats from so-called "red" states should be enough to put Kavanaugh over the top - but in the topsy-turvy world of politics, nothing is certain.

Certainly, after the offensive rulings of Obergefell and Roe vs. Wade, as well as other Federal court rulings from activist judges, the prospect of Supreme Court nominees that reflect a strict constructionist viewpoint was appealing to evangelical Christians, which tilted many in that group to vote for Donald Trump, despite concerning aspects of his personality.  Why, recently, a Federal judge referred to Roe as an "aberration," while still using it as precedent to strike down an Alabama law protecting life.

There has been speculation about the state of Roe if someone like Kavanaugh is placed on the Supreme Court.  If the ruling is reversed, it is likely that state legislatures would deal with the legality of abortion - remember, the high court is not supposed to make law.

A trend has been developing among some in the faith community with respect to the abortion issue, and it bears some further scrutiny.  I have already commented on what I see as a watering down of the definition of "pro-life" by including a number of other issues.  This has been referred to as a "whole life" perspective; but I believe that it confuses the issue and reduces the emphasis on protecting life in the womb.  This philosophy results in accusations that people who oppose abortion are not "pro-life enough" because they do not agree with a philosophy that embraces increased immigration, for instance - I submit that the number of people crossing the border is not a Biblical issue.  What is the Biblical issue is how the Church can care for people in need.

So, when you read a headline like I saw at Religion News Service, it really gets your attention.  It read, "To end abortion, don’t ban it. Support families instead."  In it, the former managing editor of Christianity Today, Katelyn Beaty, says:

In general, the anti-abortion movement should get over its aversion to federal social programs. Family-friendly public policies have a powerful effect on reducing demand for abortion services. It’s a natural extension of caring for prenatal life to create strong social support programs, particularly for economically vulnerable women, so that no one feels she has to abort to stay financially afloat.

So, we continue to accept and authorize the taking of life in the womb while depending on government social programs to provide a safety net for vulnerable women? Give me a break! She also quoted "Catholic ethicist Charles Camosy," who said, “But unfortunately, especially in responding to small-government skeptics, this issue has not really been studied in much detail.” She continues: "In the United States, Camosy said, stronger supports for women and parents from 1992 to today — particularly the Affordable Care Act — almost certainly have contributed to the decline in abortion rates."  This is from the guy who recently had a video removed from a Southern Baptist-related website for attempting to lump animal rights under the pro-life umbrella, even though he was allowed to speak at one of the organization's conferences. What about the non-government programs, sir?  The devoted pregnancy resource centers, churches who are speaking the truth about abortion? The opportunity for women to see their unborn children through ultrasound?   And, of course, this RNS includes the questioning of the Church's proven compassion for women in crisis pregnancies - "Yet amid the push to confirm Kavanaugh, it’s worth asking if the anti-abortion movement would be ready for care for women if Roe were overturned."  And, why use the term, "anti-abortion?"

Meanwhile, there is a group of self-proclaimed evangelicals that are advocating Christians to "Hit Pause in the Culture Wars."  This is a response that was generated by the Kavanaugh nomination. Columnist and talk-show host Erick Erickson wrote:

There has been a conspicuous strategy that has unfolded in recent years on the political left to pretend that there is a groundswell emergence of evangelical Christians aligning themselves with progressive politics. Rather than fighting the authority of Scripture on issues like abortion and sexual immorality, these liberal activists are attempting a, “if you can’t beat ‘em, hijack ‘em” approach.

Under the veil of “justice,” the attempt is to co-opt the name and doctrines of Jesus to advocate for an array of liberal policy objectives: redistributionist economics, abolishment of the death penalty, open borders, bloated welfare, environmentalism, sexual anarchy, gun confiscation, gender neutrality, racial preference and even segregationist intersectionality.

Chelsen Vicari of the Institute on Religion and Democracy quotes from a press release, in which Lisa Sharon Harper of Freedom Road stated:

On the day that Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement,” Harper stated in the release, “I fell to my knees in prayer. Tears fell as I prayed for the unborn…and my nieces and nephews and their children. What kind of world are we making for them?”

Harper claimed that majority conservative rulings have damaged civil rights protections and “harmed the cause of decreasing abortion.” But she fails to tell us precisely how conservative rulings have led to an increase in abortions, which is what she is asserting.

Both Erickson and Vicari pointed out that Rachel Held Evans and Jen Hatmaker were on the list of signatories.  Erickson writes, "Both Rachel Held Evans and Jen Hatmaker make appearances, which is bizarre since this list supposedly touted 'evangelical Christian leaders.' Given their rejection of the Bible’s inerrancy, authority, and exclusivism, neither qualify." 

These instances can cause us to consider a number of items:

Under the guise of pro-life, people are allowing all sorts of social philosophies to flood into the Church, some of which do not have a basis in Scripture.  And, the "whole life" philosophy, I believe, waters down that time-honored, Scripturally-based principle of the sanctity of human life, which is being taken - legally - in the womb. We need clarity and discernment to recognize ideas that negatively impact the Church.

Next, with regard to the so-called "culture wars:" this is not a matter that Christians have necessarily  perpetuated; rather the culture seems to be dictating the terms of the engagement.  And, we do well to recognize that, yes, contrary to what some Christian leaders might state or imply, the culture wars are very much in play and you could even say they are raging. They are not over and certainly Christians have not lost.  It is true that spiritual warfare is a topic the Bible covers very well, and we recognize that there are cultural influences that need to be addressed.  While we must guard against labeling certain groups and individuals as "demonic," if they disagree with us, the distortion of the true meaning of the gospel is certainly a serious matter.

And, one of the tools in the arsenal in effectively engaging in these wars is prayer.  We certainly need to pray for our leaders and for our upcoming election.  Concerned Women for America has even released a prayer guide for our Supreme Court and the upcoming Kavanaugh hearings.  When we are dealing with cultural issues, prayer can certainly shape our attitude and God can direct us in our response.