Following the murder of an abortion doctor in his church lobby on Sunday Morning, please consider the quotations below. Though I oppose abortion on demand, I have often questioned inconsistencies in the so-called "pro-life" position. It is these inconsistencies that led Scott Roeder to murder abortion doctor George Tiller. Though I assume that few abortion opponants actually applaud Roeder's decision (Souther Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler has openly denounced Tiller's murder), former SBC Second Vice-President, Wiley Drake, has applauded his death:
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4119&Itemid=53
Many churches claim a staunch "pro-life" stance, meaning they oppose abortion. However, when the child is born, they hardly lift a finger to stand for the spiritual needs of the child, much less the child's position of powerlessness before the world. It is contradictive to belong to a church that claims a pro-life stance, if that church cannot find enough volunteers for the church nursery. Such a church must consider whether or not it is ready, as a community, to embrace the needs of children - spiritual, physical, mental, emotional and social. Yes, the church is responsible for all these areas.
Though I intend to write no comprehensive article below, I ask that we consider the following:
1. What kind of a community is sincerely a community that welcomes children?
2. What is the coherent moral logic, or better yet, moral vision, that undergirds a church's stance against abortion?
3. What is the church's duty toward the innocent and the victim? Do we merely create a state in which there is no possibility that an unborn child is aborted? Is that the extent of our responsibility as a community of faith?
4. What action would really demonstrate a vision of a community that welcomed children, that opposed abortion, and that assumed responsibility for the needs of the innocent and the victim?
Below are some thoughts toward such answers:
"Let me ask you: Which has greater power? Ten thousand people who fill the streets in front of abortion clinics and shame those seeking abortion, or ten thousand people...who take to the state capital a petition they have signed stating they will take any unwanted child of any age, any color, and physical condition so that they can love that child in the name of Jesus Christ?"
- Bill Tibert, Presbyterian Minister (Quoted in Richard Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament, p. 458)
"We must begin by recognizing that we cannot coerce moral consensus in a post-Christian culture. The United States is deeply divided over the question of abortion because there is no consensus about the cultural logic that ought to govern our decisions about this matter. We should recognize the futility of seeking to compel that state to enforce Christian teaching against abortion. This is neither because we advocate a dualistic seperation of sacred and secular spheres of life nor because we acknowledge an alleged sacred right of individual conscience; rather, it is because we recognize that the convictions that cause us to reject abortion within the church are intelligilble only within the symbolic world of Scripture. The church's rejection of abortion is persuasive only in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ...Thus, the primary task of the Christian community on this issue is to form a countercommunity of witness, summoning the world to see the gospel in action."
- Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, p. 457-58.
"...I think that we will be wise as Christians to state our opposition to abortion in a manner that makes clear our broader concerns for the kind of people we ought to be to welcome children into the world."
- Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character, p. 229
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment