Reflecting on Life

Many thoughtful and sobering and urgent words are circulating today, the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, about the cause of life and the grievous reality of abortion.  For example:

• Remembering Roe v. Wade
• About "Jane Roe"
• 64 questions
• We know they are killing children
• A poem for the children
• MLK's dream and the nightmare of black genocide
• Roe v. Wade misunderstood and misrepresented

On this topic, see also:

• Related resources at Desiring God, including the e-book, "Exposing the Dark Work of Abortion"
• Recent pro-life books
• The wonder of fetal development
• My post the other day.

.

Where is the evidence?

When President Obama addressed a packed audi­torium in Newtown, Connecticut, last month, two days after the mass murder of twenty elementary students and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School, he made a very profound statement.

After asserting that our most important job is to give our children “what they need to become self-reliant and capable and resilient, ready to face the world without fear,” and after stressing the im­portance of “keeping our children safe, and teaching them well” and noting that “we bear a responsibility for every child,” the president made this weighty claim:  “This is our first task—caring for our children.  It’s our first job.  If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right.  That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.”

Strong words!  And wise.  What’s more, the leader of the free world delivered them with a sense of urgency.  But I must ask a question:

Mr. President, since the protection of children is such a crucial priority for our society, and since you have not taken action to protect the unborn, it must be that you have evidence, compelling evidence, that the unborn are not children.  Since this is your posi­tion, please share the overwhelming and convincing evidence you possess that allows you, on the one hand, to look the other way as abortion goes on (over a million per year in the USA), and yet, on the other hand, passionately to announce our national outrage over the slaughter of innocent school children.

After all, unless we have utterly compelling reasons to classify those outside the womb differently from those inside the womb, we would want to err on the side of protection for the unborn.  Since we affirm every person’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and in light of the fact that the unborn have so many characteristics in common with those who have been born, surely the burden of proof is upon those—upon you—who contend that the unborn are not children.  In order to support the practice of abortion (and, indeed, to treat it as a person’s right), both rationality and decency require persuasive evidence that in so doing we “do no harm” to children.  

Mr. President, please deliver that evidence.

.

What Will the President Do?

President Obama could prove Russell Moore wrong, but if he doesn’t speak up to defend religious diversity and freedom in America then he’s proving Moore right.

Moore contends that the recent fracas over the White House’s invitation of Pastor Louie Giglio to give the benediction at the upcoming presidential inauguration, followed by Giglio’s withdrawal of his acceptance of that invitation due to a firestorm of criticism from strident left-wing voices, signals that we’ve come to the place today where we basically have a state church. 

Giglio, an evangelical Christian and founder of the Passion Conferences, preached a sermon in the 1990s in which he articulated a Bible-based message on sexuality, including the idea that homosexual activity is contrary to God’s will.  Moore points out that such a stance on sexual ethics is not only in line with historic Christian teaching but with the moral vision of Islam and Judaism as well.  Thus the day has come in which a faithful Christian or Jew or Muslim cannot pray at a presidential inauguration:  the new state religion forbids it.

So far President Obama has been silent on this controversy, but Presidential Inaugural Committee spokeswoman Addie Whisenant indicates that the committee hadn’t known of Mr. Giglio’s remarks when he was selected to participate in the inauguration, and “they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural.”  She added that as the committee works to “select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”

In other words, they are determined to find someone whose religious stance not only affirms homosexual conduct now but who has never articulated a Bible-based or faithful Muslim or Jewish stance on sexuality.  That is the new standard that people who pray in public must meet, and that's also a key premise in the doctrinal statement of the state religion our current administration is establishing.

UNLESS President Obama steps up and speaks out in favor of allowing the millions of Americans who accept Christian teaching to remain present in the public square.  Unless he replies to Giglio and says, “I know you’re getting raked over the coals, and I know we don’t agree on everything, but I appreciate your excellent work fighting against human trafficking and I want you to participate in the inauguration.”

The ball is in the President’s court.  What will he do?  Will he tolerate the new intolerance, or will he affirm and endorse the classic American concept of tolerance that allows and even protects religious diversity in the land?  Will he stand up to his inaugural committee and others in the administration, or will he sit quietly by as this moment passes (his moment to affirm religious freedom) and look forward to an inauguration with prayers only from people who march in lock-step conformity to the new state-approved religion?

.