When Dr. Thomas White spoke in the chapel service of Southwestern Theological Seminary earlier this month, he made several statements that sounded to me as if he believed the Christian's use of any form of birth control was "sin." I wrote a post entitled Personal Opinions Given as Mandates from God where I challenged not Dr. White's personal conviction that birth control is a sin for him (who am I to question a man's conscience), but rather Dr. White's seeming belief that all Southern Baptists should abstain from birth control. Legalism is NOT having personal convictions that exceed the clear teaching of Scripture; legalism is demanding that all others abide by your personal convictions and call those who do not "sinners." Dr. White's comments, which led me to believe he felt all Southern Baptists should follow his personal convictions, included the following (verbatum):There is an entire industry that is built up on stopping or preventing children. We call it birth control, but we should call it contraception.
When my wife and I were married in 1999, whether it was because of my own selfishness or because of improper information, we were on birth control.
I made the mistake. I’m not standing here telling you anything other than this: I don’t want you to make the mistake.
We need to recognize that children are a blessing from the Lord. I confess to you this morning the reason that I was on - we were on birth control - I didn’t take it, but I was the spiritual leader of my house and it’s my fault that we did; the reason that we did it was my own selfishness. I wanted kids, but I wanted kids in God’s . . . not God’s timing, but my time.
Folks, you are not in control of your destinies, God is! And the sooner that we recognize that we are sinning when we say, “I’m going to control every aspect of my family,” and we’re not giving control to God, we don’t trust Him, we don’t believe that He knows better than we do, we think we know better than God does. And just like I did, some of you are involved in that exact same sin!
Society tells us that children will make a rich man poor, but the Bible tells us that children will make a poor man rich. And that’s the attitude that we need to have. It is the Lord who controls our life. He is God and we are not. He is the one in control, and we are not. If He gives you twelve kids, twelve blessings you have received. If He gives you three kids, three blessings you have received. It is not for us to plan our parenthood, it is for God to be the giver of life.
After I wrote a blog about Dr. White's message, WFAA Television in Dallas sent a copy of my post to Dwight McKissic and asked him to comment. The television reporter, probably desiring sensational ratings, posited that Dr. White believed all birth control was "murder." After the television report aired in the DFW area, Dr. White issued a clarifying statement which said, "I do not believe all birth control is murder."
I called Dr. White after he issued his statement and told him that I never heard him say "all birth control is murder," so his clarification was not helpful to me. I told him that what I heard him say was all birth control is a sin, because children are a blessing from the Lord, and birth control is simply trying to stop God from giving us blessings. So, I point blank asked Dr. White, "Is all birth control a sin?" He said that in some instances, for example the poor health of a wife, birth control would not be a sin. I then followed up by asking "Dr. White, what if a husband and a wife were in perfect health, and they both believed children were a blessing, but they chose to be on birth control, would that then be a sin?" After a pause, he said, "It is a sin for me, but I can't judge another person's heart in the matter."
I then explained that when I heard his message, I heard him communicate a personal conviction (i.e. "birth control is a sin for me") and follow up with a blanket statement that birth control was a sin for everyone else too. My offense with his sermon was not the fact that he said "all birth control is murder" because I never heard him say that, but rather I felt I heard him saying "all birth control is sin for all Southern Baptists." For him to express a personal conviction and then to seemingly make it a mandate from God for all Southern Baptists was my offense - and the title of my post.
By the way, if one wonders why this is an issue to me, all you have to do is look at the policies at the IMB that were pushed by trustees who have the personal conviction that praying in tongues is not of God, and they demanded all other Southern Baptists give obeisance to their personal convictions. Or, just think about those Southern Baptists who have a personal conviction that drinking a glass of wine or a beer is sin, and then force all other Southern Baptists to acquiesce to their personal convictions by passing policies or resolutions that forbid the drinking of an alcoholic beverage. Or, ponder those Southern Baptists that believe that the qualifications of the baptizer is as important as the character of the one being baptized, and then force all Southern Baptists to be baptized in a Southern Baptist "church." Or, think about those Southern Baptists who have the personal conviction that a woman "teaching" or having "authority" over a man is sin, and then force all institutions in the SBC to conform to their personal views, though the BFM is silent on the matter.
If we let Southern Baptists even THINK they have the ability to force their personal convictions on other Southern Baptists then we give up the principle of cooperation in the Southern Baptist Convention. I will, at all times, speak out. There are a few Southern Baptists who do not like the fact I do not hesitate to call our leaders to give an account for what they say, and so they make me the issue. That's fine. I'm more than happy to be the focal point of the anger of some if it prevents the ripping of the fabric of cooperation in the SBC.
Dr. White says that he did not intend to convey that all birth control is sin, though that is his personal view for himself. I accept that Dr. White has a personal conviction that birth control is sin, and I appreciate his acknowledgement that he may have unintentionally communicated in his message that birth control is a sin for all other Southern Baptists as well. I explained that this is precisely what I heard him say, and in my mind this is the problem in the SBC - personal convictions are being given as mandates from God.
Now, if we could only get other Southern Baptists to say that they unintentionally demanded all other Southern Baptists to comply with their personal convictions when they pushed policies and resolutions that exceeded the clear teaching of Scripture and the BFM then we would be a long way down the road in restoring the cooperative nature of the SBC. To whatever extent I misread or misheard Dr. White's remarks, I do sincerely apologize. To whatever extent, if any, my challenge to Dr. White's remarks caused Dr. White to backtrack from a position of holding Southern Baptists responsible to ultimately conform to his personal convictions, I am grateful. Either way, the chapel incident is another example of how all Southern Baptists should be careful about demanding conformity on matters of personal convictions. Our cooperation should be around the essentials of the gospel. Unity in the essentials, freedom in the non-essentials, and charity in all things - that should be our Southern Baptist motto.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
222 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 222 of 222Peter said:
"When all is said, it stands indisputable that human life begins when the female's part and the male's part--the 23/23 chromosome connection--unite."
The 'physical beginnings' of a human life begin here.
WHEN IS THE SPIRIT AND THE SOUL INFUSED INTO THE PHYSICAL BEING BY THE HAND OF ALMIGHTY GOD?
We do not know this.
We cannot know this.
We do know from science that Cell Theory states that 'Life comes from Life'.
We do know from our faith that nothing lives on this Earth that does not live without the Will of the Lord, the Author of ALL life.
Show some humility before Him.
Back away from judging others and begin to be servants again. L's
r. grannemann
I think you still are a bit fuzzy on what I am arguing: "Okay, it's a "life" issue with you, whether the zygote is a human being is not the issue." For me, it's not just a "life" issue; it is a human life issue. There is a big difference.
Nor is it just an issue "with me." To the contrary, it's scientifically demonstrable that human life begins at conception. Thus, we're not shooting in the dark here.
Again, r. grannemann, you brush right by the point I made about spontaneous abortions not being viewed in moral categories: "Well, they can if you have some control over them. For example, by having fewer children and using birth control that prevent fertilization there will be fewer spontaneous abortions."
First, to view morals as something over which we control by statistical tables is prime facie absurd. Since when do mortality rates dictate ethical duty?
Given your assumption, r. grannemann, underdeveloped countries which possess an extremely high infant mortality rate very well may morally justify intentional infanticide. Nor is the excessively high mortality rates among infants in these underdeveloped nations indicative of a sub-human status of their offspring.
Moreover, there is a 100% mortality rate among terminally ill patients. Does this justify killing them?
Second, you did not complete my analogy. This is the complete statement: "Spontaneous abortions intrinsic to reproduction cannot be viewed in moral categories...any more than the death of a ten day old baby due to genetic disorder can be morally imputed to the parents."
Given your premise, unless you are prepared to argue that parents who bring a genetically deficient child into the world only for him/her to die ten days later are morally culpable for doing so, I cannot see how you can suggest that two prospective parents are morally culpable for a spontaneous abortion because they didn't use contraception.
Indeed, concerning both of these deaths, the normal way of viewing them is natural causes. That dying of natural causes and dying by homicide is two entirely different things, I trust will needs no evidence.
And, I may "seem to agree that abortion of the zygote is only potentially murder," but that would be a mistake. I have stated repeatedly to the contrary. Thus, you are correct: with Dr. White I stand on this point.
You are also correct in reaffirming that 'potentiality' was your main point, "that we should call it potentially murder rather than murder." What you fail to notice--and I take the blame here--is, in my commentary on "potential murder" vs. "actual murder" I was assuming your position and then making a point:
"But if it is potentially murder in taking the life of the zygote, why would one proceed in a deed which potentially takes another's life? Is that moral?
A point, by the way, which you completely ignored as unfortunately some of the other stronger points have been.
Finally, the last point about the development of the zygote is hardly convincing: "...rudimentary human development of the zygote... may "suggest" (by Natural Law again) that abortion before human brain activity is not in fact murder."
First, "human development" takes place during our entire existence. Should I, for example, count my little granddaughter as potentially expendable because she lacks "human development" at barely a year old?
Secondly, proposing that fetal death based on natural causes (spontaneous abortion) is sufficient to accept fetal death based on intentionally causing life to cease (pro-abortion), hence producing a perfectly moral conclusion to which we should adhere, makes little, if any, moral sense, r.grannemann.
Finally, whatever you sense may be "suggested" as "Natural Law" from the highly philosophical argumentation about "soul", "human development" "size" etc. etc. even in the end concluding "no one knows whether it has a soul" cannot--indeed must not--trump what we do know from scientific investigation: human life begins at conception and continues all the way to the grave, whether by natural causes or unnatural causes.
With that, I am...
Peter
Peter,
You asked a question about theologians who believed the soul was imparted at quickening. Baptist theologian John Gill is one. He posits it in his work "Body of Practical Divinity" which Charles Spurgeon called Gill's "mangus opus." By the way, Gill is not a midieval theologian.
L's remark above is concise and to the point. I have no disagreement with you that the 23/23 chromosome connection forms the distinct, sacred human body, but to argue that the "connection" of chromosomes generates the soul is not only contrary to Zechariah 12:1, it is illogical. Let me explain.
(1). We have a youth pastor and his wife who desired children, but could not bear any kids naturally. They conceived through in vitro fertilization. They had 8 fertilized eggs cry-preserved (frozen). They bore a son. FOUR YEARS LATER they bore a daughter from the same group of fertilized eggs harvested from the woman and fertilized by the sperm in the test tube of a labratory. If possible, Peter, from your belief that the soul is generated by the 23/23 chromosome connection, where was the little girl's soul for four years? Was it frozen too? Was it asleep? Was it in the refigerator?
Or, is it possible that what was frozen was the unique human embryo, awaiting the creation of the soul which is God's prerogative to make in His power alone, which He forms at a time of His choosing, uncontrolled by man or scientists? Just asking.
(2). There will come a day when scientists will clone a human being. They have already cloned sheeps, dogs, cows, and other animals. Science has the capability, now, of cloning a human being. Scripture teaches us that man only prepares the body for the forming of the soul, which God alone creates. So, unlike your belief that cloning would necessitate the SAME SOUL in the second human being, I propose to you that if God, in His providence, allows cloning to occur, He will form a UNIQUE soul in the body of the clone that arises not from a unique 23/23 connection, but from scientists who have cloned a body in the laboratory.
But, like Zechariah the prophet said, man cannot form the soul. That is God's prerogative alone - and the soul is only created by His power alone.
I hope that answers your question. The issue pro-life Christians (of which I am one) seem to get hung up on is WHEN the soul is imparted. We should rather be emphasizing that God alone forms the soul, and WHEN He does it is a time of His choosing, not ours.
Blessings,
Wade
Are we hypocrits?
So MUCH 'concern' for the beginnings of life.
So LITTLE concern for the living?
If we are Christians, we should be ACTIVELY promoting any programs that serve children in our country and in the world.
God have mercy on our foolish ways. Be happy if YOUR children are safe and warm and loved. So many are not. Do not even drive into their neighborhoods. You may not survive the experience.
I had children in my classrooms that had never been to a dentist. I had children whose only regular medical care came from the school nurse (my own personal choice for 'saint of the year). I once had a little one come to me in the morning and say, "My mama said to send me to the nurse. She thinks I might have the Chicken Pox." I sent him very quickly!
In schools where I worked, the teachers bought supplies for many of the children. Many times we have gone out with a child and the school counselor to the mall to buy the child some shoes that fit. But, of course,did you know they pay teachers enough to afford these shoes?
WE HAD NO CHOICE. THESE WERE 'OUR' STUDENTS. They WERE OURS.
You do have choices. No, they are not YOUR children. But they are HIS children.
Instead of going to the teacher's lounge for lunch, we would make sure all the children had food. Even at 'at risk' school, money is charged for some of the children who have nothing to spend and nothing to eat. No child went hungry in OUR school. We teachers made up the difference.
But , oh yes, we 'will be held accountable' for failures, won't we? Whose failures? WHOSE FAILURES?
Where are you, good Christian people? You are so needed. Where are you? Please show concern for the ones who are here.
They are waiting. L's
In a way, this arguement is not mine, for I do not use oral contraceptives, and have only rarely used them for short periods of time. My body just does not get along with them. But in another way this arguement is mine, as it concerns us all. And what I will ask here is, are we willing to say millions of women are sinning because they are on the pill and do not agree with an unproven arguement that the pill causes abortion? Christian leaders, and wives of pastors are included in this group! Even if you believe that the soul is put in the child when the egg is fertilized, can you beyond a shadow of a doubt say that all oral contraceptives cause abortion? If not, is it fair to say that it is a sin for women to use them?
Dear L's
As far as professing ignorance about what we do not know, I've already addressed. And know I would be willing to leave such at that except those who keep saying "we don't know" continue to assert their firm and sure knowledge about that which, they assure, we don't know.
As for your assertion that "The 'physical beginnings' of a human life begin here" there is not the least doubt: human life, and therefore 'physical beginnings' originate in conception.
Finally. as for "Show some humility before Him" I have no comment, for it is spoke from a void.
I do, however, wonder about your last comment indicting me in light of such counsel above: "Back away from judging others and begin to be servants again." Interesting...and paradoxical.
By the way, L's, I plan never to back away from contending for the innocent, helpless, voiceless little fellows in life's cradle.
With that, I am...
Peter
I have one more thing to add to this conversation. It is my firm belief that while I do take a birth control pill, I don't for one second doubt that if God decides he wants to bless me another child, it will happen. He alone has that power. Nothing I can do can take that power from him. And if that blessing comes, I will welcome it with open arms.
Laura
Wade,
Thanks for getting back. As for citing John Gill (1697-1771), Wade, I am not surprised since you so often do, neither is he relevant. His view hardly takes into account the facts of science and is, by the way, closer to Thomas Aquinas's 'soul science'--therefore the Medieval view--than you realize. Could you please give me a couple of renowned theologians of the past 75-100 years?
Unfortunately, while you say you agreed with me on my 23/23 connection, you may have spoken much too quickly. You write: "I have no disagreement with you that the 23/23 chromosome connection forms the distinct, sacred human body..." I do not believe such. When we speak of "sanctity" we speak of the sanctity of human life. Period.
Your further assert that "to argue that the "connection" of chromosomes generates the soul is not only contrary to Zechariah 12:1, it is illogical."
First, Wade, to suggest something is illogical is to suggest something is nonsensical. My understanding was you argued we "don't know" when God creates the soul, even citing Gill that it could be several weeks into the pregnancy--"quickening"
But to now suggest that the view which holds that the soul is infused specifically at conception is "illogical" is to assign that view to the nonsensical.
In other words, whatever might be the case about the soul, it cannot be that the soul is infused at conception. And, I thought we were supposed to be nonjudgmental here ;^)
As for the infusion of the soul at conception being contradictory to Zech 12.1, I am afraid you're going to have to spell the word slowly for I just don't even see one problem whatsoever. The text does not reveal how God forms the spirit, why He does or when He does. Thus, your point is lost on me.
As for your illustration on frozen embryos, Wade, I must say is moving. And, the prospect of cloning humans is, as you say, a real possibility in the future.
What is concerning is your assumption about what you think I believe: "unlike your belief that cloning would necessitate the SAME SOUL in the second human being..." Naughty, naughty , naughty. That is precisely what you did to Dr. White, Wade; you filled in the blanks prematurely.
First, Wade, I don't know where the little girl's soul was for four years. But neither do I know where the soul is of a person in PVS.
However, my ignorance makes me think no less of them as a person made in God's image and worthy of dignity and respect. Indeed it solicits in me a compassion and a moral duty to do what is right for them.
Similarly, I don't know where the soul is in frozen embryos but I am no less obligated to show compassion and possess a moral duty to do what is right for the fragile little lives.
Furthermore, your alternative is morally frightening, Wade: "is it possible that what was frozen was the unique human embryo, awaiting the creation of the soul..."
If human embryos are frozen and it is simply human tissue, emptied of all sanctity of life (there is no soul), then the best thing one could do is full throttled scientific research.
In fact, it would be good to build pods to grow this tissue and harvest organs. Such is straight out of The Matrix.
More troubling, Wade, is your obvious unfamiliarity with some crucial distinctions theologians make pertaining to the origin of the human soul. One such distinction is between creationism and traducianism.
From the way I am reading you, you belong to the former. Of the soul's creation, you write it: "is God's prerogative to make in His power alone, which He forms at a time of His choosing, uncontrolled by man or scientists."
And again: "Scripture teaches us that man only prepares the body for the forming of the soul, which God alone creates....if God...allows cloning...He will form a UNIQUE soul...like Zechariah the prophet said, man cannot form the soul. That is God's prerogative alone - and the soul is only created by His power alone."
I do not know how you can be clearer. But also I do not know how it could be clearer I disagree with your model.
You clearly believe God Himself is not only the efficient cause of the soul's existence but its instrumental cause as well. That is, no help from scientists, labs, etc.
Not even the parents are involved: "Scripture teaches us that man only prepares the body for the forming of the soul, which God alone creates." I'd like to see a Bible verse mined that explicitly says "man only prepares the body for the forming of the soul."
Traducianism holds none of this. For them, the soul was directly created in Adam and then instrumentally through parents.
Furthermore, while you asserted God directly creates a unique soul to be put in the body that parents prepare--illogical at conception, but maybe at implantation and most likely long after implantation (Gill)--Traducians hold that both soul and body are created by God but created by God through the parents.
In addition, Immediate creationists seem to make a hard line between body and soul, almost a virtual separation.
Of course, the language you used lends itself nicely here. You spoke of the empty embryos, the prepared bodies awaiting a direct creation from God and the clone hulls scientists create: "if God...allows cloning...He will form a UNIQUE soul."
For Traducianism, a human being is a basic unity of body/soul together.
From my end of the street, there are some really difficult hills to climb, attempting to hold on to your view, Wade. The first is so steep, you may want to go back down.
You being the good Calvinist you are, I am surprised you are so adamant in insisting that God directly creates the soul for the simple reason that you have God directly creating that which is totally depraved.
Nor will it do to say the soul is pure and the body is evil and therefore the body corrupts the soul--that is, unless you'd want to go down the Gnostic road.
Consequently, one is hard pressed to argue for universal depravity apart from some type of transmission flowing naturally from Adam.
But, Traducianists possess no such hill to hurdle because both body and soul are corrupted instrumentally through our parents.
That's hopefully enough to show all prolifers are not "hung up" on the "when" human beings are endowed with soul. Honestly, I don't think it's that difficult.
With that, I am...
Peter
Peter:
The Traducianist position certainly is--on face value--closer to Paul's exposition in Romans than the "Creationist" position. But it still is an intellectual framework that goes beyond what the Bible actually says and therefore is still essentially speculative.
The advantage of such speculation is, of course, to give a foundation for decision making. The disadvantage is that we as humans think very highly of our own thoughts and sometimes get more attached to our thinking and fail to analyze we actually do or do not know.
I'll offer that reasoning from the Traducianist framework to clear thinking about life gives one a very conservative basis for policy making that in no way is likely to disagree with the scriptural presentation of this area of theology. (I'm not well enough versed in the distinctions to comment on specific aspects of that framework, so I'm making a statement on faith that there aren't hidden features that I essentially disagree are true.)
But that isn't the issue. The fact that we can speculate on behavior that is the least likely to offend God is entirely different than knowing which behavior actually does or does not offend God. The former is a hedge. The latter is life itself.
The hedge kills. Truth sets you free. The difference between the two is not semantic only since Jesus pointed to it during his ministry and condemned the hedge. And then John in Revelation copied down words that confirmed that condemnation.
Speculative theology and hedge making are great for consideration, but not for enforcement on others. We see exactly the same framework in the disagreement on eating food from idols and Paul's eventual compromise on this non issue. He said that if your conscience prevents you from it, then it is sin for you to do it. And if you feel freedom to participate in eathing this food, then show respect for brothers and sisters that do not feel the same freedom.
It's worth noting that the latter concession to the former group was arguably not intended to be used as a loophole to return to hedgemaking. If it were, then Paul would not have chastized Peter so severely for doing so.
Greg Harvey
Greg
Thanks. Of course, when I made mention that Traducianism possessed no such hill to climb, I was specifically referring to the one hill I offered to Wade: the soul's depravity.
I am sure there are points at which creationists think they have gained ground from their rivals; and, points as well that Traducianists themselves feel their feet covering over in sand--that is, standing on a squishy soft-spot.
That said, the main purpose of the latter point was to forge contra our bloghost's insistence that all those who believe that human life is intrinsic to conception are not formatted on the same hard-drive.
More to your points, which I do appreciate, you appear settled in suggesting that doing theology is foundationally a speculative sport.
Now if one means by that, that there are areas where we absolutely just don't know but we are compelled by circumstances to take our best shot, then I cannot say I disagree.
Or if you mean to suggest by "speculation" that while revelation is not exhaustive it is still sufficient, then again I am inclined to agree.
Nevertheless, I get the idea from this comment and our last exchange, Greg, that is not all you mean when you insist on "speculation."
You here write: "But [Traducianism] still is an intellectual framework that goes beyond what the Bible actually says and therefore is still essentially speculative."
Greg, doing any theology at all, in fact, goes beyond what the Bible actually says. Our most fundamental doctrines goes beyond what the Bible actually says. This is the same principle you offered in our last exchange and I reject it now with the same passion as then.
It is not what the Bible says that's of fundamental significance; it is what the Bible actually teaches. Nor is an "intellectual framework" the problem. It's whether or not what the Bible teaches sits as judge on that framework.
The way I understand your use of speculation, Greg, is that, at best, we end up in a guessing game on our behavior. Now surely it could be conceded that at certain times that is the case. We all face tough decisions now and then.
But, the way I understand you--especially relating this to the sanctity of human life which is the point here--we are left with no more than a speculative guess on the fundamental plank of our human existence:
"The fact that we can speculate on behavior that is the least likely to offend God is entirely different than knowing which behavior actually does or does not offend God. The former is a hedge. The latter is life itself."
Your speculative hermeneutic is simply too agnostic for me, my friend. Nor would I add does it lend itself to any substantial contribution to understanding revelation.
For if all of us are doomed to speculate--I am assuming the observation goes beyond me--then Wade was speculating as well; and so it follows Wade's interpretation is but a hedge, missing too the behavior that honors God.
But even more, so was John Gill doomed to speculate and therefore the hedge and not life itself rules (poor Wade). This could go on ad infinitum
Unhappily for you, Greg, your speculative hermeneutic, if it is universal, applies to you as well. Thus your understanding of Romans to Revelation you offer suffers the same fate, I'm afraid, as all of us other doomed speculators: it reaps the hedge and repels life.
Of course, this only follows if you do not make appeal to some other standard besides your own speculation. But are we not in vicious circles now?
So, why, then, should any of us listen to your personal analysis since, by your own principle, it is "essentially speculative" possessing an "intellectual framework" that, in fact, goes beyond what Scripture actually says?
Alas, we are doomed to a pathetic life of agnostic proportions.
With that, I am...
Peter .
Peter,
You want to reduce the Bible to rules. Any rule not written in the Bible is reading between the lines and co-opting God's authority to write the rules. Every rule derived from any framework that extends past what the Bible actually says is essentially speculative and is in hedge land. That is not an argument against holistic hermeneutics that combine pieces to arrive at conclusions, it is an argument for seeing the necessity of realistic limits on how far that process can go. It's the SAME argument that we use with respect to strict construction of the U.S. Constitution. But we have far more access to the authors of the Constitution through the Federalist Papers than we have to God's thinking with respect to the Bible. Hence my claim that major extensions past what the Bible actually says are essentially/entirely speculative.
You've already made the exact same claim before about me: that I have no firm foundation to stand on for my choices in life. I have already declaimed that position as intentionally misleading. I simply refuse rules that aren't founded strongly on the words of Scripture. Instead I believe God gives us freedom in those areas and through that freedom works out the process of conformation to the eikon of Christ Jesus.
Rules don't get you there by themselves. They point out the boundary of lawlessness. They provide condemnation of lawlessness. But they do not produce righteousness. They NEVER produce righteousness, only condemnation.
I'm not reading between the lines in making that statement. I'm simply re-stating what Paul already stated. I suppose we could devolve the conversation into why I trust the word of God if I don't trust people to make rules since people wrote down the text of the Bible. I'm not interested in that conversation because I see it for what it is: the attempt to construct a logic trap with words that you then use to beat me up with. I'll pass.
It is very simple, Peter: to the extent that you depend on rules to order life, you're caught in the trap of the condemnation of the failure to match the expectations of those rules.
What are we to do, then? The Bible offers the choice of seeking wisdom and practicing wisdom and rejects the choice of using rules/law to justify ourselves. The Proverbs aren't rules, they're wisdom. Wisdom constantly refines our choices by feeding back to us a sense of the outcomes of what we decided. It questions us regarding our motives and our intentions and digs deep into not just the decisions themselves but the reasoning for the decisions.
In that discussion that God has with us is the life that is proclaimed regarding God's Law in the Old Testament. There is, on the other hand, no life in rabbinical musings and hedges. That's all man made and it actually DISTRACTS us from the conversation God wishes to have with us.
Every time we make a moral pronouncement from speculation, we are claiming to have revealed a mystery that God may or may not agree with. You have no right to make that claim and neither do I. And, no, that doesn't remove from me or from you any responsibility to act maturely and with wisdom. In fact, it redoubles the responsibility to be mature in the faith when we can't fall back on moral pronouncements.
Does speculative theology fit into this wisdom-led discussion? Absolutely! I'm thrilled to hear of the Traducianist position and fascinated by the science that continues to illuminate that position. As I already said, a very conservative position is to disallow all forms of birth control because if God formed the soul at the moment he formed Adam (which is NOT what Paul claims, by the way, since he essentially says that it is as if we were there with Adam in his loins) and if the parents are instrumental in the process of associating a soul with a body, then any human agency in preventing a birth (speaking entirely speculatively with this statement since this view is only LIGHTLY supported by Scripture and only in a really oddball situation) rebels against God's will.
I can live with that being a statement of wisdom. But you seem unable to live with it unless you can reduce it to a rule. Perhaps we can do that if Jesus's comment that "don't you know you are like gods?" is intended to be license for rule making. But his theological opposition to the hedge-making behavior of the religious leaders of his time SUGGESTS that he didn't intend that comment to be license. (As does the conclusion to Revelation.)
Are the leaders of the church authorized to make law for the church the way Catholics claim to have done? Perhaps. I'm not entirely sure if that is the intention of oversight, though administrative policy--what we might call "light law" is clearly intended.
You seemed to avoid commenting on the keys to heaven and earth comment when I brought this up before (if I recall correctly), so I'll assume you're kind of ambivalent on that concept as well. The only room--in my opinion--for a very strict, very narrow, universally imposed interpretation of every single ambiguous passage in the Bible is also the one that authorizes the Roman Catholic Church--as the "See of Peter"--to rule over the entire church.
Now I'm more willing to become a Roman Catholic before I suspect you are. And I'm willing to do it for exactly the same reasons that you dismiss my arguments. Are you? Because that is the only logical outcome I see to following your viewpoint. We would have to acknowledge God intended TRUE and COMPLETE unity in the church and once we do that, either the RCC or the Eastern Orthodox Church has the higher claim on legitimacy than Southern Baptists do.
Yes, I'm offering a logical extreme argument in response to what you're saying, and yes it is fallacious to a certain extent because of that, but there also is some sense in it that is unavoidable, despite its seeming extreme nature.
I appreciate the effort to discuss this, by the way, and I'm in favor of continued dialog to the extent we don't just repeat ourselves. I am entirely allergic to any of the symptoms of legalism and especially the manipulation of the text of Scripture for the purpose of control of others. Other than that, I'm sure you'll finally me entirely reasonable. :P
Greg Harvey
Greg,
For me, it's time to walk away. I do not write to solicit responses that simply present no engagement with the conversation we're having.
Sorry.
With that, I am...
Peter
Elizabeth wrote: I will ask here is, are we willing to say millions of women are sinning because they are on the pill and do not agree with an unproven argument that the pill causes abortion? Christian leaders, and wives of pastors are included in this group! Even if you believe that the soul is put in the child when the egg is fertilized, can you beyond a shadow of a doubt say that all oral contraceptives cause abortion? If not, is it fair to say that it is a sin for women to use them?
Elizabeth,
This is precisely my concern about the blanket statements about the pill, particularly when oral contraceptives are often prescribed as medical treatment for illnesses/pathology because their dosage and schedule does provide a safer alternative than a straight dose of hormone. Those women who take the medication for treatment and not primarily for contraception get vilified in the process.
We operate by faith. If a doctor gives us a pill and tells us to take it so that an illness can be treated, most people take that information by faith. Actually, the doctors who prescribe the meds take the information that they are taught by the drug companies entirely by faith as well. No one can twist research like a drug company who stands to recoup much money on the sale of their drug. (Think of drug recalls in recent years.)
Just like the physician trusts that the information from the drug company is reliable, so does the patient who trusts their doctor. Though oral contraceptives are a bit different because they do overlap with issues of religious faith, there is still a great deal of faith that is necessary as part of the doctor-patient relationship. People should consider that when a woman's physician tells that woman that she needs oral contraceptives as part of her treatment and that physician tells her (and believes) that there are no ethical issues involved, that they are potentially condemning a wide range of people, perhaps based on only their personal convictions.
Again, I think it is important for women to understand which type of pill they are taking -- discussing whether that particular variety of pill they take is the more reliable type that controls ovulation well. And consideration can be given to those women. A pastor could mention this and say that each woman should find out exactly which type of pill she's taking (like the variety of OC that Carol Everett says were the drug of choice for teens to guarantee that they'd have repeat abortion business because it is less effective), a message of personal and moral responsibility that should be expected of Christians. That is a world away from a message of blanket condemnation of all oral contraceptive usage, regardless of the reason for its use which can sometimes be a vital part of the treatment of illness and disease.
Reduced down to simpler terms, women who are ill are essentially kicked while they are down. They get the message of condemnation for essentially being habitual murderers for trusting their doctors. They also then get the indirect message that they are willfully interfering with God's sovereignty by using oral contraception at all (as I do see that message being conveyed to greater and lesser degrees in this argument). Add to that the fact that not all pills are created equal and that some are very effective, actually reducing the number of potential conceptions without implantation.
I see millstones, millstones, millstones. And it's especially troubling when they are placed around the necks of women who are ill.
Peter,
Here is another way to look at it:
Consider two women who are sexually active between the ages of 25 and 45. Women P uses the Pill the entire time. Woman NP never uses birth control at all.
Woman P ovulates 12x20=480 times. As designed, the Pill stops fertilization 99% of the time. 1% of the time she has a spontaneous abortion of a 7 day old zygote. So she has about 5 spontaneous abortions in 20 years.
Woman NP gets pregnant once each year and has 20 children. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
we find she will have a spontaneous abortion (of the 7 day old zygote) 10% to 50% of the time depending on her age. Let's pick the percentage in the middle as an average: 30%. 30% of 20 is 6.
Woman P (the woman who uses the Pill) has 5 spontaneous abortions during her child bearing years. Woman NP (the woman who uses no birth control) has 6 spontaneous abortions during her child bearing years.
Therefore, why should we write poems condemning women who use the Pill?
r. grannemann
First, I have already rejected the use of statistical tables to judge moral matters, friend, and told exactly why. Why, then, you would offer me yet another one without showing how the moral reasoning I employed was faulty, I cannot tell.
The method you are employing in engagement, r. grannemann, is unfortunately much too similar to Greg's above.
I wrote comments engaging Greg's assertions in his exchanges with me and teasing out implications of them. Instead of engaging my specific criticism--showing my points not well taken and why, offering an alternative, more consistent view corresponding to the facts we know--he returned only with long comments that addressed virtually nothing I wrote. I walked away from dialog with him as sadly I now must from you. Similarly to Greg, here's why:
I gave solid reasons for those comments I penned to you only for you to completely ignore. You now come back with yet an entirely different comment; nonetheless, it is essentially the exact same point I've already addressed to you above but you did not even take the time to acknowledge.
For my part, I just simply have no interest in that type of dialog.
Now, one final observation that is troubling, r. grannemann. You lament: "Therefore, why should we write poems condemning women who use the Pill?
I presume you are referring to Heimbach's poem on my blog. If so, one has to wonder from a question like that if you so much as got further in the poem than the first line.
Here is Wade's assessment of the poem from my site:
Dr. Heimbach,
Brilliant! You, sir, make me proud to be a Southern Baptist.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Need I say anything else as to the message of the poem?
I asked Professor Heimbach to pen a short essay on birth control. His time being short, he declined but offered a lyric instead. I posted such with full knowledge it would not be the way I would speak about birth control.
In my ending of this dialog with you, r. grannemann, I caution you to be careful about judging others views if you don't carefully read them, in this case, Dr. Heimbach.
The irony is striking. Knowing what another is actually saying before launching a missile is precisely the concern I raised with this bloghost when I first entered this thread.
It is also evident in Greg's appraisal of me personally--the choicest appraisal of which must surely be that I am, in his estimation, a "hypocrite"--and further his premature judgment on my view, being premature if for no other reason than he fails to engage it by ignoring it.
Now, it's you, r. grannemann, that failed to understand Heimbach, but nevertheless proceeded to launch the missile just the same.
Maranatha. Come Lord Jesus. With that, I am...
Peter
Peter,
I'm sorry I offended you. That wasn't my intent. I did see Wade's comment and did read the entire poem, but I took the poem as a satire, perhaps influenced (incorrectly) by it being on your blog and believing you considered the Pill abortifacient. I assumed Professor Heimbach thought likewise. Probably I was wrong.
Actually I agreed with most of the other points you made, that's why I didn't debate them. Also, working from mid morning to 9PM, I just can't keep up with someone who writes and thinks as fast as you do. I think and write slowly. I did benefit from our brief interaction. That's for taking the time to reply.
Peter,
I meant to say "thanks" for taking the time to reply.
Peter:
I attempted an earlier reply but realized it wouldn't actually help you understand why I believe you are a hypocrite. So I'll use your own behavior in this thread instead. First you say you're going to walk away from the conversation, then you use YOUR JUDGMENT of my behavior as an example in another comment.
Whether that is just imprudent writing or an attempt to taunt me to respond, it lacks class and it is essentially attempting to put into my mouth your words. You consistently do that while complaining that others do it. That's the heart and soul of both the denotation and connotation of the word hypocrisy. You are a hypocrite, sir.
Greg Harvey
PETER:
I did quote you. But my latter comments were not directed at you PERSONALLY. I believe that you took it personally. Sorry if you did, it was not intended.
As far as caring for children, born OR unborn, what is the difference?
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE ????????
I know something. It doesn't cost a conservative a penny to say they do not believe in abortion. It doesn't cost a conservative a penny to vote against educational and medical programs to support poor children.
AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, ON THE SUBJECT OF CHILDREN, THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT MAY HAVE PUT ITS 'MONEY' WHERE ITS HEART IS.
Where is that? ? L's
Greg WH,
A well written defense of the truth and reality.
"I might end up being in disagreement with the BF&M 2000 Pentecostal teaching that the Holy Spirit baptizes."
Just wanted to point out that it is not only Pentecostals who teach this doctrine. See Grudem’s systematic theology-–Pg. 767
Post a Comment