Pro-Life Reply: When Does Life Begin

The Pro-Life Reply to: “No One Knows When Life Begins”

In this video, Dr. Tara Sander Lee, a molecular geneticist and Director of Life Sciences for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, delivers a scientific response to this common argument and dives into the developmental stages of the preborn child.

Have a listen. This lesson is under 5 minutes. In it, the speaker makes these points:

• Not knowing when life begins should be an argument AGAINST abortion
• The developing baby grows at an extremely rapid pace, especially in the first trimester
• At 22 weeks, it is possible for babies to be born and survive outside the womb
• In the womb, babies exhibit behaviors we do as adults
• Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus are all terms that merely refer to age
• Preborn babies are not parasites; if they were, the mother’s immune system would attack it
• It is a scientific certainty that human life begins at the moment of fertilization

Pro-Life Reply: My Body, My Choice

The Pro-Life Reply to: “My Body, My Choice”

In this video, Kirsten Watson, mother of 7, including twins, explains how to respond to “My Body, My Choice” and reinforce the pro-life argument for the most vulnerable members of society. Be informed and better prepared in less than 5 minutes. Some of the points she makes are:

• When a woman is pregnant, there is more than one body involved
• A right isn’t a right if I only apply it to me
• A woman’s right over her own body does not give her the right to end the life of any other human being
• Mothers and fathers have a natural and legal obligation to support their children after birth, so it should follow that they have this obligation before birth
• “My body, my choice” encourages men to use women, not respect them

Fundamental Baptist problems

In the #MeToo era a good bit of sexual allegation appears more as gobbledygook seeking some certain civic, social, and/or political advantage. This obscures the darker problems, such as the very real problem of sexual assault and sexual abuse in some fundamental circles that exalt pastoral authority to God-like proportions. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has a new series dealing with the topic.[i]

• Hundreds of sex abuse allegations found in fundamental Baptist churches across U.S.
• These ‘men of God’ sexually abused children. Then they found refuge at other churches
• ‘It’s ruined me.’ Former independent fundamental Baptists describe life in the church
• ‘My earliest memory of being molested was when I was 4 years old. It was Sunday school’
• How the Star-Telegram investigated sex abuse in fundamental Baptist churches

Since “independent Baptist” represents a broad class of Baptists who are “independent” – often unaffiliated (with any body beyond the local church) – these allegations and problems should not be projected on to all independent Baptists (or all Baptists for that matter).[ii] Be aware such renegades may hide, or try to hide, in any church. Nevertheless, this is especially problematic in churches where a leaders or a few leaders are given an inordinate amount of authority.[iii]

---

[i] “The Fort Worth Star-Telegram interviewed more than 200 members, ex-members and clergy and reviewed hundreds of documents during its eight-month investigation into sexual abuse at independent fundamental Baptist churches.” A link to the series can also be found on the newspaper’s website HERE. If you don’t have a subscription you probably won’t be able to read all five articles linked, but may be able to find some of them reposted elsewhere where you can read them. For example, Hundreds of sex abuse allegations... at Pulpit and Pen, and ‘It’s ruined me.’ Former independent fundamental Baptists... at Black Christian News Network One.

[ii] I have written briefly and randomly about independent Baptists, for example, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

[iii] Beware of the “Touch not God’s anointed” mentality. Do not separate the children from their parents for worship or Bible study. Let all worship together. Let pastors when visiting ladies of the church be accompanied by their wives. All the falderal that so many churches add and attach to expand the simple church gathering not only creates a biblical “unorthopraxy” – it sets up new areas of “ministry” where duplicitous dealers can swoop in and take their prey.

Sexual Assault Awareness Month

Our county commissioners have declared April to be "Sexual Assault Awareness Month". This is probably a common thing to do and may be largely symbolic. But it is supposed to include educational events, which I hope will be good. Unfortunately, some educational events proceed from non-christian and anti-christian worldviews. We hope something good comes from it. One bit of information the article reporting the commissioners' action included is that we have about 150 registered sex offenders in our county population of 53,000. I'm not sure how this compares on average to other places, but when I think of 150 sex offenders scattered over my county I know it is way too many. According to the article, 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually assaulted before they reach age 18.

Fundamentalist liberals

One mantra that is constantly sounded against "fundamentalists" is that they care more about their doctrines and laws than they care about people. What I noticed online yesterday makes me believe that many "liberals" are just as fundamentalist for their ideals as are the fundamentalists. Do they really care about people, or more about furthering their agenda? I ask this because of the Josh Duggar situation. Not content to "out" Duggar for his child molestation and hypocrisy, now they are now outing his victims!

[Note: This refers to some of these girls being identified before they chose to be, or without their consent. I guess we've know for a while who some of them are. This morning I noticed in one article that the Associated Press stated they "generally do not identify victims of sexual mistreatment...But" -- referencing one who has chosen to speak publicly. But this one and others were already identified before she spoke publicly. In the rush to judge Josh Duggar, the consideration for his victims was handled very poorly.]

To Train Up a Child

'To Train Up a Child' linked to deaths -- "Gary Tuchman speaks with author of 'To Train Up a Child', a parenting book linked to several deaths."

Recent and not so recent news have tried to link Michael and Debi Pearl's book To Train Up a Child with deaths in three child abuse cases. CBS asks, "Is Conservative Christian Group, No Greater Joy Ministries, Pushing Parents to Beat Kids to Death?"

I am afraid much of the animus against the Pearls and their book is driven by an "anti-corporal punishment" agenda. Apparently there is an organized effort to flame the book on Amazon. I remember reading the book back in the 1990s, and didn't notice anything that would encourage parents to beat or starve their children. In fact, in my memory, the biggest thing that stands out is the admonition for consistent and deliberate training of children -- as opposed to that which is inconsistent and haphazard.

The Pearls personally and in their book teach against child abuse. Even if you disagree with their methods, please don't be so reckless as to accuse them with promoting abuse and murder.

Responses and Links
* Dead child's mom sought discipline tips
* Hana Williams’ Death – Official Statement
* Response to Schatz case
* Was child abused to death due to advice from book?

3 more thoughts on child sexual abuse

Back in July I posted some thoughts on the subject of child sexual abuse. My intention was to follow that up in a week or so with a second post. I got busy and distracted and forgot to do so. A comment on that post yesterday brought this back to my attention. I want to address 3 other aspects of the subject.

Where is the opportunity for repentance and redemption?
Some ask, "Where is the opportunity for repentance and redemption in this?" Perhaps this is the most difficult question of all. As church members and forgiven sinners, we must extend forgiveness to other sinners. We pray, "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" recognizing that if we do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will our Father forgive our trespasses. Yet what does forgiveness of the child sex abuser look like? We easily talk the talk, but who among us would hire such an one to babysit our children or grandchildren? And would forgiveness of this sin even faintly look like that? There is a need for the child sex abuser to repent, make restitution if and when in any way possible (not sure what that would look like either). Perhaps one thing that such repentance would look like is that the repentant child sex abuser would not allow himself to babysit your children or grandchildren! Where is repentance, and what does it look like? I solicit the advice of any readers who can give us further scriptural instruction in this area.

Innocent until proven guilty
In discussing the "Mahaney case", some respondents cautioned others "to remember the American judicial system maxim of 'Innocent until proven guilty'." Some went so far as to suggest that a church must wait until an abuser has been convicted in court of wrongdoing before taking any action. Since anyone can accuse anybody of wrongdoing, caution requires that we wait and see if the accusations are true before taking action. Churches do need to wait on the truth, but they don't have to wait on "the law".

I fully support our the American judicial system principle of "innocent until proven guilty." The presumption of innocence is absolutely essential to the criminal process in our judicial system. A defendant comes before the court with an assumed innocence that requires the government/prosecution to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant. The defendant or his council does not any burden to prove his or her innocence. If the prosecution can prove it satisfactorily to a judge or jury, the accused is "not guilty".

This can be misunderstood in applying it to a situation of alleged child abuse in a ministry/charity (e.g., a children's home) or by an individual. A church that supports a ministry accused of wrong-doing does not have to depend on the court finding someone legally guilty to decide whether to sever their relationship and withdraw their support. A church does not have to depend on the court finding someone legally guilty to decide whether to exclude a member if the offense occurred within the church's knowledge. A church (or an individual Christian) can make her (or his) own moral judgment as to the guilt or innocence of a ministry they support or of a church member, and then act accordingly. Legal innocence and actual innocence are not necessarily the same thing. A cautious and judicious approach by a church is necessary and exemplary. But a legal proceeding might result in a declared legal innocence where there is no actual innocence -- for example, a person getting off on a technicality of the law. In such a case a church is well within its rights and responsibility to exclude the legally innocent offender, or to cut off support of the "officially" innocent ministry.

What if it is not against the law?
It occurs to me that in every crevice of creation what we in America consider child sexual abuse might not be unlawful. Probably in most developed countries it is, but minister's serve and churches exist in all parts of the globe. It is important that we not tie child sexual abuse only to the idea of unlawful activity. It is also immoral activity. If a church is gathered in a place where child sexual abuse is lawful, the church still does not have to accept it as moral. Even if the law will not act on the offender, the church can. No, they don't take the law into their own hands and deliver some kind of vigilante justice. But they can and should act swiftly to put the offender out of the fellowship of the church and "deliver such an one unto Satan."

In the last two points I feel a large degree of confidence. In the first I struggle with the proper relationship of genuine forgiveness, the practical application of that forgiveness, and the continued protection of children from abuse.

3 classes of Church Discipline

Yesterday I posted one blogger's comment about a "youth minister" who was caught having ongoing sexual relations with a teenage girl in his church. He wrote, "If he does not respond accordingly [repentance], he needs to be dealt with according to Matthew 18:15-17. But if he repents, we need to forgive. That is how we deal with these things."

Most American Baptists have lived through an entire generation or two (or maybe three) in which no discipline has been practiced in their churches. Sin is preached against generically and at times specifically, but no action is taken even when "it is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife." People have abortions, extra-marital affairs, live together out of wedlock, steal, get drunk and such-like -- and these things are not done in a corner -- all the while remaining members in good standing at their local Baptist Church. Brethren, these things ought not so to be!

Early in my ministry I read Church Discipline by L. S. Walker. In his booklet Walker categorized what he called "3 classes of church discipline": 1. Private offenses, 2. Public offenses, and 3. Heretical (or Doctrinal) offenses. Walker was correct and I have found no reason in the subsequent 30-something years to change, other than I have tweaked the wording of his third category. Resolution of each of these offenses are approached in a different manner by Christian and the church.

Matthew 18:15-17 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
1. Private offenses. A private offense is, as the name implies, an offense that occurs between two parties and generally will be known only unto them unless one of the parties tells others of the offense. A falling out between siblings is an example of this kind of offense. This is the type of offense whose resolution is formulated in Matthew 18:15-17. It is formulated in three steps, the following steps being unnecessary is the preceding step brings about the resolution. (1) Resolve the issue privately, no one else need be involved; (2) Take witnesses who might the negotiate between the parties toward a resolution; (3) Tell the church and let the church judge and resolve the issue. Any attempt to apply this to something such as a child sexual abuse case that the church already know about becomes ludicrous.

1 Corinthians 5:2b-5 ...that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present , concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
2. Public offenses. This is a sin that is publicly known or affects "the public" -- people other than just the parties involved. These include sexual sins such as fornication and adultery, violent sins such as murder and rape, and property sins such as theft. An example of the resolution of this type of offense is found in I Corinthians 5:1-13. In this situation in Corinth a church member was fornicating with his father's wife -- a sin so vilely reputed that the promiscuous Gentiles wouldn't even sanction it! The church already should have acted, and are urged by Paul to take immediate action. No one goes to the member privately. The unrepentant public offender is immediately put out of the church. This is initiated by the church and not privately by an individual. The steps of Matthew 18 do not apply. In matters of public offense which are also criminal, the church acts in her realm in regard to her member, and also allows the "ministers of God" (authority, government) to act in their realm of criminal punishment.

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
3. Church fellowship offenses. This is an offense in which a church member causes division in the faith and practice of the church. Perhaps he or she adopts beliefs contrary to the faith of the church; for example, to reject the virgin birth of Jesus Christ or his blood atonement for sins are plain violations of the scriptures and bring one under the censure of the church. A divisive spirit that will not be corrected also falls under this type of offense. The individual might be divisive about matters on which the church would otherwise give broad leeway, such as eschatology. He or she might hold the doctrines "to the letter" but not uphold the law of love, trying rather to drive wedges between the believers in the church -- a church splitter. Titus 3:10 is the standard for such discipline. The church teaches and admonishes the member to return to the faith and practice of the church. The unrepentant offender, after being admonished twice, is rejected by the church from their fellowship. Because the offense is known to the church, this is not a private offense and the steps of Matthew 18 do not apply.

It is not uncommon to hear believers plead for the application of Matthew 18:15-17 to be inserted in all matters of church discipline. Such a plea is beyond the pale of scriptural truth and is a misunderstanding of biblical ecclesiology.

I don't have my copy on hand at the moment to compare, but the booklet by Walker or a digest of it can be found HERE.

Reporting child sexual abuse

In my online reading I've run across several discussions about the duty of pastors and church officials to report child sexual abuse.* Whether named or not, the context or background for much of this was the allegations that C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries concealed sexual abuse of children, that church leaders did not report accusations, and that the churches or ministry handled the situations "in-house" rather than the allowing the law to take its course (among other things).

The ground that child sexual abuse is sinful, unlawful and should be reported was well-covered in the posts and comments. But there was one nagging issue that bothered me -- those who argued that this should be reported because the law requires it. What's wrong with that? Why would that bother me? Two reasons, mainly. But first let me give a four sample comments.

"Call the cops immediately. If we don’t, then we will be in trouble with the law."
"The law requires reporting of even suspicions of abuse. If you’re preaching obedience to the law, to a congregation of a class, then you’d best be calling immediately."
"Whether we think it’s the right thing to do or not, that’s the law so we do it."
"The law of our state says they demand to be involved in the process in order to determine if anything has occurred. And the state will fine you, if they discover that you knew of an alleged case and did not report it."

Briefly notice some elements within these comments. Report it because you'll get in trouble if you don't. Report it to be consistent with teaching obedience to the law. Report it because it's the law, whether it is the "right thing" to do or not.**

There are two reasons that we need to carefully examine regarding the idea of reporting child sexual abuse because the law requires. Stay with me through the post. I am not concluding that we should not report child sexual abuse. I am arguing for a biblical understanding of why a church should report child sexual abuse to law enforcement rather than attempting to handle it "in-house." I hope that we come out understanding why it should be done for biblical reasons rather than just because it is the law. I will digress a bit again before coming directly to the issue.

Child sexual abuse is sin. I'm not going to spend much time making this point, though we can go further if need be. But for the moment I will assume that most Christians will, and certainly ought to, agree with this. All sex outside of marriage is sin, and child sexual abuse is sex outside of marriage. It is fornication, which is a lust of the flesh (Galatians 5:16-21) and an evil thing that comes out of man's heart (Mark 7:21-23). It is assault and it is abuse. Additionally Jesus had much to say about children and the correct treatment of them. Any offense to them is serious and engenders judgment: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea (Matthew 18:10)." Pedophilia is one of several sexual characteristics classified as being "without natural affection." Cf. Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:2.

Reporting is the law. It is governed by state law and will vary by state. I think all states require reporting. According to the website of the Attorney General of the State of Texas, "Anyone having cause to believe that a child's physical or mental health or welfare has been or may be adversely affected by abuse or neglect MUST report the case immediately to a state or local law enforcement agency or the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services." Interestingly, "privileged communication" does not apply to the subject of child abuse in the state of Texas: "The requirement to report under this section applies without exception to an individual whose personal communications may otherwise be privileged, including an attorney, a member of the clergy, a medical practitioner..."

Because we ought to have God's law written in our inward parts
I asked earlier, "What's wrong with reporting child abuse 'because it's the law'?" Why would that bother me? It does not bother me to report it because it is the law. It bothers me that so many quickly default to this being the reason they would report it. Can anyone see a distinction here? Were I to come upon a car wreck with a serious injury, would I think of reporting it because "it's the law" or would I probably just call 911 because it's "the right thing to do?" If a shooting occurred at my church house, would my reporting of it be only because it is the law, or would it be an almost ingrained response to call law enforcement? If we are reporting child sexual abuse because it is the law it raises the questions "Would we do it if it was not the law" and "Why do we not have the same kind of 'untrained' response to the crime of child sexual abuse as we have toward a rape or a shooting?"

Because the Bible is our sole rule of faith and practice
The Christian's ultimate responsibility is to the Divine lawgiver. The Bible is our sole rule of faith and practice. We ought to obey God rather than men (if the two are contradictory) and we ought not get in the habit of looking to human law as our supreme guide. The beginning point is that the Christian’s life/calling has an overriding factor of obedience to God over man. If we train ourselves to do something because it is the law rather than because it is the biblical thing to do, we are setting ourselves up for future failure.

What about churches/ministers in countries where it is not the law? Should they report child sexual abuse? What about Christians who reported Jews to the German authorities because it was the law? Were they right? What we will do when we have trained ourselves to act only because it is the law, and a law calls on us to disobey God? We will acquiesce because "it is the law"? Or will we say with Peter, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye."

Just because something is legal does not make it biblically sanctioned (abortion & same-sex marriage, for examples). We should report child sexual abuse because it is the right thing*** to do. We would not keep a murder private. Both murder and child sexual abuse are criminal activities, a criminal matter! Churches don’t investigate or punish criminal behavior from a legal standpoint, so we turn it over to those who do. God has "ministers" who are ordained to these matters -- rulers, authority, government. Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

We can arrive at reporting illegal activity, such as child sexual abuse, regardless of what the law says because: 1.) We are to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. 2.) One of the things that God has made Caesar’s is the punishment of evildoers. That is the government’s job and not the church’s. If a man in our church murdered someone, we would exclude him, but we would not hang him between the pulpit and the altar. So with child sexual abuse. Government and church can and should both engage this sinful and illegal activity from the spheres of service which God has given them.

Reporting child sexual abuse is the law. So is abortion in all 50 states and so is prostitution in at least 8 counties in the state of Nevada. Should U.S. Christians therefore support abortion, or Nevadan Christians support prostitution? God forbid! Christians don't say, "The courts have declared abortion is a right. That settles it!" The main point I am hoping to get across is to train ourselves in our thinking to do something because it is right (required by God), not just because it is what the law requires. It is the law. Report it! Yes, but not simply because it is the law -- but because as Christians we are rightfully bound to do so by our faith and practice, the word of God.

* SBC Voices and SBC Tomorrow, for examples
** These are blog comments probably written on the fly. Given the opportunity to nuance their comments, the authors might not say they mean to report it only because it is the law, just that we should obey this law.
*** When I say the “right thing”, I mean the “biblical thing”

POST SCRIPT
After determining to write this post it came to my attention in a recent blog comment that at least some people are urging Matthew 18 as the proper way for a church to handle reported child abuse. Trying to be or sound biblical, one blogger advised regarding the arrest of a youth minister who had ongoing sexual relations with a teenage girl in his church, "If he does not respond accordingly [repentance], he needs to be dealt with according to Matthew 18:15-17. But if he repents, we need to forgive. That is how we deal with these things."

Matthew 18:15-17 is about a personal offense between brethren. It is a serious misapplication, with serious consequences, to follow such a formula in criminal offenses. I Corinthians 5, dealing with a sexual offense, is much more applicable as to how the church should deal with the matter internally. I believe that there is a deficient understanding of the whole scope of biblical teaching of church discipline. I hope to address that further tomorrow.