The Next Step: Infanticide

by Bruce Mills

Recently, two professors calling themselves “ethicists” published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics attempting to justify what they termed “after birth abortion.”  The term is an interesting one because it is specifically designed to blunt the outrage that would undoubtedly occur if the procedure they are recommending was called what it has been known as throughout human history—infanticide.

These two professors—one from the University of Milan (Italy) and the other from the University of Melbourne (Australia)—do not attempt to hide their agenda.  They argue that newborn babies are unable to understand events taking place around them and cannot anticipate what may occur, and therefore do not truly possess the necessary characteristics to be considered to have reached personhood status.

The professors acknowledge their preference for the term “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” because they claim that the birth of the child is not morally significant.  They justify their position with two arguments:

First, they state, “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”

Second, they argue that “it is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to be a person in the morally relevant sense.”

These two arguments lead them to this conclusion: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack the properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

In other words, an infant is not significantly different than an unborn fetus, and thus, so long as that infant remains so, it is perfectly justifiable to terminate that infant’s life. 

Now, we must first understand that this viewpoint is the logical next step to abortion.  The basis of the whole argument for abortion is that the fetus lacks moral status as a human being.  So to argue that it is okay to execute a newborn infant isn’t a significant leap in moral laxity from arguing that it is okay to perform a late term abortion on an unborn child.  And in the same manner, it is not a significant leap to then argue that it is okay to euthanize those adults who because of mental disability or dementia are not capable of understanding the events taking place around them, anticipating the future, and reacting appropriately to such.

What the professors and the pro-abortionists neither understand nor believe is that human beings do not receive their moral status as persons because of their abilities to think, act, and react by some human determination of personhood.  Rather, man’s moral status is determined because he has been created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26).  Nothing more, nothing less.  It is only because the unborn fetus, the newborn infant, the mentally handicapped individual, and the elderly person whose reasoning abilities have been taken by the ravages of dementia all bear the image of God that they have moral status as human beings.  And because they all bear that image and thus have status as human beings, they are entitled to life so long as determined by the God who created them.  He is the One who determines what is morally right, not man, and He determines both the quality (Exodus 4:11) and extent of man’s life (Job 14:5).

So the professors may attempt to disguise infanticide by calling it “post-birth abortion,” but regardless of what they call it, it is still a moral outrage.  But what else should we expect from those who reject any objective standard of morality?

Non-negotiable Doctrines

by Bruce Mills
Which doctrines are so crucial that if someone denies any one of them, he cannot be considered to be a true Christian?  I’ve given some thought to that, and here is my list.

1. The inerrancy and authority of the Bible.
2. The virgin birth of Christ.
3. His complete divinity.
4. His substitutionary atonement.
5. His bodily resurrection.
6. His physical return for His people.
7. Man’s fallen, sinful condition and his inability to save himself.
8. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

There are other doctrines which others may argue should be added to this list, but these are what I believe are the absolute, fundamental, non-negotiable doctrines which all true Christians must believe. Other doctrines which are not specifically listed may “fit into” one of these doctrines; i.e., the doctrine of the humanity of Christ can be seen to be a part of our understanding of His virgin birth.

While believers may disagree on the details of certain doctrines, belief in the doctrines listed above is non-negotiable. If anyone claims to be a Christian, yet does not hold to these truths, there is solid reason to question the validity of his/her claim.

I do not mean that there might, at times, be differences of opinion regarding certain details about the doctrines listed above (such as whether Christ’s atonement was limited in scope or unlimited in scope, or the timing of His return for the church), but anyone who denies any of these basic beliefs cannot legitimately claim to be a true believer and follower of Christ.

Responding to Laws We Don’t Like

by Bruce Mills

A few days ago a Christian friend of mine received a traffic citation for not wearing his seat belt when driving his car.  He was incensed, giving the usual complaints about the enforcement of such safety laws as a waste of law enforcement’s time (“they should be catching true bad guys instead of harassing fathers taking their children to the park”) and being a violation of a driver’s freedom of choice (“this is the land of the free, isn’t it?”).  Another Christian friend (and lawyer) interacted with him very effectively regarding the legal aspects of his offense and why it is important to have such laws and to enforce them, but I think there is a much bigger issue at stake here than most believers ever realize.

The point is that there are many laws about which there is disagreement as to their validity or their enforcement.  But whether the government should enforce certain laws and not others is not the issue.  The issue is that obedience to those laws is not an option for the believer.  Christians are to willingly and joyfully submit to those laws, even if they disagree with them.  Why?  Because the government which passed those laws is ordained by God (Rom. 13:1) and anyone who resists the government’s authority is living in disobedience to God (Rom. 13:2).  The apostle Paul goes on to say that it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of what actions the government might take against us, but also for the sake of our conscience (Rom. 13:5).  In other words, we are not to obey the law only because we might get caught, but also because doing so violates our God-given conscience which helps us discern right and wrong.  Disobedience to the law is an act of non-submission to God-ordained authority over us and thus, a sin.  Only when the government commands us to do something which violates something God has commanded us in His Word to do are we ever authorized to disobey the law (Acts 5:28-29).

But what about my friend’s argument that law enforcement should utilize their assets more effectively by apprehending “true bad guys” instead of nabbing fathers driving their children to play time at the park?  Again, the issue is not whether we disagree with how the government is spending the tax dollars it receives.  No matter what law you may pick, you can always find someone who thinks it is a waste of time to enforce it.  And there are many expenditures which the government makes which I personally believe are a waste of resources which could be better used elsewhere.  However, we must return to the point that Christians are called to submit to our government and obey its laws—even those with which we disagree or those which we believe are unimportant.  Our submission to those laws provides us the opportunity to demonstrate to a watching world that followers of Jesus Christ are not shrill, disrespectful whiners who want our own way and think the laws are good for others, but not for us.  The apostle Peter instructed us that obedience to every authority and law is “the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:15). In other words, we should put those who oppose and attack us to shame by our example of submission and obedience to the law.  And we need to recognize that when we violate those laws, we deserve the consequences of the government’s decision to enforce those laws.

Now, let me give credit where credit is due to my friend.  After he received his citation, he explained to his children right in front of the officer that daddy had violated the law and was being rightfully punished for his actions.  He took advantage of a tremendous opportunity to teach his children to respect law enforcement officers, and the fact that even daddy is not spared from being corrected when he violates the law.  He made such an impact on his children that when they got home, they offered him the money in their piggy bank to help pay the fine and made a “thank you” card for the officer that said "Dear Policeman, thank you for telling us about seat belts."

I’m thrilled that he taught his children such a valuable lesson and did not verbalize his complaints in their hearing like he did with his adult friends.  Now if he will only teach those same truths to his own heart…

Thoughts on Complacency about the Third World

by Bruce Mills

As I write this, I am sitting in a beautiful mountain lodge home in the mountains of north Georgia, looking out over a sun-drenched vista filled with autumn leaves of spectacular colors, with temperatures hovering in the middle 70s. I am living the American dream…a wonderful wife and family, a nice job which provides me with an adequate income to own my own home, modern appliances and technological devices that make life much easier (i.e., dishwasher, clothes washer & dryer, central heat and air, computers, smartphones, etc.), as well as the opportunity to periodically take vacations in lovely locations.  I can afford to visit the doctor and dentist for regular checkups, to buy the medications I need to maintain my health.  I can get in my nice car and drive wherever I need to go, whenever I want to.  I attend a church, which even though the building is aging, still has nice pews, carpeting, as well as a modern sound system with video screens, and air conditioning.

Meanwhile in Honduras, the second poorest country in Central America, there is a young pastor who spends each day working the ground on his small plot of land, subsistence farming, hoping the weather will be favorable so he can raise enough beans and corn to help feed his family as well as sell some at the local open air market.  He plows and hoes his crops all day, every day, struggling to provide enough for his family to survive.  His pregnant wife carries the little bit of clothing their family owns down to the river to wash and scrub it in the water and then dries it in the sun.  She also walks a half mile each way to the nearest well to fill her water jug in order to have enough water to last for the day, then carries it all the way back home.  She will repeat this every day.  She then works to prepare the evening meal for the family, one of only two they will have that day.  The family is fortunate at the present time; there are times when they only have one meal per day.  This woman has had no pre-natal care for her unborn child and their other two living children have never had a shot to immunize them against any of the many childhood diseases which can quickly claim a life in a nation with poor medical care.  In fact, last year their two-year old daughter died after contracting measles.

Every night, after finishing his work in his field and eating a small bowl of rice and beans for dinner, this young pastor spends time reading a tattered paperback copy of the Bible which he received from some missionaries who used to minister in the area, through whom he first heard the gospel of Jesus Christ when he was just a young teenager.  It is the only book he owns.  He studies it intently, trying to learn all he can about the Christian faith, but he is limited because he has no formal instruction and no other theological commentaries or reference books to help him understand the flow of Scripture or how the gospels and the epistles fit together.  Each Sunday, this man stands before a small congregation in a hot, humid building, where only a few of the others own a Bible, and attempts to teach the people there what he has found in God’s Word that week.

Who is this young pastor?  Well, I admit that he is fictitious man of my own imagination, but there are many pastors around the Honduran countryside just like him.  Meanwhile, I sit here in my comfortable surroundings, thinking about my extensive theological library back at my home in Florida, and the opportunity I had to attend seminary to receive advanced theological training, and the joy I experience from studying the Scriptures and my books each week before standing to teach my Sunday School class of about 45 people in a comfortable, air-conditioned building.  Those Honduran pastors have never experienced any of those things, and cannot imagine ever having such opportunities.  But they continue faithfully teaching their little flocks of believers, even though they hardly know more about the Bible than do those who attend their churches. 

Why am I thinking about these matters?  Because I am reading David Platt’s excellent book, Radical, which challenges my thinking about such issues, and I am embarrassed by my complacency toward men such as this fictitious young Honduran pastor.  Christ commanded us to go to all the nations and make disciples.  That includes building up the men who will shepherd the flock there in those nations.  I went to El Salvador in 2002 to teach at a church leadership conference, but I have not done such since then.  I am ashamed of my indifference toward these men who live their lives with the goal of shepherding God’s flock, but do not have the training and resources to do so effectively.

But I also know that I can do something about this.  As one of the pastors of my church, I will have the opportunity to go to Honduras within the next year or so to minister to pastors and other church leaders in that impoverished nation.  The pastors of our church have agreed to minister in conjunction with S.O.S. Ministries to some of the evangelical church leaders in Honduras in order to help them better understand and teach the Scriptures.  We will also provide them with Spanish language resources for study.  Some of our pastors went there in July, and others are scheduled to go in December.  I’m not certain when I will be scheduled to go, but I will eventually go, Lord willing.

My question for those reading this is: Are you as concerned about making disciples and building them up as Jesus commands us to be?  We often use excuses about not feeling called to go to those in other nations, which is, in reality, nothing more than a cover-up for our unwillingness to get out of our satisfied, comfortable, American dream lifestyle and go to the third world and reach both those who need to both hear the saving gospel of Jesus Christ and those who need to be built up in the faith.  I’m guilty of thinking that way…what about you?  The Great Commission is not a call to complacency and the satisfied life; it is a call to engage the enemy on the battlefield in the war for the souls of men.  May we repent of our sinful thinking and get busy in the work of reaching the world!

An Outstanding Response to Pat Robertson

Posted by Bruce Mills

This past week, Pat Robertson made headlines when he stated that Alzheimer’s disease is the equivalent of death and an individual who is married to an Alzheimer’s victim is justified in divorcing their spouse under such circumstances.  I thought about writing a post in response to his horrific declaration, but I believe Dr. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, has answered Robertson far better than I ever could.  So I have copied his blog post on this issue for your edification.  If you wish to read more of Dr. Moore’s blog posts, you will find them at his blog, Moore to the Point, at www.russellmoore.com.

Christ, the Church, and Pat Robertson

By Russell D. Moore

This week on his television show Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said a man would be morally justified to divorce his wife with Alzheimer’s disease in order to marry another woman. The dementia-riddled wife is, Robertson said, “not there” anymore. This is more than an embarrassment. This is more than cruelty. This is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Few Christians take Robertson all that seriously anymore. Most roll their eyes, and shake their heads when he makes another outlandish comment (for instance, defending China’s brutal one-child abortion policy to identifying God’s judgment on specific actions in the September 11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, or the Haiti earthquake). This is serious, though, because it points to an issue that is much bigger than Robertson.

Marriage, the Scripture tells us, is an icon of something deeper, more ancient, more mysterious. The marriage union is a sign, the Apostle Paul announces, of the mystery of Christ and his church (Eph. 5). The husband, then, is to love his wife “as Christ loved the church” (Eph. 5:25). This love is defined not as the hormonal surge of romance but as a self-sacrificial crucifixion of self. The husband pictures Christ when he loves his wife by giving himself up for her.

At the arrest of Christ, his Bride, the church, forgot who she was, and denied who he was. He didn’t divorce her. He didn’t leave.

The Bride of Christ fled his side, and went back to their old ways of life. When Jesus came to them after the resurrection, the church was about the very thing they were doing when Jesus found them in the first place: out on the boats with their nets. Jesus didn’t leave. He stood by his words, stood by his Bride, even to the Place of the Skull, and beyond.

A woman or a man with Alzheimer’s can’t do anything for you. There’s no romance, no sex, no partnership, not even companionship. That’s just the point. Because marriage is a Christ/church icon, a man loves his wife as his own flesh. He cannot sever her off from him simply because she isn’t “useful” anymore.

Pat Robertson’s cruel marriage statement is no anomaly. He and his cohorts have given us for years a prosperity gospel with more in common with an Asherah pole than a cross. They have given us a politicized Christianity that uses churches to “mobilize” voters rather than to stand prophetically outside the power structures as a witness for the gospel.

But Jesus didn’t die for a Christian Coalition; he died for a church. And the church, across the ages, isn’t significant because of her size or influence. She is weak, helpless, and spattered in blood. He is faithful to us anyway.

If our churches are to survive, we must repudiate this Canaanite mammonocracy that so often speaks for us. But, beyond that, we must train up a new generation to see the gospel embedded in fidelity, a fidelity that is cruciform.

It’s easy to teach couples to put the “spark” back in their marriages, to put the “sizzle” back in their sex lives. You can still worship the self and want all that. But that’s not what love is. Love is fidelity with a cross on your back. Love is drowning in your own blood. Love is screaming, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.”

Sadly, many of our neighbors assume that when they hear the parade of cartoon characters we allow to speak for us, that they are hearing the gospel. They assume that when they see the giggling evangelist on the television screen, that they see Jesus. They assume that when they see the stadium political rallies to “take back America for Christ,” that they see Jesus. But Jesus isn’t there.

Jesus tells us he is present in the weak, the vulnerable, the useless. He is there in the least of these (Matt. 25:31-46). Somewhere out there right now, a man is wiping the drool from an 85 year-old woman who flinches because she think he’s a stranger. No television cameras are around. No politicians are seeking a meeting with them.

But the gospel is there. Jesus is there.

Guaranteeing a Debt: A Biblical View on Surety

by Bruce Mills

Recently, a man in our church who ministers to college students wrote the following question to the elders: “I was teaching my guys accountability group out of Proverbs 6:1-5. I have always taken this passage to mean that Solomon is against us becoming a surety for another person’s debt. Because I deal with college students, the question came up about parents cosigning for student loans or for their first apartment. I would appreciate input into this matter. Basically, is the teaching of Proverbs and thus the Bible that we should not become a surety for anyone else's debt regardless of our relationship to them and does this include cosigning on loans?”

Two elders shared their perspective on this matter, and because there may be others who wonder about what the Bible says about this situation, I decided to post the two responses here on the blog.  The first response is from Curt Sharbaugh, who serves on our staff as one of our Associate Pastors.  Curt received his undergraduate degree from the Moody Bible Institute and his graduate degree from Wheaton College.  He writes:

Here’s my two cents on this. I would say that there’s a danger in reading Proverbs as a list of prohibitions and commands. There’s a difference in terms of genre between proverbs and law. When a proverb says, “don’t” it doesn’t necessarily mean “never.” Take for example the interpretive guide to the book found in Proverbs 26:4 and 5: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (ESV). If the Proverbs were meant as commands in every case, we’d be in big trouble at this point. The writer has purposefully included these two opposing and yet harmonious proverbs next to each other to illustrate the fact that different situations may call for different courses of action. It’s interesting that a few verses later, it says, “Like a lame man's legs, which hang useless, is a proverb in the mouth of fools… Like a thorn that goes up into the hand of a drunkard is a proverb in the mouth of fools.” (Proverbs 26:7, 9 ESV). The writer is warning against the misuse of proverbs, while in that same context giving us a clue as to how they work. They’re wise sayings that guide us toward wise living. In some cases, they tell us foundational truths about the wisdom of God, such as “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Sometimes, they do rephrase commands from the Mosaic Law in the form of a proverb (e.g. Deut. 19:14 and Prov. 22:28), but at other times, they simply tell us what is “generally speaking” the best course of action to take or what is “generally” true.

As far as I can tell, Proverbs 6:1-5 is of the latter, and is giving us a warning of the danger of becoming legally liable for someone else’s debt. It does not mean that one can never do this. Clearly this is a concern of Proverbs as similar ideas are mentioned throughout. Sometimes the emphasis is on the foolishness of doing this with a “stranger”, that is, a foreigner (20:16). Sometimes it is more generally stated to include “neighbors,” that is, fellow Israelites (17:18). Here in Proverbs 6 it is stated comprehensively and includes anyone (notice the merism “neighbor” and “stranger”, i.e. everyone). I would say it’s teaching us that, generally speaking, it’s not wise to become liable for someone else’s debt. It could wreck you financially. But I would not say this proverb is saying that it is sinful to do so. What I think helps confirm this is that it does not appear to be a restatement of a Mosaic prohibition. Of course, even if it was, we may still need to evaluate it’s setting within the Old Covenant.

Proverbs 6:1-5 would seem to be a general warning against taking on liability for someone else’s debt, but not without exception. Were we to go back to the setting of ancient Israel and ask about whether we could apply this to a father and his son, I think we’d hear an exception, but proverbs do not generally state exceptions. They’re just pithy statements of wisdom. Plus a son or daughter would not generally be referred to as a “neighbor” much less a “stranger,” so it’s even more likely they would not have been included in this general principle. Proverbs 6:1-5 is not a treatise on right and wrong business practices; it’s a short poetic discourse on the dangers of financial irresponsibility. So I would not conclude that cosigning a child’s loan, or one for someone who was like family for that matter, would be wrong. There may be other situations where this would not be wrong. In general, however, it’s wise to stay away from debt, and it’s unwise to take on others’ debt.

I was the other elder who shared his thoughts on this matter, and while my response is not as technical or analytical as Curt’s, here is what I had to say:

I would concur with Curt's explanation that the Proverbs are not designed as absolutes. The book of Proverbs is a guidebook for godly conduct, consisting of practical principles for righteous living. In his commentary on the Proverbs, Jay Adams states, "...the proverbs warn, instruct, expose folly, point the way to wisdom, tell you what to expect in life (describing what it is like), show you how to live life in ways that please God and give you an idea of how things tend to work out without always being absolute about it."

I agree with Curt's analysis and interpretation of Prov. 6:1-5, so I will not repeat what he has said. However, let me add a couple of other observations. In studying the practices of lending that were permitted and not permitted under the Law, it is clear that there was to be no interest charged to a poor person. But it was permissible to charge interest to others. However, usury (the charging of exorbitant interest rates) was prohibited. In Nehemiah 5, there is discussion of the people mortgaging their houses, fields, vineyards, etc. in order to buy food. And in verses 10-11, Nehemiah orders the rulers to stop charging usury to the people which was apparently 1% per month (12% per annum). Just like today, if someone had a mortgage that they were paying 12% APR on, we would all agree that it was exorbitantly high, particularly when mortgage rates are around 4% right now.

My point is that many commentators believe Prov. 6:1-5 is warning against cosigning for someone on a loan on which the interest rate is so high as to be usury and you find yourself trapped by the agreement. Notice the conditional aspect in verse 2: "if you have been snared." But if a parent is financially capable of assisting their child in obtaining a student loan or an auto loan or an apartment lease agreement by cosigning for them, and the interest rate is low and affordable, then I do not believe Proverbs is absolutely prohibiting them from doing so. However, there is still the warning that something might go wrong and the parents would become responsible to pay back that loan, and then they may become trapped by their agreement to pay. In such cases, Proverbs advises them to plead with the creditor to release them from the agreement or modify it so as to be affordable.

Another interpretation of this passage is that it is warning against making rash agreements to become surety for another which may trap the individual in something they haven't really thought through. Since the Proverbs are written to young sons as a means of instruction, this would warn young men of the danger of making rash agreements that they have not thought through or about which they have not received any wise counsel. Charles Bridges, one of the most famous commentators on the Proverbs, points out that there are some examples of becoming surety for another that were apparently okay (Reuben and Judah for Benjamin in Gen. 42:37, 43:9, 44:32-33; Paul for Onesimus in Philemon 18-19). So while we think of surety as applying to financial arrangements, the Scriptures do not carry that limited meaning or understanding. The concept of surety is that of a guarantee to be liable for someone else, whether for his debts, damages, or default. To bring it up to today, a parent who carries their child on their auto insurance policy has agreed to become the surety for that child's actions while driving the family vehicle. The principle of Proverbs would apply in that situation just like they do in your example of co-signing a loan. So if you are going to consistently apply your understanding that Proverbs is absolutely prohibiting surety for another (including your children), then a parent would be prohibited from including the child on their auto insurance policy (even though the insurance company requires such while the child is still living at home), merely because to do so is to be surety for that child. I'm not certain you would want to take the principle that far.

So, as Curt stated, the principle of Proverbs is to avoid debt if possible. If a child or close friend needs the money and it is within the individual's ability, they should give them the money or they can loan the money to them at no interest. But if they don't have the money that is needed, and the child has not yet reached the stage in life where they have the ability to get the loan (or auto insurance) themselves, the principle from Proverbs is BE EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS ABOUT CO-SIGNING FOR ANYONE OR BECOMING SURETY IN ANY WAY FOR THEM, BECAUSE YOU MIGHT GET TRAPPED. But because the Proverbs are not absolute edicts, I do not believe you can take it to mean that co-signing or becoming surety in some other way is absolutely prohibited. It may not be wise (particularly if it is an apartment lease agreement), but it is not prohibited.