3 Simple Reasons Abortion Should Be Outlawed | True Worldview Ep. 62

Most Christians understand that abortion should be outlawed. At the same time, it’s good to have some arguments under our belt. Here are three reasons that are fundamental: it’s unconstitutional, uncivil, and unbiblical.

Abortion is Unconstitutional

First, abortion should be outlawed because it’s unconstitutional. America’s founding documents guarantee the right to life for all citizens. The Declaration of Independence is foundational for understanding the concept of rights in America. Genuine rights are not granted by government, but by God. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” In the minds of the founders, there was no debate as to the special place human beings held in the world. Such truth is self-evident. Every human being possesses certain rights due to their God-given humanity. That concept from the Declaration is woven into the Constitution.

Some have argued that babies in the womb are not persons, and are therefore not in view in the Declaration nor are they protected by the United States Constitution. Some would even argue for the immorality of abortion yet argue for its legality. As such, they would argue against an unborn baby’s right to life. Roe v. Wade is rooted in such an argument. Judge Andrew Napolitano noted, “Roe established that the fetus in the womb, notwithstanding human parentage and the possession of all the genomic material needed to develop into a full postnatal human, is legally not a person.”

But, he went on to note that such an establishment echoes back to an earlier Supreme Court decision that most would now reject, “Dred Scott v. Sandford, which was in the abolitionist era and effectively denied the personhood of African-Americans.” The issue today is this: “If the fetus is a person, then it is protected from abortion by the Fifth and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which command the government to protect equally the lives of all people.” So, “What about personhood? Isn't a living baby a person entitled to the equal protection of the laws? Under the natural law, yes. Under the Constitution, yes. Under Roe v. Wade . . . no.” The fact is that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional as is abortion. Regardless of the philosophical gymnastics behind Roe, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and protects the lives of all people.

Abortion is Uncivil

Second, abortion should be outlawed because it’s uncivil. In other words, it militates against the nature of civil society. The concept of unalienable rights rooted in America’s founding documents places a duty upon the government to protect those rights. The fifth and 14th amendments to the Constitution are examples of that. Civil government cannot be justified if its primary role is not protecting the rights of the people. If it doesn’t do that, we don’t need it.

The idea of civil society is just that; it is a group of people existing together in a civil manner. Some regard society as bigger than the individual. However, society is not some independent entity; society it is comprised of real individuals. When the welfare of the group becomes overarching, the rights of the individuals are lost. They are forced to submit to those with power regardless of their rights. When society is conceived of as a group entity, then government gives power to a few to coerce the rest of the people. But when society is viewed as persons who have unalienable rights, then government exists to protect the private pursuits of men and women acting freely, as long as they don’t violate the rights of others.

It follows then that abortion militates against the nature of civil society as composed of free individuals. When one segment of society has its rights taken away, the society can no longer be termed a civil society. It is a society that allows at least one kind of indiscriminate murder, and the government that allows it has become an accessory. If one group is no longer protected and safe, then no group is. 

Abortion is Unbiblical

Third, abortion should be outlawed because it is unbiblical. The bible says murder is evil. The primary reason is that it is an act of murder perpetrated against God because man is created in God’s image. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6). 

Some would argue that a pluralistic society like America can’t be governed by a set of morals derived from a particular religion. Yet, all religions forbid murder, at least to a certain extent. All societies forbid it. This reality is owing to the fact that people are created in the image of God. The evil of murder is written on our hearts (Romans 2).

Further, there are some issues that are moral only, and there are others that are moral and civil. Murder is both. While God prohibits murder in any context, He certainly prohibits murder in civil society to preserve such. He prohibits it to preserve the right to life He’s granted to all individuals.

Now think here: the fact is, there is no civil society apart from God. Once God is rejected, then relativism is the default position. On that worldview, the ones who have the power make the rules, and the concept of rights is rejected. Such is the case in America today. That’s why unconstitutional arguments have won the day in favor of legalized abortion. Only when the connection is made between a civil society, the rights of the individuals who make up that society, and the role of government to protect those rights, will persons see once again the concept of unalienable rights granted by God.

Abortion must be outlawed for the glory of God, the good of the unborn, and even the ultimate freedom of those who fight for its legalization. They fight for their own civil destruction without realizing it. Again, abortion is unconstitutional, uncivil, and unbiblical. Regarding pro-choice? We have no choice but to remove the scourge of abortion from our land, for the sake of everyone.

Sign up free for "True Worldview News," a weekly e-mail newsletter highlighting relevant news stories affecting Christians. Dr. Dean’s comments on selected stories along with editorials are included. The newsletter also features True Worldview, a twice-weekly podcast hosted by Dr. Dean and his daughter, Christi Johnson.

What Does Render to Caesar That Which is Caesar's Mean? | True Worldview Ep. 40

Rendering Unto Caesar or God?

Yet another oft misunderstood text is, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Lk. 20:25). Most assume that Jesus means there are some things that belong to Caesar, or the government, and other things that belong to God. But that’s not what Jesus means at all.

Jesus Absolute Authority Over All Things

Luke has been making a case for Jesus’ absolute authority over all things. He first does so with The Triumphal entry, as Jesus fulfills prophecy by riding in on a colt for Passover (Lk. 19:28-40). It’s an assertion of His Messiahship. 

Jesus then weeps over Jerusalem because they’ve rejected Him and will be judged (Lk. 19:41-44). He’s the Judge. 

Luke next gives us an account of Jesus cleansing the temple. Jesus declares His authority as He does so by saying “It is written, ‘My house is a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves’” (Lk. 19:46). The temple belongs to Him. 

At that point the Jewish religious leaders determine to kill Jesus. In Luke 20:2 they confront Him with the key question: “Tell us, by what authority are You doing these things? Or who is he who gave You this authority?” Jesus deftly turns their question back on them and tells the parable of the wicked vinedressers (Lk. 20:9-19). The owner of a vineyard sends three groups of servants to procure some fruit from the vineyard, and they’re turned away each time. He then sends His Son, and the vinedressers kill him. Jesus is speaking of the Jewish religious leaders. They turned away the prophets, and they’re going to crucify God’s Son. Jesus is openly declaring Himself to be the Son of God. 

Caesar vs. God

They understood Jesus was talking about them and plotted further how they could seize Him and turn Him over to Rome to be executed (Lk. 20:19). It’s at that point they seek to catch Jesus in a trap (Lk. 20:20). He’s in the temple, and they ask Him if it’s lawful to pay taxes to Caesar (Lk. 20:22). Jesus then turns the tables on them, as He did so often. Luke tells us, “But He perceived their craftiness, and said to them, ‘Why do you test Me? ‘Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription does it have?’ They answered and said, ‘Caesar’s. And He said to them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ But they could not catch Him in His words in the presence of the people. And they marveled at His answer and kept silent.” If Jesus is simply saying some things belong to Caesar, and some things belong to God, why did they marvel at His words?

The Background

Jeffrey Barr points out in AD 6 Rome imposed a census tax on the Jews. Judas the Galilean led a revolt, and the Romans brutally combatted it for decades. Pontius Pilate was a cruel and brutal dictator who was Rome’s chief soldier, magistrate, and tax collector in the region. A few years prior to Luke’s account, Pilate had put up effigies of the Emperor on the fortress Antonia which adjoined the Jewish Temple. There was a near insurrection as Jewish law forbade graven images and their presence in the holy city of Jerusalem. Pilate removed the images and thus avoided a war, but Jerusalem continued to be a hotbed of political and religious fervor.

The Coin

The denarius bore the image of Tiberias Caesar as well as the imperial seal. Barr points out that “it differed from the copper coins issued by the Roman Senate, and it was also the coin with which subjected peoples, in theory, were required to pay the tribute. Tiberius even made it a capital crime to carry any coin stamped with his image into a bathroom or a brothel. In short, the denarius was a tangible representation of the emperor’s power, wealth, deification, and subjugation.” Only soldiers, Roman officials, and Jewish leaders in league with Rome would have used this particular coin. Jesus did not possess this coin.

The Encounter

The ones who confronted Jesus had this coin and produced it immediately. They’re guilty of religious hypocrisy, as they bring a profane item, a pagan coin, into the temple. Further, to do such was to violate the ten commandments as well as the shema of Deut. 6:4-5. The Jews were to make no graven images, and they were to love God alone. Don’t overlook vv. 23-24: ““Why do you test Me? Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription does it have?” Jesus turns the tables here by asking them to produce a denarius, which they do. He then asks whose image and inscription it has. Image is a reference to the second commandment, and inscription is a reference to the shema as they were to inscribe it on their doorposts among other places. Of course, the image is Caesar, and the inscription is his. The inscription refers to Caesar as the worshipful Son of God. It pictures him on a throne wearing a priestly robe. Caesar demanded worship and asserted his sovereign authority over all who transacted with the coin.

In the context of Luke, the real question is clear: who is supreme, God or Caesar?  Jesus has just claimed to be the Son of God by telling the parable of the wicked vinedressers. Think of the significance of Jesus asking them to produce the coin. He didn’t have to do that to answer their question, but He did. They’re trying to trap Jesus in order to kill Him. The obvious point is the Jewish religious leaders’ assertion of Caesar’s authority over against Jesus’ assertion of His own authority. The question is what is truly Caesar’s and what is truly God’s? The point is that everything belongs to God as the Scriptures assert throughout. He has absolute authority. Luke is saying that the claims of God and Caesar are mutually exclusive.

The Conclusion

Jesus is not saying that some things belong to Caesar, and some things belong to God, so pay taxes. That’s not the point at all. This text is a power encounter. It’s a declaration that Jesus is Lord and Jesus’ confronters understood Jesus to be saying just that. This text is not unlike Joshua’s challenge: “And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Josh. 24:15). Jesus’ point is no different. You can choose to serve Caesar if you like. But nothing belongs to Caesar. It all belongs to God. Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.

Sign up free for "True Worldview News," a weekly e-mail newsletter highlighting relevant news stories affecting Christians. Dr. Dean’s comments on selected stories along with editorials are included. The newsletter also features True Worldview, a twice-weekly podcast hosted by Dr. Dean and his daughter, Christi Johnson.

If you enjoyed this episode, consider sharing on Pinterest:

Christian Views of Government | True Worldview Ep. 33

Christian Views of Government

The sad fact is that most Christians don’t have a biblical or principled view of government worked out in their minds. There are a variety of reasons for that lack. One reason is pragmatism. Most simply want a government and vote for candidates who they perceive will be the best for them, usually in an economic sense. Another reason is the disagreement among theologians as to what the bible teaches about government. And yet another reason is that the bible doesn’t give a theology of government per se, let alone in one all-encompassing text. Further, people tend to think at a surface level. It seems like a good thing to give money to the poor, so government aid or welfare is a good thing, most will say, at least to one degree or another. But is it right to tax people in order to do such? That question and many more are answered in the Scriptures but not in a readily apparent way. Confusion abounds.

A Key Question

Prior to the New Testament, all societies were sacral. The State and religion were tied together in some way. No one was exempt from the State and the State’s religion. The New Testament conceives of society in a very different way. The Church, the people of God, is a people within a people. The Church and the State are not the same thing, and the Church is not co-extensive with society. The gospel is not coercive but persuasive, and thus Christianity can’t be imposed through government. Every human being has a liberty of conscience, and that conscience must not be violated. Christians call all men everywhere to repent and come to Christ, but they don’t force Christ upon anyone. This reality raises a key question then: should the Church and State be connected? The answer is no, and biblical Christianity is the only worldview that teaches, demands, and sustains the separation of Church and State. Hang on to that indispensable truth.

Four major views of government and the Christian’s relation to it have fought for supremacy over the centuries. Though different names have been attached to each of them, we’ll call them Theonomy, Divine Right of Kings, Pacifism, and Liberty of Conscience.

Theonomy

Theonomy rejects the separation of Church and State and asserts that the civil and moral law, given in the Old Covenant, is binding on all people today. Therefore, government today should implement Old Covenant civil law, or Christian law. This position is a merger of Church and State. Such a view is not compatible with the New Testament vision for civil society.

Divine Right of Kings

The Divine Right of Kings view holds that the government is a special sphere of authority along with the family and the church, though it is imperfect, being comprised of sinful men. Therefore, Christians must submit to the government ordinarily unless it demands something immoral. God has ordained the State to look after society for Him, and therefore, God implements His laws through government for the good of the citizens, though not the civil code of the Old Covenant. However, not only does the bible nowhere teach the government as a special sphere of authority, but this view is a hybrid view that seeks to impose certain Christian moral values on non-Christians, and is therefore at odds with the New Testament. 

Pacifism

Pacifism asserts that Christians should not have anything to do with the government because it is evil by nature. Pacifists are also anti-war. While they regard the government as evil, they affirm that it is ordained by God to restrain evil, a position that is inconsistent. They hold a strict separationist view and don’t want government involved in their lives. They would also reject a doctrine of self-defense, something the New Testament allows as well as defense of others. One may enlist the help of others in self-defense including that of government. While Pacifism takes seriously the separation of Church and State, it does not fully comport with the New Testament.

Liberty of Conscience

The Liberty of Conscience view embraces the separation of Church and State, affirms that

government is essentially evil, but asserts that people can work in government for the cause of liberty. Those who hold this view would limit government in order to preserve liberty. The idea is to preserve the God-given rights of all people. This view also holds that some laws are morally binding while others are not, depending upon the nature of the laws. Christians should generally submit to government to avoid its wrath. 

Conclusion

Taking into account the New Testament conception of a composite society, the separation of Church and State, as well as the inconsistencies inherent in three of the four views cited, the Liberty of Conscience View seems to do be the most biblically consistent. It does justice to the non-coercive nature of the gospel, preserves the God-given rights of all people, allows for Christians to be salt and light even in government for the preservation of liberty, and encourages Christians to do so because it is indeed the evil nature of human government that needs a restraining influence. It’s not that government restrains evil, but that Christians seek to restrain evil government if and when possible. Such an understanding is what prompted Thomas Jefferson to declare, “I hope . . . a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government.” As numerous Christian thinkers have said therefore, the role of government, from a Christian perspective, is to protect individuals in their God-given rights.

Sign up free for "True Worldview News," a weekly e-mail newsletter highlighting relevant news stories affecting Christians. Dr. Dean’s comments on selected stories along with editorials are included. The newsletter also features True Worldview, a twice-weekly podcast hosted by Dr. Dean and his daughter, Christi Johnson.