What About the Inquisition?

Date April 16, 2008 Posted by Amy Hall

We all expect the Spanish Inquisition to show up sooner or later in our discussions with atheists.  Does the presence of the Inquisition in Christian history discredit all of Christianity?  Does it render our past completely barbaric?

Here’s a question that can help clarify the issues involved with the Inquisition objection:  Do you honor Thomas Edison for inventing the light bulb, or do you merely scoff at him for not inventing a computer?  Edison explored the same world we explore, and yet he only invented a light bulb.  Was he a colossal failure?  Absolutely not.  Data (in this case, the data of the physical world) takes time to work through, sort out, and apply.  Edison had a less than perfect understanding of the world, but he furthered the process of our knowledge and application of the facts of nature by one more step, moving us all towards a more precise understanding of the one reality of nature that has existed since the beginning.  Eventually scientific data would lead to computers, but that doesn’t mean we can’t appreciate the beauty and wonder of the invention of the light bulb in its own time.  And even though at the time of the light bulb’s creation there were many other false ideas about how to apply the laws of nature (the use of leeches, for example), the false applications did not discredit science for all time.

Now move this same idea away from science and into the realm of morality and Christianity.  Like the unchanging laws of nature, we have the unchanging words of God in the Bible.  And as in the world of science, in the world of Christianity we’ve had to work out our knowledge and application of those unchanging words into our societies.  This takes time because human societies started off so far from the ideal–with many false ideas and without knowledge of some true ideas of application that hadn’t yet occurred to them.  (For example, the idea that a pluralistic society could peacefully exist and not tear itself apart looks obvious to us now, but before the cultural situation made the discovery of this radically new idea possible, it was assumed that one must enforce unanimity for the good of the citizens, in order to survive.)

It’s no surprise, then, that 500 years ago societies had only reached the moral equivalent of the light bulb and not the computer; but the problem was in the application, not in the data.  That is, as inevitably as an application of the facts of the physical world led to computers, so the ideas of the Bible have led to the free societies we now see in the West.  But one ought not be surprised by the amount of time it took the societies of the West to work through ideas based on biblical data any more than one is surprised by the thousands of years it took us to work through scientific ideas based on the observable data of nature.  Nor does it make any more sense to fault the unchanging Bible itself for those societies’ slow pace than it does to fault the always-present laws of nature for our formerly rudimentary ideas about science.  The Bible and nature remained the same even if the implications had not yet been fully explored and rightly applied.  And, as with the light bulb, we ought to honor the steps that were made in creating better societies rather than merely degrade the people of the past for not creating the inventions and institutions we have today.

But why, we may then ask, when first creating the nation of Israel, did God not immediately demand that they live as we do today?  The answer might be similar to the reason why He didn’t supply them with computers.  A computer would have been completely beyond their grasp.  In the same way, Israel had a difficult enough time adjusting their society to what God did give them explicitly at that time.  Some things, to be fully understood, accepted, and lived out, have to be reached on our own as we struggle over time, learning little by little.  Applications of ideas are discovered and then take time to permeate and transform a society.  This, in turn, lays the groundwork for discovering more applications.

What God did do is speak to Israel where they were.  He addressed the world as they knew it, and He set a foundation of ideas in place through the Old and New Testaments that would infect societies in such a way that the spread of those ideas would eventually lead us to where we are today.  He told us that we’re all–men and women–created in His image (Gen 1:27) and equal in value before Him (Gal 3:28, Philemon).  We’re not to kidnap people and sell them into slavery (Ex 21:16), we’re not to punish people in a way that humiliates them (Deut 25:3), we’re not to make converts by the sword (John 3:5-8, 18:36), the State is under God and the law (Deut 17:14-20), no one–rich or poor (Lev 19:15), native or foreigner (Num 15:15-16)–is to be favored when justice is dispensed, and the foundation goes on and on.

Unfortunately, just as the lack of good scientific instruments slowed the discovery and application of the laws of nature, our moral weaknesses–stubbornness, ignorance, biases, selfishness, and inherited false beliefs–have made the application of the Bible to our societies a difficult, slow process.  This is why the Inquisition, while condemnable, is not unexpected or surprising and so does not successfully argue against the truthfulness of Christianity.  And in fact, it gives further witness to the truthfulness of the Bible’s central message of our desperate need for Jesus and the forgiveness He provides.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Culture, Main Page, Religion (General) Comments 3 Comments »

Interview with David Wells, Part I

Date April 15, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

In the first chapter of The
Courage to Be Protestant you map out three constituencies that make up the
current evangelical world: classical evangelicalism, church marketers (or
seeker-sensitives), and emergents. To help familiarize our readers with your
book, could you briefly explain each of these groups and the problems they pose
for Christianity?

What I was describing is the way in which the evangelical
world was reconstituted after the Second World War by people like Harold
Ockenga, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, and John Stott and how it has declined in
recent decades.  This kind of rhythm—renewal followed by decline, followed
by renewal, followed by decline—is, in fact, the story of the Church.  In
Scripture, we see this very rhythm working itself out in the Book of Judges. It
is always important, though, for people to know where they are in such a cycle.
 There is no time when the Church is perfect but there are times when it
is better and others when it is worse.  My view is that in important ways
we are leaving behind better days, even as being “born again” gains cultural
acceptance and as megachurches become more numerous.  It is the deep sense
of truth, the truth that God has given us in his Word, that defined the earlier
evangelicals and this sense is now fading in comparison to the desire to be
culturally relevant.  We should, of course, be engaging culture but not so
that that culture defines who we are and what we want and how we go about our
church business.  It is “sola Scriptura” not “sola cultura” ! The
marketers are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they
have adopted from the business world all of the tricks of marketing that make corporations
successful.  The emergents are in danger of building the Church by
cultural means because they have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by a
postmodern mood which imagines that knowing what is true is arrogant, that the
way we make connections with Gen Xers. is by being so diffident that we are
unsure how true Christianity really is or what its demands actually are.

Focusing on the problems with church marketing strategies,
you note that, “The gospel cannot be a product which the church sells
because there are no consumers for it.  When we find consumers we will
find that what they are interested in buying, on their own terms, is not the
gospel.” If the marketers/seeker-sensitives are not “selling”
the gospel, what is it that their consumers are actually buying?

What we seldom understand is that the modernized world in
which we live has untold benefits but it also extracts from us deep, inward
costs for having those benefits.  That is our paradox.  Never have we
had so much –so many products, choices, opportunities, so much knowledge,
instant communication, and long life (in 1900, people could anticipate on
average 49 years of life in America but today it is in the early 80’s).
 But, at the same time, the levels of anxiety have never been higher, or
the levels of stress, and the incidents of depression have never been greater
and we now have more kids who are more demoralized than ever before.  This
is our paradox.  Never have we had so much and never have we had so
little.  Living in the American consumer Paradise
is….hard!  That is why when people come to church, their minds are full
of all of these pressures, anxieties, worries, cares, distractions.  What
they are looking for is inward relief, a moment’s therapy, some fun and
lightness, some inspiration, a little break from the harshness of the
workplace.  That is what they want from their churches.  And that is
what the marketers are intent on giving them.

You claim, “There is a line which connects Marshall and
Wright to Bell and McLaren.  It is that the authority of God functions
separately from the written Scriptures… The common threads across this broad
front are that Scripture cannot be fully authoritative at the level of its
functioning in the life of the Church today.  We are, in fact, autonomous,
freed from its language and constraints as we shape our own understanding, in
our own way, in the postmodern world.” One might argue that evangelicals
have been doing this for some time. For example, many try to find guidance from
God through “putting out fleeces”, feeling a special peace about a
decision, or waiting for some other sign. Would you say that the common thread
also extends through these sorts of spiritual practices that appear to water
down the authority of Scripture? How would you assess the role Scripture
currently plays in the lives of most American evangelicals? 

We all find ourselves in the midst of a world which is sometimes baffling,
confusing, and painful.  Like the psalmists of old, we often ask, “where
is God in all of this?”  This experience, I suspect, is the common lot of
those who know God because we are all being trained to walk by faith and not by
sight.  We find this hard.  We want to be supported by
evidence—interesting coincidences, miraculous escapes, compelling
narratives—and so we do, indeed, often lean to our own understanding as you
suggest.  However, this weakness, I believe, is of a different order from
those who, in small or large ways, have undermined the full, working authority
and truthfulness of Scripture.

You state, “It is important for us to remember that
culture does not give the Church its agenda.” Given the context of debates
over our relationship to the culture, what ought our relationship to culture to
be?

Culture is simply the public environment in which we live that has been brought
about by the modernization of our world.  Our culture is defined by our
urban concentrations, by our consumerism, the fact that technology is
interwoven through our lives, by the massive bureaucratic  structures in
our society which create its impersonal feel, by our loss of connections to
place and family so that loneliness has become epidemic.  This is what
explains why our music is as it is and why serious movies are exploring the
themes which they are.  So, as in ourselves, so in society which is an
extension of who we are, we must make a distinction between what is good from
creation and what has been corrupted.  The N.T. understanding of
worldliness is that it is everything in our culture which, however pleasant, makes
sin look normal and righteousness look strange.  It takes discernment to
be able to see what is good in culture and what is not.  The problem here
is that discernment is essentially a moral ability and we are now raising a
church generation which is simply adrift morally.  That is a fact which I
have documented.

A significant criticism in your book is against the
autonomous self that has come to define popular culture and even many churches.
You argue that we have become self-centered as opposed to God-centered. Isn't
there some degree, however, to which we should be aware of ourselves? Some of
the great hymns emphasize our wretchedness and our gratitude toward God. How does
a healthy view of self differ from the autonomous self?

Yes, we should be aware of ourselves and it is still true that the unexamined
life is not worth living.  That, however, was not what I had in mind.
 The “autonomous self” is what happens when we have little or no
compelling reality outside of ourselves; we have no Scripture that summons us
into the presence of God, no God who is indistinguishable from our needs and
wants, no community that can help or correct us, no moral world in which right
and wrong are enduringly true and out “there.”  There are millions of
Americans like this and many are in evangelical churches.

Category Posted in Culture, Emerging / Emergent Church, Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 1 Comment »

On Our Treatment of Common Sexual Sins

Date April 14, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

One of the emails I received today linked to a men’s devotional series called “Live by His Power,” which is published by Christianity Today. The very brief “devotional” for today recites the story of a pastor counseling a young man regarding sexual temptation:

I counseled Justin, a gifted young man fighting a losing battle with pornography and chronic masturbation.

“The next time you rent a porno movie,” I advised, “pray, 'God, I know this isn't right, but I have terrible unmet needs for love and intimacy that I can't address any other way.'”

“You call yourself a pastor?” Justin exclaimed. “How could you tell me to keep on doing this!” He rose from his chair and headed for the door.

“God already knows the needs in your heart,” I said. “He knows the content of every pornographic movie you've rented and witnessed your every act of self-gratification. Why not stop pretending and acknowledge the God who's already there when you struggle with this stuff?”

Justin left my office very upset with me. But several months later, he returned. “You were right,” he admitted. “God is there with me. Recognizing that has spoiled lust for me and made me listen to the real yearnings for love in my heart.”

This story was quoted from a book, so I don’t know if there was more to it. I sure hope the pastor worked with Justin to help him repent of his sexual sins instead of simply pointing out the God knows the desires of his heart. Regardless, I think this brief story highlights some of the problems with the way in which we often address sexual sins with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

1)      “Chronic masturbation”- “Chronic” has strong psychological connotations. There’s a sense in which something chronic is out of our control. Too often we treat pornography and masturbation this way- we know they are not healthy, but we sometimes treat them like psychological conditions or diseases rather than sin. While there are often emotional and behavioral problems related to these actions (e.g. misplaced intimacy, addiction) that should be addressed, we must not lose sight of the simple yet devastatingly sinful nature of these problems.

2)      “I have terrible unmet needs for love and intimacy that I can't address any other way.” At best, this is a poorly worded statement. We have unmet desires of all sorts in this life, but I’m not sure we have unmet sexual “needs.” The claim that these are needs too often becomes an excuse for engaging in sinful activities (e.g. viewing pornography, masturbation). We recognize that we must eat to survive and nourish our bodies. Many see certain sexual sins in the same way- such as masturbation is necessary to relieve stress or tension. A man once told me he masturbated before dates so he wouldn’t be as tempted to go too far with his girlfriend. Because he viewed his sexual desires as “needs,” he exchanged a terrible sin (pre-marital sex) with a “lesser” sin. But it was still sin, and the Bible makes it clear that following Christ means we must repent of all sin.

3)      “God already knows the needs in your heart.” This is true. God knows our needs and provides for them. He also knows our desires, and some of them are repugnant to His holiness. The desire to feed our lusts inappropriately is one of those desires. Not only does God know these, so does everyone else. We treat them as if they are secret unique sins, but just about every one in some way struggles sexually. Because we don’t often acknowledge that, we find comfort in sharing our struggles through sympathizing with others. I’ve been in a few “accountability” groups were guys would go around in a circle and list some of their sexual sins from the past week. Then everyone would pray and leave. There’s nothing wrong with sympathy. It can often be helpful. But finding sympathy alone will not lead to repentance. God does know my desires, as well as every other totally depraved man, and that’s why some of them need to be drastically changed under the guidance of His word. God doesn’t just know and understand them, He wants to sanctify them.

4)      “God who's already there when you struggle with this stuff.” God not only knows, He’s not only present, but He has also spoken on these struggles. God is there, and He has not been silent. Whether we view Him as a caring friend or a condemning judge, we must not stop at simply acknowledging His presence. We must also seek to understand what He has said- what He has commanded and what He has forbidden. What did Jesus mean when He said “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart”? (Matt 5:28) Lusting after a single woman may be acceptable if we limit adultery to a crime against someone’s marriage. But if adultery is also a crime against God, then the marital status of the woman is irrelevant. Such excuses for sin will be destroyed when we regularly and humbly meditate on the Bible. The Holy Spirit works through God’s word to instruct and change us- to make us look more like Him. So while it’s okay to point out that God is with us, we must not fail to point also to His word as it is His means for sanctification in our lives.

For a more thorough biblical treatment of sexual sin, I highly recommend David Powlison's excellent chapter, “Making All Things New: Restoring Pure Joy to the Sexually Broken,”  in Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, which is available for free in .pdf on Desiring God's website.

Category Posted in Ethics, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 3 Comments »

On the Passing of Dr. Cook (1935-2008)

Date April 13, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton


Yesterday evening Dr. Clyde Cook passed away. He played an important role in just about everything that is good at Biola University as its president from 1982 to 2007. I never met him, but I, along with thousands of other students, have benefited from his commitment to academic excellence, the truth of Christianity, and strength of character.

Biola University's posts:
Public memorial information
Dr. Clyde Cook Bio
Read about Dr. Cook's Legacy

John Mark Reynolds has posted some reflections on Dr. Cook:
Dr. Cook: We Will Meet, But We Will Miss Him.
The Passing of Dr. Clyde Cook

An Interview Where Dr. Cook Discusses His World War II Experiences and Hopes for Biola

Reflections from others:
Magnolia Mountain
Laura's Writings
Home of the Clint
Mere-Orthodoxy

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

A Brief Response To Sam Storms – Part 2

Date April 9, 2008 Posted by David N

So, I realize that this method of breaking up my critique of Storms' book into small, brief sections lends itself to the suspicion that I'm just taking cheap pot shots.  But I hope the reader will understand that I'm simply doing this for practical reasons, mostly relating to time (and besides, you don't want to read a 1500 word blog post anyway!).

In Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?: 4 Views, Storms gives two suggestions to explain the “dormant” periods in history, where the Spirit was not ubiquitously and supernaturally active among the people of God.  The first is sin and apostasy, the second is Biblical ignorance.  The first suggestion is meant for Old Testament history, the idea being that Israel's constant sin and rebellion against God caused the quenching of the Spirit's power.  But as Dr. Robert Saucy points out in his response to Storms, this suggestion can hardly be taken seriously, since one of the most active periods of supernatural power in Israel's history is the time of Elijah and Elisha, and this is arguably one of the worst times of apostasy, at least in the Northern Kingdom.

The second suggestion is meant for the early medieval period.  Rampant Biblical ignorance, primarily due to illiteracy, is a primary reason that the Spirit was not working miraculously in the same way that He was in the 1st century.  My question is, does Storms extend this charge to his contemporary cessationist (or even open-but-cautious) brothers?  I would think not, since Storms praises cessationists for being word-centered and having a high view of doctrine, etc.  And yet, the only other option Storms has left us with is sin and apostasy.  One of these two things must be true, or, according to Storms, cessationists should be experiencing the power of the Spirit on a regular basis.  He might want to suggest that some cessationists do in fact experience the power of the Spirit, but dismiss or rationalize it.  But this seems unlikely on any large scale, especially when it comes to things like speaking in tongues.  It could also be argued that cessationists don't experience such things beacuse they don't believe in them.  This seems problematic for two reasons.  First, it seems to adopt the “if it didn't happen, then you just didn't have enough faith” mentality that is antithetical to a true Christian worldview.  Second, according to Stroms, one of the primary purposes of the spiritual gifts is to engender and strengthen faith, so it would be odd to argue simultaneously that faith must preceed them (with the possible exception of initial, regenerating faith). 

The fairly obviously conclusion, that Storms and others seem stubbornly unwilling to accept (and I'm really not sure why), is that it is God who ultiamtely determines when and where (and how) the Spirit works, not just on any given Sunday morning, but within history as a whole.  I personally don't see how this conclusion is harmful to the Third Wave position, and I see no reason why Storms must attempt to rationalize the Spirit's “dormant” periods by appeals to apostasy or ignorance. 

 

 

Category Posted in Book Reviews, David's Posts, Main Page, Theology Comments No Comments »

Dawkins and Darwin Meet Malibu's Most Wanted

Date April 4, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Science Comments No Comments »

A Brief Response To Sam Storms

Date April 3, 2008 Posted by David N

In Convergence: Spiritual Journeys Of A Charismatic Calvinist, Sam Storms lays out a solid case for the continuation of spiritual gifts in the church today, and argues that “charismatics” need not be anti-intellectual or anti-doctrine.  He believes that cessationists have historically done a wonderful job developing doctrine and what we might call the “life of the mind” in the church, and he admits that charismatics have often ignored the life of the mind in favor of spiritual experiences.  But he does not believe that this divide is a necessary one, and takes his own story to be evidence that one can be both charismatic and a “Word-centered” Calvinist.

 

I found the majority of the book to be both helpful and informative.  I was a cessationist not too long ago, but now I would consider myself in the broad middle category of “open but cautious” (in part due to Storms' arguments against cessationism).  But I found several of Storms' arguments to be inadequate, and at times even ad hoc.  I wish to address these concerns in a series of posts.  This first post will deal with just one of the arguments.

 

Storms argues that Charismatics don't put immediate Spiritual guidance ahead of guidance found in the Word.  Why not?  Because, says Storms, every prophetic word or dream or vision that is received is immediately and meticulously weighed against Scripture.  Scripture, then, is the final authority. 

 

That answer sounds good, but it actually dodges the question.  Notice that, while the Bible may act as a rubber stamp that will allow a certain bit of direct Spiritual guidance to pass, it is still the direct guidance itself that remains central.  It is not Scripture that is actively guiding a person, Scripture merely allows (most often by its silence) someone to be guided by other means.

 

This is no knock-down, drag-out rebuttle, but it does seem that Storms' attempt to show that the Bible remains just as central to daily guidance for the charismatic as for the cessationist mostly fails.  The difference between “active guidance” and “passive allowance” is a big one, and one that Storms cannot ignore. 

 

Category Posted in Book Reviews, David's Posts, Main Page, Theology Comments No Comments »

Some Thoughts on Prayer…

Date March 30, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

Justin Taylor recently posted a brief, yet valuable, insight on prayer:


In listening to an old lecture recently by J. I. Packer, he made the comment that it was not until after the 17th century (as far as he could tell) that people started doing silent prayers and reading as opposed to praying and reading out loud.

For most evangelicals, silence represents the vast majority of our reading and praying. But I wonder if that's to our detriment. One of the great enemies to Bible reading and praying is a wandering mind–and one of the great ways to make your mind wander is to do everything in your mind without involving your voice and ears! [Full post]


Today he posted a response by David Powlison (someone who should be blogging regularly). Dr. Powlison argues that our specific times of devotional prayer should not be characterized as “quite times.” I recommend reading the entire post, but I also wish to highlight here a criticism he made regarding popular prayer practices:


What about teachings on “centering prayer” or “the prayer of silence” or “contemplative prayer” or “listening prayer,” or the notion that God is most truly known in experiences of inner silence? Or what about the repetition of mantras, even using Bible words, attempting to bypass consciousness, seeking to induce a trance state or mystical experience? The Bible never teaches or models prayer either as inner silence or as mantra. That's important to notice: “The Bible NEVER teaches or models these ideas or practices.” On the surface, such teachings align with Buddhist and Hindu conceptions and practices, and are designed to evoke oceanic experience. The god of silence has no name, no personality, no authority, no stated will, makes no promises, and does not act on the stage of history. Such private spirituality can produce inner ecstasies and inner peacefulness (I experienced that first hand in the years before coming to faith). But it does not create interpersonal relationships—with God, with others—of love, loyalty, need, mercy, honesty, tears, just anger, forgiveness, purpose, and trust. It is a super-spirituality, beyond words. Jesus and Scripture speak and act in sharp contrast. The Word in person and in print expresses a humanness that walks on the ground and talks out loud. Jesus gives a richer joy and a richer peace than the unnamed gods of inner silence, inner ecstasy, and inner tranquility. [Full post]

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology Comments 2 Comments »

R. C. Sproul Interviews Ben Stein

Date March 28, 2008 Posted by David N

Last night, Ben Stein came to Biola Univeristy to promote his new film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  In the film, Ben Stein invenstigates the employment termination of several University science professors due to their doubts about Darwinism and support of Intelligent Design.  Find out more about the film here. 

Recently, Dr. R. C. Sproul interviewed Ben Stein about the new film on his radio show, Renewing Your Mind. 

Listen to Part One.

Listen to Part Two. 

Category Posted in Apologetics, Culture, David's Posts, Main Page, Science Comments No Comments »

Interview with Stephen Wagner, Part 2

Date March 27, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton


Here is the conclusion of my interview with Stephen Wagner concerning his book, Common Ground Without
Compromise: 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion. Though the book is available on Amazon, we encourage you to support Steve's work at Stand to Reason by ordering through their website. Part 1 can be read here.

How has the media affected our perception of abortion in America?

The
media has led us to believe that most people are pro-choice.  In my experience, most people are much more
nuanced than that.  Many see themselves
as not fitting into either the pro-choice or pro-life camps.  If forced by an opinion poll, they’ll choose,
but if given the chance to explain, they are conflicted.  Others just haven’t thought much about
abortion and many are just confused.

In
addition, the media gives us the sense that we’re always discussing
abortion.  That’s the most detrimental
thing, because I think it turns people off to creating real, productive
dialogue.  One might say, “If everyone’s
always discussing it, why do I need to weigh in?  Aren’t people tired of the topic?”  Some people are tired of the topic.  But not because we’ve really done it justice. 

I
think the media treatment of abortion has also led people to believe that the
abortion debate is dominated by angry activists.  Although these activists may be the most
vocal and the most concerned, the most productive abortion debate happens
around dinner tables, on college campuses, and at the coffee house.  Abortion isn’t just a theoretical issue
people debate.  It’s about real decisions
people are making today.  And those
decisions are either well-informed or poorly-informed.  If we create a better dialogue as a culture,
I think the benefit is women and men making better decisions about abortion.


 		One of your final chapters offers questions for pro-choice advocates to ask
pro-lifers. You claim “they encourage us to examine our inner attitudes
and external personas.” (p100) What is it about the typical pro-life
attitude that needs to be confronted?

Pro-life
activists frequently make claims they can’t defend and lack tact in their
discussion of pro-choice concerns.  Chapter
11 focuses on common pro-choice concerns and asks, aren’t these concerns
“human” concerns?  Can’t we agree with
the pro-choice advocate on her concern for the poor and the difficult
circumstances of unplanned pregnancy? 

Pro-choice
advocates may see much of the book as coming from a pro-life perspective (it’s
inevitable, since I am pro-life).  I
attempted in this chapter to adopt the pro-choice perspective and look
critically at pro-life arguments and tactics through pro-choice eyes.  I do this as a matter of course in my
conversations, so it was a natural component to include in a book about trying
to agree with the other side.

At Stand to Reason's website you've provided study guides for both pro-choice
and pro-life advocates to help them clarify the arguments for their position.
Doesn't helping pro-choice advocates improve their arguments work against the
pro-life cause?

The study guides encourage both sides first to clarify their
own arguments and then to look at the best arguments on the other side.  This is the healthiest way to engage in
dialogue about our beliefs with ourselves and with others.  So, I see both study guides as a service to both
pro-choice and pro-life advocates to help them think more clearly.  I don’t see how helping pro-choice advocates think
more clearly can possibly harm the pro-life cause.  It’s just goodwill to encourage them to look
at their own position first.  Perhaps the
fact that I’m tired of hearing arguments like “you’re a man, so shut up” also
motivates me but I genuinely want to help the pro-choice advocate think more
deeply about their position.    

I’m not afraid of pro-choice arguments.  The truth about abortion and the unborn will
win the day, if it’s looked at carefully. 
So, I say, evaluate the strongest reasons on both sides of the
debate.  There’s no danger in that.  Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates should
do this.  Far from harming the pro-life
cause, these guides get people thinking critically about their beliefs. 

I suppose it’s possible that some pro-choice advocates will
become more convinced of their beliefs, because they find in the guide intellectually
sophisticated ways of expressing those beliefs. 
But if they’re truly open to reconsidering their pro-choice position,
they’ll honestly look also at the best arguments for the pro-life position, as
I’ve suggested in the guide.  Then it’s the
pro-life community’s responsibility to make sure our arguments are truly
persuasive.  And if our best arguments
don’t persuade, they might not be very good after all.  Yet, our arguments are very good and persuasive…to
the open heart. 

Underneath it all, there’s more here than the
arguments.  When pro-choice advocates
reject our best arguments, I suspect it’s the emotional and spiritual aspects
of the person that are making it difficult for them to change their minds.  Seeking common ground in the conversation
gives more opportunity for those emotional and spiritual elements to breathe
and gives each of us space to attend to them.

Category Posted in Culture, Ethics, Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »