Who is wrong in abortion debate?

Today’s post is an expansion of a “Letter to the Editor” to the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper, Tallahassee, Florida. The letter is a response to “Both sides are wrong in abortion debate,” an opinion piece by retired psychologist Gary Whittenberger, published on December 6th. (If you cannot view it on their site, it is also available at Yahoo News.)

Dr. Whittenberger gets some things right and some things wrong. He rightly denounces the viability and privacy problems with the Roe v. Wade decision. Viability from that day and time (26 weeks) is now out the window. Lyla Stensrud was born in 2014 at 21 weeks.[i] Richard Hutchinson was born in 2020 at 21 weeks. Curtis Means of Alabama was recently certified as the “world’s most premature baby to survive,” his time of birth making his about 24 hours less than Richard’s time of birth. Whittenberger wisely knows that with advances in medical technology “viability will continue to go downward.” He further states, “nobody should have the right to hide an unethical or illegal act in private, and sometimes killing a fetus is like that.”

However, when he represents what is wrong on the pro-life side, he gets it wrong, writing:

The pro-lifers are wrong because they give an answer to the wrong question, i.e. “When does life begin?” That is totally irrelevant, and we already know that the zygote is alive. The relevant question is “When should the fetus be considered a person and assigned basic human rights?”

I suppose he does not intend to misrepresent the pro-life position. Nevertheless, in that statement he does so. Pro-lifers are not arguing that some unknown life form begins at the moment of conception – but that two humans create another human life, a person.  To pro-lifers “when does life begin” means “when does human life begin, including with it personhood and basic human rights.” Whittenberger is free to disagree with the pro-life position, but he should not misrepresent it, either knowingly or unknowingly. We are contending that at conception the life that begins at that time (which he admits is life) is a person, entitled to basic human rights, and that our laws should support and protect those rights.

Finally, Whittenberger disagrees with pro-lifers because he believes that a “human fetus cannot be a person until its brain matures to the point that it acquires the capacity for consciousness,” and that “this occurs at the end of the 24th week post-conception.” This agrees with a common scientific view that “the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.” (This disagrees with the living lives of Lyla Stensrud, Richard Hutchinson, Curtis Means, and others born before 24 weeks!)

According to the APA Dictionary of Psychology, consciousness is “an organism’s awareness of something either internal or external to itself.” This view proves to be a dangerous concept for determining personhood, not only for the children less than 24 weeks, but also for adults in comas.[ii] Are they no longer persons and entitled to basic human rights? Sadly, this is where we have arrived and what many people think. Snuff them out unceremoniously. They have not consciousness. They are not persons.

Biblically, humans – all humans – have value because God made us in his image (Genesis 1:27, Job 33:4, Psalm 119:73).[iii] We are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), in ways beyond the comprehension of man’s thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9). Let us, if we err, “err” on the side of life.

Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

---

[i] Or less, according to some unofficial reports.
[ii] It is also dangerous because this is unsettled science, subjective and subject to change. “Consciousness in general and the birth of consciousness in particular remain as key puzzles confronting the scientific worldview.” – “The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life” (Lagercrantz, H., Changeux, JP. Pediatr Res 65, 255–260, 2009). How much better to walk into the unknown, uncertain, and unsettled with the old medical adage, primum non nocere (first, do no harm). Where you are unsure, “err” on the side of life, not death.
[iii] Often expressed in the theological terminology imago Dei (Latin for “image of God”). 

The Stench of 1973

News outlets yesterday reported that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” [This in reference to “what if” the Court overturned abortion rights as they currently stand interpreted.]

I find that statement intriguing in light of how the abortion right was created. I wonder how she views the “reading” of the Constitution and the “political act” of the Supreme Court in 1973 when the majority found the right to abortion which they were unable to read in the Constitution.

Lynching and Crucifixion

On June 3, 2020, Chance the Rapper Tweeted: “Jesus was lynched.” I did not spend a lot of time reading replies, but it appears he got fairly “mixed reviews.” A fellow member called attention to it in a Facebook group, and the statement received mixed reviews there as well (more in favour, it seems).

Perhaps the “shock value” of such a statement will cause us to “stop, look, and listen,” and learn. We can learn from the statement, even though I think Chance the Rapper is technically incorrect. We will find lynching and crucifixion merge and diverge at particular points. First, consider the definitions of “lynch” and “crucifixion.”

• Lynch, verb (used with object). To put to death, especially by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority.
• Crucify, verb (used with object). To put to death by nailing or binding the hands and feet to a cross (and in this discussion, specifically the putting to death of Jesus by nailing him to and hanging him on a cross).

Lynching and crucifixion are both methods of execution, though the first is clearly without legal authority to do so – specifically in the U.S. it is without due process, without a trial. Crucifixion was once a preferred method of execution in the Roman Empire, and generally carried out under the authority of Roman officials.[i]

Similarities

• Lynching and the crucifixion of Jesus share the element of hanging. Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
• Lynching and the crucifixion of Jesus share the element of the bloodlust of a mob. Mark 15:14 Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.
• Lynching and the crucifixion of Jesus are murderous acts derived from deceitful and desperately wicked hearts. Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Differences

• A lynching is illegal and unlawful, whether or not the person lynched is innocent or guilty. The crucifixion of Jesus was carried out under legal authority, but the person convicted was innocent. Mark 14:15 And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
• Lynching breaks the laws of state, but Jesus’s crucifixion fulfilled the law of God. Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Romans 3:25 whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God
• The death of the lynched perpetuates anger, guilt, and sin. The crucifixion of Jesus makes peace by the blood of the cross. Colossians 1:20 and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

By comparing the death of Jesus to other deaths, including lynching, we learn. We hear notes that touch chords in our hearts. Yet, in the end, the death of Jesus Christ the Son of God is unlike any other.

• It is an offering made by free eternal determination, rather than by forced human intervention. Acts 4:27-28 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. John 10:17-18 I lay down my life...No man taketh it from me...
• It is the making of a sin offering by one who never sinned. 1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
• It is the offering of the just in the place of the unjust. 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God... Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
• It is a one-time sufficient sacrifice for sin. Hebrews 9:26 ...but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Our sins are many, God’s mercy is more; He’s wash’d and cleans’d us, for this we adore.

As on the cross the Savior hung,

And wept, and bled, and died;

He poured salvation on a wretch,

That languished at His side. (Samuel Stennett)

When I survey the wondrous cross

On which the Prince of glory died,

My richest gain I count but loss,

And pour contempt on all my pride. (Isaac Watts)

---

[i] Experts differ on the legality of the trial of Jesus. José María Ribas Alba, one of the top modern scholars on Roman law, has concluded from his years of study that the trial of Jesus was perfectly legal [For example, Jesús es condenado a muerte: reflexiones sobre el contexto histórico y jurídico de la Pasión de Cristo (Jesus is sentenced to death. Reflections on the historical and legal context of the Passion of Christ), José María Ribas Alba, Mergablum, 2013]. On the other hand, in The Trial of Christ: From a Legal and Scriptural Viewpoint, David K. Breed argues that many legal errors were made. Many Christian scholars focus on the legality or illegality of the proceedings of the Sandhedrin.

Fleeing U.S. for Texas

In its early days, Texas (the Mexican state and the Republic of Texas nation) was a place of escape for some folks fleeing the United States who wanted to leave their past behind. Some availed of the opportunity and made new lives. Others could not or did not outrun their past.

The missionary Baptists had three notorious “bandits” who escaped the law in the United States by fleeing to Mexican Texas: Thomas Washington Cox, Peter Eldridge, and David Lewis. Z. N. Morrell suggests the same for Robert G. Green, of a more anti-missionary flavor. At least Green apparently wound up derelict, as far as Morrell knew.[i]

Cox helped found the first Baptist Association in Texas, then flew the Baptist coop to the Campbellite Restoration movement – finally, quitting preaching altogether.[ii] Eldridge adopted apostasy and open communion, probably destroying several churches in the Sabine and San Augustine counties region.[iii] His violations were egregious to the point that associations discussed the propriety of churches even receiving members who were baptized by Eldridge – but eventually he made a happy reconciliation with the Southern Baptists.[iv] Lewis failed in Indian missions and helped split the Sabine Baptist Association, before moving on to be a state missionary for the Baptist State Convention of Texas. He then disappeared to who knows where.

For most, other than historians and genealogists, these names are long unnoticed and forgotten. Nevertheless, they are integral parts of the founding of the Baptist churches in the state of Texas.

---

[i] Green arrived Texas in 1838, and helped organize two or three churches. He was soon overtaken by “John Barleycorn,” as Morrell puts it. Flowers and Fruits from the Wilderness, Z. N. Morrell, pp. 200-201.

[ii] Rev. T. W. Cox in A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Alabama, Hosea Holcombe, pp. 71, 148-149, 232, 254. See also, “Texas Baptists, Their Beginnings” in the Jacksboro Gazette, Thursday, November 19, 1908, p. 2.

[iii] In July of 1847, Campbellite minister William DeFee wrote the The Millennial Harbinger that we “had a meeting twelve days ago, in Sabine county, with brother Peter Eldridge and G. W. Slaughter, Baptist preachers, on union and creeds, and agreed to unite on ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism for remission of sins.’” (Series III, Vol. IV, A. Campbell and W. K. Pendleton, Bethany, VA: Printed by A. Campbell, 1847.) Slaughter went on to become an extremely popular minister in the Baptist State Convention of Texas. Eldridge and Slaughter clearly headed toward the Campbellite position, but apparently drew back at the last.

[iv] The Tennessee Baptist, Saturday, December 2, 1854, p. 4.

Deuteronomy 15:11

For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

Deuteronomy 15:11 sits intriguingly in the midst of the context of Deuteronomy 15, which seems to hint in verse four of a time when there would be no poor among them.[i] It is noteworthy how well the statement in verse 11 intersects with the statement of Jesus in John 12:8.

First, as background, we understand that all Israelites became property owners after the conquest of Canaan and division of the land. Joshua divided the land of Canaan by lot to each of Israel’s twelve tribes (e.g. Joshua 19:51; see Joshua 13—21),[ii] as determined by God (Cf. Proverbs 16:33).

The first part of Deuteronomy 15 mentions the seven-year release. God placed this and other things within the legal system of the Law of Moses. The seven-year release and the year of jubile,[iii] in at least one of their effects, helped the poor and needy. These events recalibrated the scale to recreate just weights and balances and at least temporary relief. Verse 5 of Deuteronomy 15 suggests faithful adherence to these principles would fulfill that purpose.[iv] Yet God knew Israel would disobey the law of God, and that the poor would never cease out of the land. Verse 11 acknowledges that. It is a bare statement of fact, and makes inexcusable the attempt to excuse oneself from helping the poor and needy on prior grounds (verses 1-6). But for the nature of man, which we always have with us, poverty might be eradicated. So, like our sin nature, the poor we always have with us also.

---

[i] The Pulpit Commentary states, “This statement [v. 11] is not inconsistent with that in ver. 4, for there it is the prevention of poverty by not dealing harshly with the poor that is spoken of; here it is the continuance of occasion for the relief of the poor that is referred to.” John Gill says, “There would be always such objects to exercise their charity and beneficence towards, John 12:8, which is no contradiction to Deuteronomy 15:4 for had they been obedient to the laws of God, they would have been so blessed that there would have been none; so the Targums; but he foresaw that they would not keep his commands, and so this would be the case, and which he foretells that they might expect it, and do their duty to them, as here directed…”

[ii] Though the Levites did not have a political division of land, they received cities and land within the divisions of the other tribes.

[iii] Leviticus 25:8-28

[iv] There is difference of opinion whether the seven-year release meant a permanent release from the debt, or a year-long release for relief and rest from the debt. In comparison, the release of the land itself was only for the year, and was brought back into cultivation the next year (Cf. Exodus 23:10-11). Regardless, I don’t think the seven-year release or the year of jubile can be used to support the redistribution of wealth ideas that some think should be by secular governments. For example, the jubile return of the land was a fact known and accounted for in business dealings. The land could not, according to the Law of Moses, be sold in perpetuity (Cf. Leviticus 25:23-24). Most proposed current ideas for redistribution of wealth to alleviate “social injustice” would just create a different social injustice.

A so-called Equality Act

H.R.5 - Equality Act has passed in the House of Representatives in the 116th Congress (2019-2020). This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system.

Doug Collins (Rep.-Ga.) made the following statement at a hearing on H.R. 5:
Don’t ignore the costs here — because they’re steep. H.R. 5 erases civil rights protections for biological women and sets the stage for children to fall victim — in permanent, unprecedented ways — to the confusion that often characterizes adolescence. If Democrats are determined to move this legislation forward, they must acknowledge it automatically privileges the rights of biological men over the rights of biological women. This bill will cause suffering that is far-reaching and, in many cases, enduring...

Franklin Graham in Decision magazine, on the Equality Act, writes, “This legislation will have catastrophic consequences for competitive sports, along with churches and faith-based nonprofits who would lose all protections to hire people who adhere to their Biblical statements of faith.  Christians will be persecuted for their sincerely held beliefs as never before. The clear teachings of the Bible on the sins of homosexuality and abortion will no doubt be considered ‘hate speech’.” In another article, Jerry Pierce adds, “The rights of parents to make choices for their children on questions of sexuality or gender, including medical treatments, would be superseded by federal civil rights codes. “The law would also strip parents of their right to raise and educate their own children if their beliefs contradict government mandates” and that “Male-bodied trans women would have rights to women’s private spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, prison cells, homeless shelters, women’s shelters, hospital rooms, women’s conferences, college dorms, elder care facilities and sports leagues.”

The experience of David Mackereth in the United Kingdom might serve as a warning to us. “The British government has declared a Christian physician ‘unfit to work’ after the self-identified Reformed Baptist vocalized out loud the definitive truth that there are only two biological genders: male and female.” He “had originally been tasked with compiling independent reports about the true health status of Brits claiming disability benefits. Part of his assignment was to refer to interviewees only by their preferred gender pronouns – something that he simply couldn’t do because of his religious convictions. Dr. Mackereth told the media, ‘I believe that gender is defined by biology and genetics, and that as a Christian the Bible teaches us that God made humans male or female. I could have kept my mouth shut but it was the right time to raise it.’”

New York Abortion Law

By now, most folks have probably heard of the state of New York revamping their abortion law, which allow the possibility of an abortion up to the time of a child’s birth. One interesting spin on the new regulation tells us Why The Patriarchy Lies About Reproductive Health: And No, New York Is Not Killing Babies.

I’m not sure who this “patriarchy” is and the author, Erin Wathen, doesn’t bother to define how she is using the term. She probably intends something like this definition at Dictionary.com: “a social system in which power is held by men, through cultural norms and customs that favor men and withhold opportunity from women.” If so, the author means that men oppose abortion to continue norms that favor or benefit themselves while keeping women down. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (a man, by the way), said, “…legislators, most of whom are men, by the way, shouldn’t be telling a woman what she should and shouldn’t be doing with her body.” Of course, all this geared talk obscures several complicated factors. For example:

• Women oppose abortion too.
• Women (female babies) are aborted too.
• Most abortionists are men.
• Abortion benefits “the patriarchy” who wish to impregnate without responsibility.
• Legislators make many laws that tell women (and men) what they can and can’t do with their bodies.

Wathen also tells us that New York is not killing babies. On the contrary, the added Article 25-A, Reproductive Health Act enshrines abortion as a fundamental right in the New York Constitution! “Late-term” abortion – up to the point of birth – is allowed if a health care practitioner (not necessarily a doctor)[i] decides the baby could not survive outside the womb (absence of fetal viability) or “the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” Further consequences include that an unborn child is not a person and can never be the victim of a homicide, as well as removing existing protections for babies born alive after an abortion.[ii]

From the act, as posted as NYSenate.Gov (ALL CAPS are theirs)

• EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO BECOMES PREGNANT HAS THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO CARRY THE PREGNANCY TO TERM, TO GIVE BIRTH TO A CHILD, OR TO HAVE AN ABORTION, PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE.
• A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITHIN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER’S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT’S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT’S LIFE OR HEALTH.
• “Person, when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.
• Section 4164 of the public health law is REPEALED.

New York’s Governor, Andrew Cuomo, signed this into law Tuesday, January 29.

---

[i] I’m not certain about New York definitions, but under federal regulations a “health care practitioner” can even be a clinical social worker.

[ii] Curiously, links to a The New York State Senate page referencing that this law “removes protections for babies born alive after an abortion” have been moved or removed.

New York Public Health Law, Section 4164

New York Public Health Law, Section 4164, Induced Viable Births (REPEALED)
1. When an abortion is to be performed after the twelfth week of pregnancy it shall be performed only in a hospital and only on an in-patient basis. When an abortion is to be performed after the twentieth week of pregnancy, a physician other than the physician performing the abortion shall be in attendance to take control of and to provide immediate medical care for any live birth that is the result of the abortion. The commissioner of health is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to insure the health and safety of the mother and the viable child, in such instances.
2. Such child shall be accorded immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York, including but not limited to applicable provisions of the social services law, article five of the civil rights law and the penal law.
3. The medical records of all life-sustaining efforts put forth for such a live aborted birth, their failure or success, shall be kept by attending physician. All other vital statistics requirements in the public health law shall be complied with in regard to such aborted child.
4. In the event of the subsequent death of the aborted child, the disposal of the dead body shall be in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.

Related to New York Abortion Law post.

Abortion and Baptist History

The Supreme Court issued its infamous decision on abortion, Roe v. Wade, on January 22, 1973. The majority vote was 7-to-2 in favor of Roe/abortion. Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist dissented. Richard Nixon, the President of the U.S. at the time, did not publicly comment about the decision. Strangely, from our current vista, but perhaps not for the times, representatives in the Southern Baptist Convention’s Baptist Press welcomed the decision. W. Barry Garrett wrote, “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision.”[i]

In January of 1973, I was a freshman in High School. Such religious, moral, and legal decisions were not in the forefront of my interests, and my memory has no recollection of how our local Baptist received the news.[ii] Recently I have read some articles that incline one to think the Baptists generally were not opposed to abortion until much later.[iii] Certain accurate historical facts may be pushed forward to support this scenario.

One of the leaders for abortion reform (aka legalization of abortion in cases of rape, incest, or danger to a woman’s health) in the late 1960’s was Howard Moody, who was the pastor of Judson Memorial Church in New York, an American Baptist congregation.[iv] Marie Griffith, in “Southern Baptists, Gender Hierarchy, and the Road to Trump,” says that Baptists in the late 1960’s and early 70’s “certainly appeared to see abortion as a women’s issue. When the Supreme Court decriminalized abortion in 1973’s Roe v Wade decision, Southern Baptist leaders appeared to support access to abortion, at least under circumstances with which they could sympathize.”[v] In 1968, “the American Baptist Convention advocated the removal of all restrictions on abortion during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.”[vi] Billy Graham stated his view on abortion in a 1969 episode of The Firing Line. He was willing to permit it in cases of rape and incest, as well as when the mother’s life was in danger.[vii]

At their meeting in St. Louis, Missouri in 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention passed their first resolution the subject of abortion. The resolution included calling “upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”[viii]

In what appears to be an older but officially current statement, American Baptists opposed abortion “as a means of avoiding responsibility for conception” and “as a primary means of birth control,” but stopped far short of a blanket condemnation of abortion.[ix]

Several articles – unsourced – reference a Jerry Falwell lament in 1979, “The Roman Catholic Church for many years has stood virtually alone against abortion. I think it’s an indictment against the rest of us that we’ve allowed them to stand alone.” Sans context, this certainly seems to imply that Baptists had not previously opposed abortion, or at least not to the extent that he was proposing – as well as being slow to take up the issue (his statement 6 years after Roe v. Wade).[x]

Is this representation purposefully skewed? Possibly so. My sense is that Baptists as a whole were divided on the issue – and perhaps some had not given it much thought. Another factor is that many Baptists did not believe in engaging in the political arena. In those cases, they would not have been outspoken about abortion in any discussions that smacked of politics. In contrast to the pro-abortion emphasis, I found that some Baptists opposed abortion both before and immediately after Roe.

“The fundamental Baptist evangelist John R. Rice declared in 1945 that abortion, which he considered ‘the murder of the little one where conception has already taken place,’ was ‘a crime prohibited by law and condemned by all decent people’.”[xi]

In 1970 ‘Christians for Life’ – a non-denominational pro-life organization that would have included Baptists – picketed a Billy Graham crusade because “Graham, although opposed to abortion in most cases, was willing to permit it in cases of rape and incest, as well as when the mother’s life was in danger.”[xii]

Carl F. H. Henry, a Baptist whose roots were in the Northern Baptist Convention, in Eternity magazine in 1971 called abortion “murder.”[xiii] One opponent of the Roe decision whose opposition began almost immediately was Jesse Helms, a Southern Baptist who was a freshman senator from North Carolina.[xiv]

Here are my initial ideas – beyond the fact that Baptists were divided on the issue of abortion (which is always true of Baptists on any issue!). First, it is obvious that certain moderate and progressive Baptists were advocating loosening the laws against abortion. The reasons that other Baptists may not have appeared in the forefront of opposition to abortion may have been: (1) Since this was viewed primarily a legal matter, their opposition to political involvement stymied their engagement of the issue. (2) Since abortion was already illegal, it did not appear to be pressing to speak out against it. (3) A general lethargy of the more conservative Baptists, from years of their thinking on the matter having been the generally accepted one.

---

[i] “High Court Holds Abortion To Be ‘A Right of Privacy’,” January 31, 1973, as cited in Baptist Press Initial Reporting on Roe v. Wade, by Trevin Wax. Wax explains, “I recently came across the initial reporting from Baptist Press on the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Reading these documents made me so grateful for the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC.” Wilkins Barry Garrett Jr. (1915-2001) served as the first Washington bureau chief of Baptist Press.

[ii] Any of the local Baptists, Southern Baptist or otherwise. Our family church was Missionary Baptist – not affiliated with the Southern Baptists – and I was not a member of any church at the time.

[iii] “When Southern Baptists Were Pro-Choice” by Joshua Holland and “My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice” by Jonathan Dudley are two that seems to make that point pejoratively.

[iv] Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-life Movement Before Roe v. Wade, Daniel K. Williams, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 65-66

[v] Griffith also writes, “Ninety percent of Texas Baptists surveyed in 1969 had affirmed that their state’s abortion laws should be loosened. A 1970 poll by the Baptist Sunday School Board suggested that 70 percent of SBC pastors upheld a right to abortion to safeguard the mother’s health, 64 percent in situations of fetal deformity, and 71 percent for pregnancies occurring from rape.”

[vi] Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-life Movement Before Roe v. Wade, p. 108

[vii] Firing Line with William F. Buckley, Jr., excerpt from Episode 153, Recorded on June 12, 1969

[viii] Resolution On Abortion, St. Louis, Missouri, 1971. Wm. Robert Johnston archives all the Southern Baptist Convention resolutions on abortion through 2009 HERE. These and more recent resolutions can be located on the SBC website by entering “abortion” in the Resolutions Search.

[ix] “Abortion and Ministry in the Local Church” at Policy statements and resolutions

[x] I do not know what context in which Falwell made this statement. My guess is that he may have been talking about opposing it legally and politically, rather than biblically and morally.

[xi] Williams adds, “But most Protestant ministers who were not fundamentalists said nothing.” Defenders of the Unborn, p. 28

[xii] Ibid., p. 145

[xiii] Ibid., p. 145

[xiv] Ibid., p. 213

Immigration: Christian Individuals and Civil Authorities

Previous posts: 

• DACA, Trump, Obama, Congress and Children
• Beyond DACA: the Story of Jose
• Jesus, the Illegal Immigrant?
• Five Guiding Categories: Biblical Considerations
• Five Guiding Categories: Biblical Considerations Expounded

Christians are manifestly enjoined to treat the stranger with straightforward honesty, hospitality, good will, love and kindness. If the Christian individual’s treatment of immigrants and refugees can be guided unequivocally from God’s commands, precepts and examples found in the Bible, why are Christians in the U.S. so divided by the subject of immigration? Part of it can be explained as just approaching the Bible differently. I believe in large part we arrive at differences because of different understandings of the purpose of government and different applications of the Christian’s relationship to government.[i] In other words, much of what we debate is not how the individual should treat strangers, but how the government should treat them.

From whence cometh government, and what is its purpose? Michael Oh puts it succinctly: “Government...has been instituted by God not only for the good of humanity but also for the glory of his own name.” Here are some biblical principles.

Civil authority is instituted by God, both generally and specifically.

• Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
• Daniel 2:21 and he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings

Civil authority is an agent of justice, rewarding good and punishing evil.

• 1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
• 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.

Civil authority deserves prayerful consideration and lawful obedience.

• 1 Timothy 2:1-3 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
• Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him. (Cf. also Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17)

Civil authority is not absolute (only God’s authority is).

• Acts 4:18-19 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
• Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Broadly we can say that our government both generally and specifically exists by the decree of God and at the delight of God. In engaging its purpose, it should defend what is good and those who abide by it, while punishing what is evil and those who practice it. Christian citizens should be good citizens who obey the law, pray for & promote peace and seek justice. Only as a last resort should they disobey the law, choosing obedience to God over obedience to government.

Some people, once they have gone through this many scriptures and this much thinking, will have all the right answers (or at least think they do). As for me, I confess to not knowing how to put together every piece of this puzzle. There is no direct command from God to governments how they should or should not regulate immigration. I find nothing to indicate that government regulating immigration is either inherently moral or immoral.[ii] I believe any such laws should ideally correspond with the purpose of government. As much as is possible, Christians should use their influence to promote good. In conclusion, with hope for more light in the future, I say this. When unsure of which direction to turn, follow the course that does less harm. “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

Finally, I leave you all with this thought that Chris Johnson wrote in a comment at SBCVoices, “Whatever the plight of the ‘Dreamer’ ends up with respect to whether they remain in limbo (Obama’s directive), become legalized (neo-amnesty with perks through Congress), or are systematically removed in order to follow the law of the nation (existing laws on the books), the churches can be there to help, love, and share the gospel. The great commission is something the church can do in all three of those scenarios...that will never change.”

---

[i] In addition, we derive much of our view on immigration and immigration law from the application of principles we find (or think we find). I am unfamiliar with the history of border controls and entry requirements (such as visas, passports). I am not aware of anything like that in either the Old or the New Testaments. The concept of territory and borders can be found in Scripture (e.g. Numbers 21:22), but not like we have refined it in modern “first-world” countries.

[ii] Curiously, there are a number of people who emphatically deny that the United States is a Christian nation, and furiously clamor for complete separation of church and state – and yet when it comes to immigration they argue for the government to found the immigration laws in what they believe are Christian principles. This study has revealed another odd inconsistency. A good number of Americans who support complete amnesty for illegal immigrants also support same-sex marriage. When supporting the former position (amnesty), they do so citing the Old Testament Law of Moses (i.e, what it says about foreigners/strangers). When supporting the latter position (same-sex marriage) they deny any weight to the Old Testament Law of Moses passages against homosexuality (often comparing it to laws against sowing different kinds of seeds). Consistency, thou art a jewel!

Who wrote the first five books of the Bible

Question: Who wrote the first five books of the Bible?

The Bible teaches that its first five books were written by Moses, based on the following numerous observations.

The Pentateuch itself (or “the Law”) testifies to Moses as its author.[i]

• Exodus 17:14, And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
• Exodus 24:4, And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel .
• Exodus 34:27, And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
• Numbers 33:1-2, These are the journeys of the children of Israel, which went forth out of the land of Egypt with their armies under the hand of Moses and Aaron. And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the Lord: and these are their journeys according to their goings out.
• Deuteronomy 17:16-18, But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
• Deuteronomy 31:9, And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel.
• Deuteronomy 31:24-26, And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

The rest of the Old Testament testifies to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch.

• Joshua 1:8, This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
• Joshua 8:31, as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings. (Cf. Exodus 20:25 for the specifications for this altar).
• Joshua 8:32, And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel.
• Joshua 8:34-35, And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them.
• Joshua 23:6, Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left;
• 1 Kings 2:3, and keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:
• 2 Kings 14:5-6, And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, that he slew his servants which had slain the king his father. But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
• 2 Kings 18:6, For he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses.
• 2 Kings 18:12, because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded, and would not hear them, nor do them.
• 2 Chronicles 25:4, But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.
• 2 Chronicles 34:14, And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses.
• Ezra 6:18, And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in the book of Moses.
• Nehemiah 13:1, On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever;
• Daniel 9:13 As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.
• Malachi 4:4, Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

The New Testament testifies to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch.

• Matthew 8:4, And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
• Matthew 19:8, He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
• Mark 7:10, For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
• Mark 10:3, And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
• Luke 16:29-31, Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
• Luke 24:27, And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
• Luke 24:44, And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
• John 1:17, For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
• John 1:45,  Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
• John 5:46-47, For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
• Acts 3:22, For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
• Acts 26:22, Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
• Romans 10:5, For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. (Cf. Leviticus 18:5.)
• 2 Corinthians 3:15, But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

Jesus Christ himself, the criterion by which the Bible is interpreted, provides us the following testimony.

• Jesus credits Moses with the commandment concerning a bill of divorce. Matthew 19:7-8; Mark 10:3.
• Jesus refers to Exodus as the book of Moses. Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.
• Jesus speaks of Moses's writing as Scripture. Luke 24:27; Luke 24:44.
• Jesus says that Moses wrote of him. John 5:46.
• Jesus asserts that Moses gave the law to Israel. John 7:19.
• Jesus states that Moses gave the law of circumcision. John 7:22-23.
• Jesus often references Moses saying or commanding. Matthew 8:4; Mark 1:44; Mark 7:10; Luke 5:14.

---

[i] “Pentateuch” (Greek: πεντάτευχος, five books/scrolls) is the name often used by Christians to refer to the first five books of the Old Testament. They also simply refer to it as “the Law” (Cf. John 1:17; John 8:5; Hebrews 9:19). The first five books are called Torah by the Jews, although they use the term for broader references as well.