FredTalk - Single Column

The hot seat >> Religion

Pages: 1
FUG Professional

Reged: 03/06/11
Posts: 470
A Biblical View That's Younger Than The Happy Meal
      #1680195 - 04/24/12 10:46 AM (

Original article here.

In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal.

Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception.

Ask any American evangelical, today, what the Bible says about abortion and they will insist that this is what it says. (Many don’t actually believe this, but they know it is the only answer that won’t get them in trouble.) They’ll be a little fuzzy on where, exactly, the Bible says this, but they’ll insist that it does.

That’s new. If you had asked American evangelicals that same question the year I was born you would not have gotten the same answer.

That year, Christianity Today — edited by Harold Lindsell, champion of “inerrancy” and author of The Battle for the Bible — published a special issue devoted to the topics of contraception and abortion. That issue included many articles that today would get their authors, editors — probably even their readers — fired from almost any evangelical institution. For example, one article by a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary criticized the Roman Catholic position on abortion as unbiblical. Jonathan Dudley quotes from the article in his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics. Keep in mind that this is from a conservative evangelical seminary professor, writing in Billy Graham’s magazine for editor Harold Lindsell:

God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.

Christianity Today would not publish that article in 2012. They might not even let you write that in comments on their website. If you applied for a job in 2012 with Christianity Today or Dallas Theological Seminary and they found out that you had written something like that, ever, you would not be hired.

At some point between 1968 and 2012, the Bible began to say something different. That’s interesting.

Even more interesting is how thoroughly the record has been rewritten. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Click over to Dr. Norman L. Geisler’s website and you’ll find all the hallmarks of a respected figure in the evangelical establishment. You’ll see that Geisler has taught at Trinity Evangelical Seminary, Dallas Seminary and Southern Evangelical Seminary. You’ll see a promotion for his newest book, Defending Inerrancy, with recommendations from such evangelical stalwarts as Al Mohler and J.I. Packer, as well as a link to an online store offering some of the other dozens of books written by Geisler. And you’ll see a big promo for the anti-abortion movie October Baby, because Geisler is, of course, anti-abortion, just like Mohler and Packer and every other respected figure in the evangelical establishment is and, of course, must be.

But back in the day, Dudley notes, Geisler “argued for the permissibility of abortion in a 1971 book, stating ‘The embryo is not fully human — it is an undeveloped person.’” That was in Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, published by Zondervan. It’s still in print, kind of, as Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options. And now it says something different. Now it’s unambiguously anti-abortion.

I don’t mean to pick on Geisler. He’s no different from Packer or Graham or any other leading evangelical figure who’s been around as long as those guys have. They all now believe that the Bible teaches that life begins at conception. They believe this absolutely, unambiguously, firmly, resolutely and loudly. That’s what they believed 10 years ago, and that’s what they believed 20 years ago.

But it wasn’t what they believed 30 years ago. Thirty years ago they all believed quite the opposite.

Again, that’s interesting.

I heartily recommend Dudley’s book for his discussion of this switch and the main figures who brought it about — Francis Schaeffer, Jerry Falwell, Richard Viguerie, etc. But here I just want to quote one section about the strangeness of this 180-degree turn, and how it caught many evangelicals off-guard:

By the mid-1980s, the evangelical right was so successful with this strategy that the popular evangelical community would no longer tolerate any alternative position. Hence, the outrage over a book titled Brave New People published by InterVarsity Press in 1984. In addition to discussing a number of new biotechnologies, including genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization, the author, an evangelical professor living in New Zealand, also devoted a chapter to abortion. His position was similar to that of most evangelicals 15 years prior. Although he did not believe the fetus was a full-fledged person from conception, he did believe that because it was a potential person, it should be treated with respect. Abortion was only permissible to protect the health and well-being of the mother, to preclude a severely deformed child, and in a few other hard cases, such as rape and incest.

Although this would have been an unremarkable book in 1970, the popular evangelical community was outraged. Evangelical magazines and popular leaders across the country decried the book and its author, and evangelicals picketed outside the publisher’s office and urged booksellers to boycott the publisher. One writer called it a “monstrous book.” … The popular response to the book — despite its endorsements from Carl F.H. Henry, the first editor of Christianity Today, and Lew Smedes, an evangelical professor of ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary — was so overwhelmingly hostile that the book became the first ever withdrawn by InterVarsity Press over the course of nearly half a century in business.

The book was republished a year later by Eerdmans Press. In a preface, the author noted, “The heresy of which I appear to be guilty is that I cannot state categorically that human/personal life commences at day one of gestation. This, it seems, is being made a basic affirmation of evangelicalism, from which there can be no deviation. … No longer is it sufficient to hold classic evangelical affirmations on the nature of biblical revelation, the person and work of Christ, or justification by faith alone. In order to be labeled an evangelical, it is now essential to hold a particular view of the status of the embryo and fetus.”

The poor folks at InterVarsity Press, Carl Henry, Lewis Smedes and everyone else who was surprised by the totality of this reversal, by its suddenness and the vehemence with which it came to be an “essential” and “basic affirmation of evangelicalism” quickly got on board with the new rules.

By the time of the 1988 elections, no one any longer spoke sarcastically of “the heresy” of failing to “state categorically that human/personal life commences at day one of gestation.” By that time, it was simply viewed as an actual heresy. By the time of the 1988 elections, no one was aghast that a strict anti-abortion position was viewed as of equal — or greater — importance than one’s views of biblical revelation or the work of Christ. That was just a given.

By the time of the 1988 elections, everyone in American evangelicalism was wholly opposed to legal abortion and everyone in American evangelicalism was pretending that this had always been the case.

We have always been at war with Eastasia. Everyone knows that.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mega FUG

Reged: 01/30/03
Posts: 9473
Loc: Oregon
Re: A Biblical View That's Younger Than The Happy Meal [Re: Cracker]
      #1680223 - 04/24/12 10:49 PM (

Very interesting article!

While I am "mostly" anti-abortion, it is not because I believe the bible explicitly forbids it. As a Christian for some 42 years, I am very familiar with the bible. Oddly, this is a state that far too few Christians find themselves in. Too many take a pastor's word or the doctrines of a particular denomination as gospel. I have always been extremely skeptical, and life as a Christian has always included fearless questioning of everything I hear from the mainstream church, just as I have, as one educated in the sciences, fearlessly questioned everything the "scientists" say. This is not to say that I reject, outright, what the "authorities" say on spiritual issues; it's just that I weigh everything against MY reading of scripture. I take personal responsibility for what I believe. I am familiar with the Old Testament scriptures that the author references. I don't interpret them as being clear statements on the personhood of a fetus, but I also agree that the scriptures are not explicit on the subject.

I think a question that should be asked is "why has the evangelical view changed?" I, personally, think there are various reasons, but I think one of them is, in my opinion, that abortion became viewed as part of the sexual revolution in which sex became "free" and easy, and abortion became just another method of birth control. This, of course, does not square with the evangelical view during any generation. Another reason may be that abortion is viewed as an overall "cheapening" of life in the world, in general. As life, in our society, has become less and less connected to traditional religious values, evangelicals see a cheapening of life and an easier willingness to treat it cavalierly (again, just my opinion).

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FUGmaster Flash

Reged: 08/13/08
Posts: 20303
Loc: Fredericksburg
Re: A Biblical View That's Younger Than The Happy Meal [Re: Rumblefrog]
      #1680224 - 04/25/12 04:01 AM (

I think it's more like Identity Politics. I think it has little to do with god beliefs, and a lot to do with politics, power, and manipulation.

Have you the brain worms?!?!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mega FUG

Reged: 01/30/03
Posts: 9473
Loc: Oregon
Re: A Biblical View That's Younger Than The Happy Meal [Re: True_Bob]
      #1680297 - 04/25/12 01:50 PM (


I think it's more like Identity Politics. I think it has little to do with god beliefs, and a lot to do with politics, power, and manipulation.

I see that theory frequently put forth in criticism of religious institutions. However (and I can't speak to any but the Protestant denominations) these institutions are made up of individuals, and in the 42 years that I've been associated with thousands and thousands of other Christians, I've never met one that gave a rat's **s about power, politics, control, etc. All were simply concerned with perfecting their relationships with God and others (some, of course, more so than others). I've never heard a pastor preach on having or exercising power over others. I know that there are "churches" that concern themselves with politics and legislation, but I've never had the displeasure of being associated with one. I don't know about the rest of the country, but at least in the West, I think you'd have to search really hard to find a "mainstream" Christian church that is actively preaching politics and power. Of course, individual Christians vote, and like everyone else, they vote their beliefs. And, as an example, I know as many Christians who do NOT oppose gay marriage as do and probably as many who are open-minded about abortion as those who are utterly black and white on the subject.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1

Extra information
0 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  FredTalkMod, john1315 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 1622

Rate this topic

Jump to

E-Mail the FredTalk Admins | Privacy statement (Site Rules and User Agreement) Go to

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5