Or so claims an article that is making its rounds on the internet recently. Over at the Atheist Forums message board one of the members exuberantly posted a link to the infamous article and exclaimed that Christian opposition to same-sex marriage “may not be quite as long-held as they think.” Curious, and ever the skeptic, I clicked the link to see what he was so willing to share without any critical comment—and what I found was a dubious article reproduced at Livejournal by an unknown author who presents an everything-you-were-told-is-a-lie type of argument that does not reference any material other than the largely discredited work of one John Boswell.

Why, I wondered, am I alone in my skepticism over the multitude of red flags being raised by that article? Why did that member find it compelling enough to uncritically share? And did anyone else find it compelling? (Well, it would seem that there are at least five others who did, giving his post a thumbs-up.) The pronounced absence of skepticism denoted an appalling level of uncritical credulity that ought to have been embarrassing—although I suspect that they were not embarrassed.

So I decided that I would not only perform my usual due diligence but also, given the nearly viral popularity of that article on the internet, publish the results for the sake of getting truth and history right, putting this silly twaddle in its place.

The article that he cited was not even original. It was a full reproduction (with some initial commentary) at a Livejournal account of an article published by an individual who wrote under the pseudonym ThosPayne; the article was published 24 August 2008 on the web site for Colfax Record, the online presence of a local newspaper in Colfax, California, [1] apparently under his myColfax personal blog. [2] That article no longer exists at its original location, although there exists an archived copy of it. [3] For whatever reason, that particular member could not be bothered to do even this most basic of searches in order to reference original source material—something that is of particular interest to skeptics and critical thinkers.

But what about the article itself that he cites? It is an intellectual train wreck that any skeptic would give a wide berth. Allow me to demonstrate for readers and visitors here who might be as credulous as him what skepticism and critical thinking looks like.

[Professor] John Boswell … discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents …

This label of “heterosexual marriage” is disingenuous, misleading, and question-begging, for it carries the implication that Christian liturgies recognized any other form of holy matrimony, thus preparing the reader to accept that homosexual marriage was one of them, as the cited article would subsequently attempt to argue. One must not assume the very thing to be proved, which the label “heterosexual marriage” attempted to do by implying that marriage was not strictly between a man and a woman. Although there were same-sex unions (adelphoi genesthai), these rites were neither homosexual nor were they marriages.

… there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” … and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” …

According to Shaw, who is sympathetic to same-sex marriage but does not tolerate scholarly incompetence, these titles are mistranslated. “Boswell’s translation of their titles (akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin and parallels) as ‘The Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men’ or ‘Office for Same-Sex Union’ is inaccurate. In the original, the titles say no such thing. And this sort of tendentious translation of the documents is found, alas, throughout the book” (which the article in question is predicated upon). When these words are translated in a straightforward manner, “they impart a quite different sense to the reader.” [4]

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied [sic] in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Not one single piece of evidence is cited to support any one of these claims, leaving the reader with no reason to accept any of them. Worse yet, given the detailed refutations by scholars such as Shaw, Young, and Woods, there exists manifold reasons to be highly skeptical of the claims. Consider for example the “holy union” of Basil and John. Although Basil was arguably a homosexual, the ceremonial in which the two were united was not one of matrimony. Boswell translates the text of historian Theophanes into English as saying that Basil “honored him with the title protospatarius and granted him intimacy with him on account of their earlier shared life in ceremonial union.” There are two misleading translations occurring here, as Young points out. [5] First is his translation of parrhesia as “intimacy,” which is misleading because the context of his argument gives a sense to the reader which the word simply does not convey. The intimacy being referred to in the text is not the romantic sort shared by lovers; rather it refers here to the freedom granted John to speak his mind plainly and boldly to Basil, which is what parrhesia means. [6] Second, the earlier ceremonial union spoken of was not a marital one; the Greek clause reads "kai tes pros auton parresias metedoke dia ten phthasasan koinonian tes pneumatikes adelphotetos," which is properly translated as “previous association in spiritual brotherhood” [7] (pneumatikes adelphotetos)—although, contrary to Young, the meaning of koinonia conveys something deeper than mere “association,” as attested in Scripture by its use in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper and the powerful communion shared by those in Christ. [8] (And therefore, contrary also to Boswell, it does not denote a union of lovers joined in holy matrimony either.)

[The curious icon] shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Since the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of the Christian church recognizing marriage only between a man and a woman, to say that this icon depicted a “wedding” scenario of a “married couple [who] are both men” is to illegitimately beg the very question. The author must not assume the very thing to be proved. Given the extensive historical evidence for Christian rites which bless adelphopoiesis or the making of a brother, it is more probable that this is the sort of union being depicted in that icon; as such, the author shoulders the burden of proving that it depicts something else. His conclusion is not impossible, but it is certainly improbable—and cannot be assumed from the outset.

The full answer [as to whether or not the icon depicts Christ sanctifying a gay wedding] comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. … In the definitive 10th century account of their lives …

Although the author references a tenth-century account, he does not cite it; evidently the reader is supposed to just take his word for it, including his claim that this text states that Sergius was the “sweet companion and lover” of Bacchus, a statement which seems rather crucial to his conclusion about what the icon depicts. But then the author also does not explain how this unnamed account from over half a millennium after Sergius and Bacchus had died can be meaningfully considered “definitive,” never mind reliable.

Sergius and Bacchus’s close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers.

This is a significant claim of great import to his conclusion, so where are the references to these “many modern scholars”? Who are they and where is their research that shows Sergius and Bacchus were lovers? A red flag to any skeptic, the author does not cite any support whatsoever for this claim, using what Wikipedia contributors would flag as “weasel words.”

But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek, describes them as erastai, or “lovers.” In other words, they were a male homosexual couple.

This is likewise a significant claim of great import to his conclusion, so why is it that the author neither cites nor includes a Greek quote from this “oldest text of their martyrology”? It would be valuable to those interested in assessing the accuracy of the claim and its interpretation. I submit that his reason is perhaps the same as or similar to the reason why Boswell neither cited nor quoted from the specific original text and its context: because the claim is utter fiction. As a salient matter of fact, the word erastai is simply not there! Starting at page 373 of Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 14 (Indiana University Press), the skeptic can access the original Greek text of “Passio Antiquior Ss. Sergii et Bacchi” for himself and see that this claim is entirely fictitious. The author and Boswell are not content with their revisionist history; they have to further their dishonesty by inventing support.

One Greek 13th century rite, ‘Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union,’ invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints.” The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded.” … Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic ‘Office of the Same Sex Union,’ uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

And here we have a direct quote; but, like before, there is not a single citation for it. The reader is simply to take the author’s word for it. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, a red flag always goes up (and should) when a Google search of a quote never points anywhere but the same article and its various reproductions. This should lead the reader to be highly skeptical of the supposed quote, to say the least.

The actual text for these Christian rites which bless adelphopoiesis—the making of a brother—comes from an eleventh-century Greek manuscript (Grottaferrata B. ii.) for Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin (translated by Boswell as ‘Office for Same-Sex Union’), which Shaw cites and quotes using Boswell’s translation of it, while inserting “some of the significant original Greek words in transcription” [9]:

I

The priest shall place the holy Gospel on the Gospel stand and they that are to be joined together place their right hands on it, holding lighted candles in their left hands. Then shall the priest cense them and say the following:

II

In peace we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For heavenly peace, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For the peace of the entire world, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For this holy place, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That these thy servants, N. and N., be sanctified with thy spiritual benediction, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That their love [agape] abide without offense or scandal all the days of their lives, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That they be granted all things needed for salvation and godly enjoyment of life everlasting, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That the Lord God grant unto them unashamed faithfulness [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], we beseech Thee, O Lord…

Have mercy on us, O God.

“Lord, have mercy” shall be said three times.

III

The priest shall say:

Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the other not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united together [adelphoi genesthai], bless also these thy servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape] and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one other [to agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.

IV

Another Prayer for Same-Sex Union:

O Lord Our God, who didst grant unto us all those things necessary for salvation and didst bid us to love one another and to forgive each other our failings, bless and consecrate, kind Lord and lover of good, these thy servants who love each other with a love of the spirit [tous pneumatike agape heautous agapesantas] and have come into this thy holy church to be blessed and consecrated. Grant unto them unashamed fidelity [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], and as Thou didst vouchsafe unto thy holy disciples and apostles thy peace and love, bestow them also on these, O Christ our God, affording to them all those things needed for salvation and life eternal. For Thou art the light and the truth and thine is the glory.

V

Then shall they kiss the holy Gospel and the priest and one another, and conclude.

“It is this ceremonial,” Shaw observes, “and blessings like these, that Boswell claims to be part of a lost, or deliberately suppressed, tradition of church-legitimized same-sex marriages between men,” which he then proceeds to thoroughly refute. The point that I wish to raise here—aside from citing and properly quoting the rites which the original article made a complete mess of—is the fact that nowhere in any of this material is there so much as a hint of homosexual marriage, and that it is moreover entirely consistent with the well-established and recognized historical church rite of making a brother (adelphopoiesis).

“But it says they were to kiss!” Indeed it does. But is that a romantic kiss between newlyweds? Of course not; observe that they were to “kiss the holy Gospel and the priest” as well. Furthermore, such kissing in that culture and period was entirely customary (e.g., Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14) and did not connote what it largely does in the modern West. “The ancient and medieval world about which Boswell writes was not riven by the same anxieties and repressions that mark our own,” Shaw writes. “In that world, public and affective bonds between men were typical, even banal. But this is not the same thing as the legitimization, or the sacralization, of homosexuality.” [10]

Records of Christian same-sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand years from the 8th to the 18th century. …

Again, there certainly were same-sex unions (adelphoi genesthai) but these rites were neither homosexual nor were they marriages. If the author wishes to argue otherwise, he needs to do far more than simply point to the well-attested historical evidence for adelphoi genesthai church rituals. “The ‘new’ documents that Boswell has unearthed,” notes Shaw, “are nothing more than a few additional texts that shed more light on a primitive and basic power linkage between men in the ancient Mediterranean, and the rituals attendant on its formation.” [11]

[Professor] Boswell’s academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality. For the church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

Whom Boswell’s embarrassing work “poses a fundamental question for” is Boswell himself, whose so-called research is fraught with selective citations, revisionist history, inaccuracies, mistranslations, misleading equivocations, and other various disreputable errors that are an affront to proper scholarship. There is a reason why “Boswell’s methodology and conclusions have been disputed by many historians.” [12] There is no good reason for this embarrassing substitute for good scholarship to be taken seriously or propagated by skeptics and critical thinkers.

[1] 233 S. Auburn Road, Suite 205, Colfax, CA 95713.

[2] At the original article the author name is hyperlinked to a my.colfaxrecord.com user profile.

[3] http://web.archive.org/web/2009121908482…91429.html

[4] Shaw 1994.

[5] Young 1994.

[6] Ibid. (cf. Foucault 1983).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Koinonia. (2012, January 16). Wikipedia. Accessed 13 May 2012.

[9] Shaw 1994. Shaw’s inserted Greek words are placed within square brackets.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Saints Sergius and Bacchus. (2012, May 13). Wikipedia. Accessed 13 May 2012.

REFERENCES:

The Bollandists, “Passio Antiquior Ss. Sergii et Bacchi,” Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 14, §19 (Indiana University Press), 373ff.

Michel Foucault, “Discourse and truth: The meaning of the word ‘parrhesia’.” From a lecture given at the University of California at Berkeley (October–November 1983).

Brent D. Shaw, “A groom of one’s own?” The New Republic (1994, July), 43–48.

David Woods, “The origin of the cult of Ss. Sergius and Bacchus,” University College Cork, Ireland (2000, April). This is a revised version of his paper, “The Emperor Julian and the Passion of Sergius and Bacchus,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997), 335-367.

Robin D. Young, “Gay marriage: Reimagining church history,” First Things 47 (1994, November), 43-48.

Max Andrews at his blog Sententias is developing a new series which he would like to see grow in response to the running series called “Why I am an atheist” from Paul Zachary “PZ” Myers at Pharyngula hosted by Freethought Blogs.

I wanted to start a counter-series here on your story. The series will be, “Why I’m a Christian.” All you would need to do is send me an email … and tell me why you became a Christian and why you continue being a Christian.

Your story can be however long you want it to be. Unless you note otherwise (if you want last name, last initial, anonymity, etc.), I’ll only use your first name.

I hope to spread your stories to demonstrate the glory and work of God in your lives.

Another benefit in doing this is so we can encourage other Christians to persevere in the faith and hopefully some of your stories will resonate with the hearts others—Christian and non-Christian.

See his post here, with an email address for your submissions, which he will post as they come in. Spread the message to all the Christians you know within your own social network—including the offline one, your family, friends, and church.

On April 2, 2012, the Australian Senate closes invitations from the public on their opinion regarding the legalisation of same-sex ‘marriage’. This is not the first time the Senate has been requested to do so; the last time was back in 2009. Yet the political climate in Australia is markedly different now. In 2009, the Labor Government had as it’s official party policy to support marriage as man-woman only; likewise the Opposition Government. The Bill put forward to redefine marriage to “any two persons”, the Marriage Equality Amendment Act 2009, by the Greens (a progressive left party) was resoundly dismissed. Yet this time round, we have a Labor Government who altered their party platform late last year to support same-sex ‘marriage’ and we have three bills being reviewed by the Senate to amend the Marriage Act 1961. One of the those bills is again from the Greens: the Marriage Equality Amendment Act 2010. It’s the latter bill that presents the most radical of change to the current definition of marriage in Australia. And its to that bill that I’ve composed the following submission:

Senate
Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Senate,

Re: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010

I write to the Senate Inquiry Committee to voice my opposition to the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 and to lend my support of traditional man-woman marriage. I note my reasons in the following paragraphs, providing supporting references where appropriate.

Full equality already exists under current law

Marriage, for all Australian constituents, is an institution in which there already exists a full equality under the law; there is none to whom the Marriage Act 1961 unjustly discriminates. In order for anyone to marry, all must pass the prescribed criteria: 1. Be of marriageable age; 2. Be not already married; 3. Must not marry a close blood relative, and; 4. Must marry a member of the opposite sex. All Australians, irrespective of their sexual identity, are expected to meet these criterions; there is no inequality of law in their application to either the homosexual or the heterosexual. Both the homosexual and the heterosexual have the same restrictions.

While this response may be unsatisfactory to many homosexuals, it must be noted that the existing criterion for marriage in Australia does not require desire or love between the two being married. Although love and desire are important to the marital union, it is not required by law, but assumed. Government does not regard desire as key to the marital union because such unions encompass not only love but also provide a unique social good¹.
Read the rest of this entry

I have posted previously on The Ultimate Apologetics MP3 Audio Page by Apologetics.com and frankly, nothing can top that as a general resource for all things both audible and apologetic. But when we zoom in and have a closer look at some of those resources in more detail, we find little gems like Premier Christian Radio’s Unbelievable? podcast. [no, the question mark is not a typo]

Relatively unique in its style among many of the podcasts I have heard, host Justin Brierly (pictured), expertly moderates, what can be at times, a dramatic discussion, on a vast range range of hot topics concerning theists and atheists alike.

I knew I had discovered something special having listened to only one show; a  lively discussion on Intelligent Design and Evolution. I was to learn later that the program won a Gold Medal at the New York Festival Awards.

Justin Brierley, produced and presented the award winning show on evolution that features atheist Pete Hearty of the National Secular Society defending the theory of Evolution, while Peter Williams of the Damaris Trust argues for Intelligent Design.

“We chose this particular debate because it is timely.” Brierley said. “There are a number of court cases in the USA discussing what public schools should be teaching regarding evolution and similar heat is now being generated in the UK over schools that have included Intelligent Design on their syllabus.”

The evolution episode of Unbelievable has secured the programme it’s first award, within a year of going to broadcast.

Obviously thrilled, Brierley said, “For us to win an award so early on in the life of the show is wonderful, but for it to be a gold world medal at the New York Festival Awards is astounding.”

The Chief Executive of Premier Christian Radio, Peter Kerridge, said of the show, “Unbelievable is like nothing else on Premier.” Well, not only is it unlike anything on Premier Christian Radio, I haven’t heard anything quite like it anywhere. And I say that as someone who listens to a number of different podcasts, from Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason radio show to the thought-provoking Apologetics.com broadcast. Those have their niche and I think Unbelievable? have theirs. It certainly is a rare type of show.

Closer to home (my home, that is) fellow Aussie blogger, Stephen Cracknell, wrote a great article that captures the unique mood and style of the show, in words that I’m sure I would’ve used, if only I had written them first. And so I hope he doesn’t mind me closing by quoting him at length.

Just recently a few of us lads headed off to the Katoomba Men’s Convention – a long way from the Mid-North Coast (Coffs Harbour) but, hey, it was worth it.

On the way back home, my son Sam, plugged his iPod into the car’s speaker system and we all settled back (apart from the driver!) to listen to a discussion between a Christian and a non-Christian.

We were stunned! We were impressed! We were focussed!

The actual podcast we listened to was a somewhat tense discussion (at times) between Peter Hitchens (anti-theist Christopher Hitchen’s brother) and Adam Rutherford (atheist and editor of the science journal ‘Nature’).

Christian v non-Christian!

And that, essentially, is what Premier Christian Radio’s ‘Unbelievable?’ is about – provoking discussions between Christians and non-Christians.

…

Occasionally there is the Christian who gets grilled by a number of atheists (‘Grill a Christian’) and sometimes 2 Christians discuss their differences (e.g. is the King James Version the ‘best’ available English translation?).

But mostly, the very likeable Justin Brierley invites prominent Christians (e.g. William Lane Craig, James White, Os Guinness) to debate prominent non-Christians (e.g. John Hick, Dan Barker, Paul Davies).

Justin has that very healthy skill of knowing when to allow discussion (and passion) flow but also knowing when to include his thoughts and questions into the ‘debate’. He’s an intelligent guy, with sensitivity. These qualities help shape “Unbelievable?” as a really valuable podcast.

…

‘Unbelievable?’, I believe (couldn’t resist it!) is essential apologetics podcast listening – I really like it, my friends really like it and I’m sure you would too!

Why? Because there is nothing to hide behind!

‘Experts’ present their views but then must be prepared to defend them, publicly, – how good is that!

My References & Notes:

http://www.apologetics315.com/
http://www.premier.org.uk/
http://www.christianfaith.com.au/

Note: The show does also discuss/debate some topics within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. For example, as Stephen mentioned, “Is the King James Version the Best?” And another recent discussion that I found very interesting featured opposing views on how we should support Gay Christians. Titled “Ex-Gay and Gay-Affirming approaches to homosexuality – Two different approaches to supporting gay Christians”  with Jonathan Berry & Jeremy Marks.

Once upon a time in the now dying world of MySpace, I met a young Christian woman whose thoughts on the cover piece of ‘Hallelujah’ by Christian artist, David Gray, have stayed with me. With her permission, I am republishing her 2007 article so that you can benefit from her insight.

[Biblical citation from English Standard Version]

A BROKEN HALLELUJAH? – by LISA HINDS

My friend Be Too Real (www.myspace.com/betooreal) wrote a blog concerning the release of Cohen’s ‘Hallelujah’ by Christian artist David Grey. It is a hauntingly beautiful song (featured in Shrek) that plys every ounce of human emotion. With her permission I would like to bring it up on my blog also.

Hallelujah – Lyrics

I heard there was a secret chord
that David played and it pleased the lord
but you don’t really care for music, do you
well it goes like this the fourth, the fifth
the minor fall and the major lift
the baffled king composing hallelujah

hallelujah…

well your faith was strong but you needed proof
you saw her bathing on the roof
her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
she tied you to her kitchen chair
she broke your throne and she cut your hair
and from your lips she drew the hallelujah

hallelujah…

baby I’ve been here before
I’ve seen this room and I’ve walked this floor
I used to live alone before I knew you
I’ve seen your flag on the marble arch
but love is not a victory march
it’s a cold and it’s a broken hallelujah

hallelujah…

well there was a time when you let me know
what’s really going on below
but now you never show that to me do you
but remember when i moved in you
and the holy dove was moving too
and every breath we drew was hallelujah

well, maybe there’s a god above
but all I’ve ever learned from love
was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you
it’s not a cry that you hear at night
it’s not somebody who’s seen the light
it’s a cold and it’s a broken hallelujah

I grew up loving Jeff Buckley’s rendition of this song from when I was a teenager and into my early twenties. However, despite its beautiful sound, since I became a Christian I have found it very difficult and unsettling to listen to. To discover a Christian artist is covering this track without changing the lyrics is deeply concerning to me. This blog will briefly explore these concerns both theologically and also quite personally for me.

Read the rest of this entry

An interesting newspaper headline caught my eye this morning on my daily commute regarding a family court ruling where the Judge ordered that a five year old boy be enrolled in a ‘religiously neutral’ school. The case came about as the two – divorced – parents involved could not come to an agreement as to how the boy was to be raised. As the brief article describes it, the mother is a ‘church-goer’ and wants her son to be sent to a (presumably) Christian school, while the father is a self-described humanist who is adamantly opposed.

It is an unfortunate dilemma (all custody cases are) as the court was essentially asked to adjudicate between two conflicting convictions. The articles I could find on the case were limited in depth and presented mainly the arguments put forth by the father – perhaps to skew the story in his favor? – so it is on his points that I will respond to individually below.

The father states:

“I now have strong humanist views, but do not hold religious beliefs. In fact, I have become opposed to religious dogma and organised religion.”

Or it could just be that, given this case is just one of the consequences of a divorce involving children (which typically are not cordial affairs), he is more interested in just opposing his ex-wife’s wishes. As a side note, it would be interesting to know if the opposing views within the marriage toward Christianity had any part to play in the parent’s separation, especially considering the ex-husband’s terse humanist convictions.

“I oppose religious dogmas being thrust on young minds.”

But apparently it is quite ok for the father to thrust his humanist dogmas on his own son. Presumably, he believes that his position is one of neutrality, but in reality there is no such position. There is simply a religious position and a non-religious (or anti-religious) position and the father obviously favors the latter.

He also weights the debate by assuming that all religious ‘teaching’ is not teaching at all, but a form of brain-washing. He assumes too much; he is actually trying, in effect, to thrust his religiously ‘neutral’ dogma onto his son by name-calling his ex-wife’s preference out of the debate. There is no real substance here.

“I have seen the evidence of people who profess to be Christian and then act in a manner which can best be described as un-Christian.”

Obviously, the father knows of Christians who aren’t Christians. (I wonder if he thought that argument through?) I would be interested in knowing by what standard he judges who is a Christian and who is not, but we are not privvy to this information. In any case, while it may be true that some people who profess to be Christians aren’t in practice, it does not mean that Christianity as a religion is a bad thing. That he raises this as a line of argument tells me that he is fearful of his son turning into a religious hypocrite. A fair enough fear, easily countered – I dare say – by: 1) understanding what Christianity deems is appropriate behavior, and; 2) working with his ex-wife to ensure his son taught accordingly, especially since he is unintentionally implying that proper Christians have favorable behaviors. But I’d simply wager he does not have interest in working with his ex on this – paint me skeptical.

I think the Judge, Magistrate Stewart Brown, thought he was likewise taking a “cautious approach” when he ruled that the boy be enrolled in a non-religious school. In actuality it was a ruling in favor of the father’s position which, as I’ve argued, is not at all neutral. The mother now needs to prayerfully work harder on instructing her son regarding her Christian faith – frankly, that’s not a bad thing (even if the ruling went her way she should be doing this anyway as that is an appropriate Christian behaviour) and I’d encourage her to do so.

Read the full article below and do share your thoughts.

References:

• Judge forced to decide for parents warring over son’s religion

“Will my boys grow up viewing woman as no different than the porcelain urinal on the wall of the boys’ room—an object (not a person) to relieve themselves into whenever they feel the urge or need? And will my daughters grow up believing that’s who they’re supposed to be? I hope not.” – Walt Mueller

When I first came across this quote it saddened and disturbed me. This is because it is remarkably accurate with its portrayal of the society and culture we live in. The worst part is that not many people care. Most people just accept this as the reality in which we live. There is a general consensus among westerners that Islam’s treatment of women is barbaric and that they view them as property to be owned like slaves. But rarely do we see those same westerners consider how they treat women. The above quote highlights that our society/culture does not treat women much differently. Slaves. Just in a different format. Brainwashed to believe that is all they are, porcelain urinals to be used whenever men have the urge or need. The quote reflects the very sad state of our world today.

Identified as the ‘raunch’ culture where ‘porn is the norm’ , you don’t have to go far to see the objectification of women by the main stream media, by men and even by the women themselves. It’s a vicious circle. Each influencing the each other, going around and around in a reinforcing pattern that only cements this view of women in our culture.

” If we honestly evaluate how women are frequently portrayed in the media, it is easy to see that they are often marketed as objects and used to sell products. And it is definitely easy for all of us – men and women alike – to judge our value on external appearances and functionality rather than our intrinsic value as children of God. ” – Paul Masek

The main stream media seems to be the biggest culprit when it comes to influencing society and culture. But they are just responding to the existing culture and giving them more of what they want. Society wants raunch, so the media gives it to them. Why does society want raunch? Because they have been already brainwashed by what the media gave them previously. And around it goes.

Take music for example. How does encountering sinful or even questionable lyrics influence society in a harmful way? Anthony Gerber answers this way :

” Is a child harmed when she encounters her parents fighting with one another? And what if that fight was played over and over and over like an iPod on repeat? If she is not harmed in a strict sense of the word, at the absolute least she will become numb and dulled to such occurrences. And this is certainly harmful for a whole litany of reasons which a good psychology book is ready to reveal for us.”

In music it’s the beat, the bassline or guitar rift that draws us into the song. And once the music has “hooked” us, the lyrical content can then do its work. It’s the same pattern with other forms of media. TV and movies will hook you with laughs, drama, music, special effects or action. Then once you are hooked many sinful themes are smuggled in and are absorbed by us un-noticed. For example the sit-com “Friends” uses a lot of humor to attract an audience. But the characters are promiscuous. So society keeps going back for the humor while all the time being conditioned to accept promiscuity as a normal behaviour for society because that’s what their idols are doing on TV. By the way, “Friends” is a relatively mild example of what is out there. If this is the effect “Friends” has on society and culture then how much more will sit-com’s like “Two and a Half Men” and “How I Met Your Mother” be a positive influence for the objectification of women.

An interesting article I found on the topic of music and culture called “Dysfunctional Love Songs” by Chris Stefanick is worth checking out. Where he discusses how the love songs getting all the air play seem to have a common theme; if it isn’t dysfunctional, it isn’t love.

“Thanks in large part to misguided love songs, teens tend to mistake things like codependence, enmeshment and promiscuity for love. It’s funny how the things they come to look for in dating relationships are precisely the things that set them up for failed marriages.”

The original article in which the “porcelain uninals” quote came from (“Dear Oprah“) is also well worth a read. Some notable parts are:

“After years of listening to music and watching videos on MTV, BET and VH1, I have to conclude that one of the most prominent life-shaping themes in today’s popular music is human sexuality, both what it is and how to experience it. The lyrical and visual messages are powerful and life-shaping, especially for our impressionable young children and curious question-filled teens. Because they are listening to and/or watching several hours of music a day, messages about sexuality come through loud and clear. In fact, a recent article in Pediatrics reports on a Rand Corporation study that found that “listening to music with degrading sexual lyrics is related to advances in a range of sexual activities among adolescents.” A growing body of research supports this relationship of cause and effect”

“My reason for mentioning this to you is that on September 25, 2006, just three days before your show “What Pedophiles Don’t Want You To Know,” Janet Jackson appeared on Oprah to promote her musical comeback and the next-day release of her album 20 Y.O. I want you to know that I think Janet Jackson is an extremely talented performer. I am, however, concerned about some of her musical messages—both lyrical and visual—and what those messages are teaching children and teens about sexuality.

Toward the end of your show, you introduced Janet Jackson with these words: “For the first time, Janet’s going to perform a song from her brand new CD in stores tomorrow, 20 Y.O. Here’s Janet Jackson singing ‘So Excited!’” I then watched her sing this new song, a song that I knew was sure to be marketed to and embraced by her young fans. I can’t help but see a huge incongruity between the song’s lyrics and the valuable message you sent to viewers just three days later.

I listened to Janet Jackson sing these words:
Breathe – You get me so - Get me so excited - I’m hot, come on, so get ready – And I’ll open my spot for you – Anytime you want me to – So you can act bad – Don’t hurt me – Look sexy – Talk dirty – And I’ll open my spot for you – Anytime you want me to – Get me so excited – For some reason – It might be the money that turns you on – But for me it’s an attitude that keeps me tight on the floor – And no words are suitable to describe your swagger babe - And my body is in overdrive when I have you inside of me – Do you like it when I do it? – I go head to toe – And whenever you pursue it – You’ll never hear the word no – So forget about them other girls baby – Cause now you’re rollin with a woman baby – I’ma keep you body thumpin baby - It’s the least I can do – Cause you get me so excited – So amused by mind control that I wanna get two steps up – As for me I’m a let you know that my body’s smoking hot – Throw me up against whatever’s close and get to bossin me around – And everytime I give you the assist you know how to slam it down - Is ya is ya is ya hungry? – I gotcha – I gotcha – I gotcha licking on my – Licking on my – Licking on my body like it’s something to eat …

At the conclusion of the song you said, “Janet Jackson! Thanks, Janet! Thank you, Janet! We’ll be right back. That’s so cool.” Oprah, I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Knowing what I know about kids, the age of the kids who embrace Janet Jackson and her music, adults, and how they are all acting out sexually in our culture, I don’t think Jackson’s song was cool at all. Instead, it made me sad. When I later watched the song’s video, I was struck by the sad irony that some scenes depict Jackson and the male object of her song engaging in sexual foreplay and activity, in of all places, a dirty and dark men’s restroom, right in front of a wall full of urinals.”

So what can we do to battle this “moral mindlessness” plaguing our society? We need to employ our minds rather than just our hearts when it comes to determining whether a song, tv show or movie stays on or is turned off. We need discernment that comes from knowing right from wrong, good from evil and morality from immorality. That, I think, is a massive problem in society (including the church). So many people have no idea of the moral standard set out in the Bible. And if they do know the standard, they don’t care or don’t think it’s that big of a deal (even amongst those professing to have faith).

We need to first look to our own hearts. Do we look women in the eyes or do we give them the ‘up and down’ look that focuses on their bodies? Do we mindlessly consume media? Does pornography or lust have a hold on us? The Lord wants us to love women as He does, and He can help us to do so. I love the idea of following Jesus so closely that we actually see other people through His eyes. Women are so much more than porcelain urinals, even if they feel that way about themselves, and even if they are treated as such in the media and by men in their lives.

None of us are immune to the influence of society and culture. I know I’m not. Conditioned through much of my non-Christian life to view women like this, it is an extremely difficult conditioning to break. I need help. We all need help. It can’t be done alone. We’re not strong enough. We need help from the only one who can help because He has overcome the world.

To finish I would like to borrow again the words of Paul Masek.

“I also want to beg you women who are reading this to help us brothers out! In our over-sexualized culture, it is not easy for us to look you in the eyes; we have been trained otherwise and need to be reprogrammed. Not only will it help us if you expect – even demand – to be respected by men, but please call us out when you are not respected. We need to be challenged. And finally please prayerfully consider rediscovering modesty; try not to dress in a way that will incite the men in your life to look at you as an object. You have no idea how much the pursuit of modesty – and expecting more out of us – can help us out.”

Richard Dawkins was recently challenged to a debate with William Lane Craig. He declined. Craig, he said, was a “deplorable apologist for genocide” with whom he would not share a platform. The genocide in question is that of the Canaanites in the Old Testament Book of Deuteronomy (see link).

One of Richards more famous quotes from “The God Delusion” on this issue is:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

One of the biggest problems that many people have with God as detailed in the Bible, which Richard has so clearly demonstrated above, is that of His judgment against nations like the Canaanites. One only has to read Biblical history to find God commanding the slaughter of the Canaanite men, women and children. Not even the livestock are spared. So what are we make of this? Is God a moral monster?

Paul Copan has attempted to answer this challenge in his book “Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God.” His answer to the charge that God commanded the genocide of the Canaanites is that this was not the genocide that it appears to be from a simple at face value reading of the text; that the text is hyperbolic and an exaggeration of what actually happened; that these were more like disabling raids of the military bases/cities and religious centers and not the leave no survivors destructive conquest that one might assume from a face value reading of the text. The passages on the women and children are just sweeping language being used as a disabling metaphor where central structures are undermined so that the Canaanite influence is disabled. For a more thorough explanation you can check out this interview (3rd hour) with Greg Koukl on his radio show at STR or their blog. Otherwise you can get his book.

While Paul Copan’s explanation on the issues of slavery, bigamy, child sacrifice and the treatment of women in the Old testament seems sound to me, I think Clay Jones comes to the correct conclusion on the issue of the “divine genocide” of the Canaanites. He argues in his treatise, “We Don’t Hate Sin. So We Don’t  Understand What Happened to the Canaanites”, that the face value interpretation of the text is the correct interpretation. Clay also appeared on Greg Koukl’s radio show in an interview that can be found here (3rd Hour) which is where I got most of his answers for the rest of this blog post.

The first thing that needs to be examined is the culture and behavior of the Canaanites to see if there could be any justification for their obliteration as described in the Old Testament. Archeologist William Allbright tells of an ancient Canaanite poem where the Canaanite God Baal, rapes his sister while she is in the form of a calf 77 even 88 times. We have here rape, incest and beastiality in the same act. Baal also has sex with his mother and daughter. If this is who the Canaanites worshiped, if this is their God whom they emulate, then according to Jones, this is certainly what they themselves are doing. And these acts are borne out with further study of Canaanite culture. God outlaws these practices in Leviticus and this sin is punished when both the Canaanites and Israel committed them. And that punishment was harsh. Sodom and Gomorrah were examples of Canaanite cities who were judged by God with good moral justification.

So how does Clay Jones answer the complete destruction passages of the Canaanites in the Old Testament? Clay starts off by making an observation of our own culture. We seem to have been inoculated to sin. Average people just does not care anymore about many sins. Our culture does not even recognize them as sin, let alone understand what the term sin actually means. We have become so Canaanite-like in our own culture to the point where, as Clay put it, “Studying these things over the years has led me to wonder if the Canaanites might stand up at the Judgment and condemn this generation”.

Livestock

Why kill all the livestock? You do not want to be around animals that are used to having sex with people. In Clay’s article he gives an example of a female gorilla sexually attacking a psychologist.

Women

If you want to erradicate these practices from a culture, then why would you leave women who were just as guilty and as equally dangerous as the men in participating in these practices.

Children

Yes the children too. Firstly what age do you start separating children from adults? 18? 12? Clay tells of fostering children because he and his wife could not have their own children. They learned that kids coming into your house at from as young as 4 years old were bringing their culture with them. Now, what if you had killed their parents? What would teenage rebellion look like for those children who were spared. Certainly they were exposed to a highly sexualised culture and were very much likely to have been molested by that time.

So how do you stomp out that culture in order to prevent if from affecting the Israelites adversely? If you want to erradicate the sinfullness of the Canaanites, how else can you do it?

But wait, I hear you say, the Bible talks of the continued Canaanite presence in the region after this “divine genocide” occurred. How does Clay answer that? Clay directs our attention to those “divine genocide” texts and points out that Gods command was only for a specific region. There was still a Canaanite presence outside the region that the Israelites were to inhabit and that’s why there were commands still in place not to take wives from outside the Israelite culture etc. But as we read further into the text, the likes of Kings David and Solomon did not uphold these commands perfectly (by taking wives from outside the Israelite community) and thus the Canaanite culture was reintroduced into the Israels culture and corrupted them to the point where God then dealt harshly with the Israelites via the Assyrians and Babylonians.

So in conclusion, I think we can accept the text at face value. The question that remains is what do you think of God for commanding such a thing? Does God have a right to do with His creation as He pleases? If you have a problem with the selective judgment of the Canaanites then how do you feel about the almost complete destruction wrought by God of the whole world during the Flood? And how do you feel about the impending destruction of everything at Armageddon?

In the lead up to the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) National Conference this coming weekend, at which will be tabled a discussion to change the Party’s official policy from supporting traditional one-man, one-woman marriage, this exhortation from preacher John Piper is a stirring reminder for Christians to weep with sorrow and compassion over the sins of their cities. No less ought we in Australia weep if God’s natural law of traditional, monogamous marriage is ever legislated out of existence.

Jesus died so that heterosexual and homosexual sinners might be saved. Jesus created sexuality, and has a clear will for how it is to be experienced in holiness and joy.

His will is that a man might leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and that the two become one flesh (Mark 10:6-9). In this union, sexuality finds its God-appointed meaning, whether in personal-physical unification, symbolic representation, sensual jubilation, or fruitful procreation.

For those who have forsaken God’s path of sexual fulfillment, and walked into homosexual intercourse or heterosexual extramarital fornication or adultery, Jesus offers astonishing mercy.

Such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:11).

But last weekend {at a gay pride event held in Minneapolis last June} this salvation from sinful sexual acts was not embraced. Instead there was massive celebration of sin …

The Bible is not silent about such parades. Alongside its clearest explanation of the sin of homosexual intercourse (Romans 1:24-27) stands the indictment of the celebration of it. Though people know intuitively that homosexual acts (along with gossip, slander, insolence, haughtiness, boasting, faithlessness, heartlessness, ruthlessness) are sin, “they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:29-32). “I tell you even with tears, that many glory in their shame” (Philippians 3:18–19) …

Not only that, we are moving from celebration to institutionalization. On June 24 the New York legislature approved a Marriage Equality Act. This makes New York the sixth state where so-called homosexual marriages will be institutionalized: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, (and the District of Columbia).

My sense is that we do not realize what a calamity is happening around us. The new thing—new for America, and new for history—is not homosexuality. That brokenness has been here since we were all broken in the fall of man. (And there is a great distinction between the orientation and the act—just like there is a great difference between my orientation to pride and the act of boasting.)

What’s new is not even the celebration of homosexual sin. Homosexual behavior has been exploited, and reveled in, and celebrated in art, for millennia. What’s new is normalization and institutionalization. This is the new calamity.

My main reason for writing is not to mount a political counter-assault. I don’t think that is the calling of the church as such. My reason for writing is to help the church feel the sorrow of these days. And the magnitude of the assault on God and his image in man.

Christians, more clearly than others, can see the tidal wave of pain that is on the way. Sin carries in it its own misery: “Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:27).

And on top of sin’s self-destructive power comes, eventually, the wrath of God: “sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming” (Colossians 3:5–6).

Christians know what is coming, not only because we see it in the Bible, but because we have tasted the sorrowful fruit of our own sins. We do not escape the truth that we reap what we sow. Our marriages, our children, our churches, our institutions—they are all troubled because of our sins.

The difference is: We weep over our sins. We don’t celebrate them. We turn to Jesus for forgiveness and help. We cry to Jesus, “who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10).

And in our best moments, we weep for the world. In the days of Ezekiel God put a mark of hope “on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in Jerusalem” (Ezekiel 9:4).

This is what I am writing for. Not political action, but love for the name of God and compassion for the city of destruction.

“My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law.” (Psalm 119:136)

Taken from John Piper’s blog, Desiring God: “My Eyes Shed Streams of tears” – Thoughts on the new Calamity

Approximately 24 hours ago Ray Comfort and his Living Waters Ministry released the short 180 Movie regarding the subject of abortion, which has not only exploded across social media but also reignited conversations all over North America over the moral question about abortion. A bit skeptical about the film, given the hype and build up to its release, I decided to give it a viewing, mostly because I knew I would encounter conversations about it in my circles and wanted to be properly informed. And good thing, too, for the conversations have been plenty. While many of those conversations have regarded the biblical and theological integrity of the Way of the Master gospel witnessing techniques, one of them tonight regarded the issue for which the film was made in the first place, which I want to share with you here. While I have changed the young man’s name to protect his identity, the following is the conversation that we had tonight over the moral question about abortion. He did not explicitly state his position on the subject but I gathered that for him the issue remains a somewhat open question (due to things he had said prior to the part I am sharing here), having not settled definitively on one side or the other. He is a Christian but converted quite recently, a matter of a few months ago. We pick up the conversation mid-stream, where he is critically evaluating the merits of defining life in the womb as human.

~ * ~

JOHN: I don’t think the biological distinction between “human” and “non-human” is the morally relevant question.

DAVID: What then is the morally relevant question as it pertains to valuing human life?

JOHN: It’s like I said: “persons” are afforded full dignity and value. In fact, we already know that not all persons are human beings anyway.

DAVID: Who or what defines personhood?

JOHN: Oh, well God, I should think.

DAVID: Does Scripture give any indication at which point such personhood becomes morally relevant?

JOHN: I have looked and, actually, I don’t think it’s very clear.

DAVID: So the Bible is unclear about human life in the womb?

JOHN: It doesn’t seem to be very clear on that issue.

DAVID: Are you familiar with Psalm 139:13-15 and Jeremiah 1:5?

JOHN: Yes.

DAVID: What is unclear about the moral relevance question in those passages?

JOHN: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” I don’t see how that is going to make your case.

DAVID: That rather clinches it, I should think. Not only does God knit together the human life in the womb, but that life belongs and is known to him before that life is even conceived. Does that not indicate fairly clearly the moral relevance pertaining to the value of human life?

JOHN: It seems to be a statement of God’s foreknowledge, more than anything. I don’t think you can extrapolate anything else from that, particularly not anything helpful about dealing with a full-fledged person in the womb.

DAVID: That bothers me somewhat, that you don’t think anything beyond God’s foreknowledge can be extrapolated from that—such as, for example, his purpose for that human life, to which it is already set apart (consecrated) before it is even formed in the womb. The text rather explicitly states this. Ergo, you certainly can extrapolate more than God’s foreknowledge from this—not to mention what can be understood from this text and Psalm 139 about human life belonging to God.

JOHN: But the verse isn’t about that. It’s about God’s purpose for Jeremiah and foreknowing his destiny. I’d be more convinced if that verse was combined with more explicit statements about the topic, but that seems to be as good as it gets.

DAVID: How is what you said essentially different from what I said (vis-a-vis God’s foreknowledge and purpose for that human life)? You repeated what I said as if it was different from what I said.

JOHN: So, God making statements about foreknowing Jeremiah’s destiny implies that human life begins at conception? Non-sequitur.

DAVID: God foreknows Jeremiah’s destiny because he ordained it; before he was born God knew him, God consecrated him, God appointed him to a particular purpose.

JOHN: Yeah, right. So?

DAVID: What it implies, again, is that God not only knits together the human life in the womb but that human life belongs and is known to God before it is even conceived. That indicates rather clearly the moral relevance vis-a-vis the value of human life.

JOHN: Right, and God also foreknew that his parents would get together in the first place. I don’t think any relevant conclusion could be drawn from that, could it?

DAVID: John, that life is knit together in the womb by God; that life belongs and is known to God before it is even conceived. That life does not belong to itself, or to the mother or the father. It belongs to God. That is the morally relevant question as it pertains to human life.

JOHN: Yes, before he was even conceived God knew him. Obviously before he was conceived he wasn’t actually a person.

DAVID: Indeed. And yet even then that life belongs to God—because he is the one who brings it forth, knitting it together, having a purpose for it. If that life belongs and is known to God before conception, what about at conception or thereafter? You see what I mean?

JOHN: Okay, but in the situation outlined by the verse itself, God states that before Jeremiah was conceived God knew him. I think the “before” part is actually a problem to the argument.

DAVID: I cannot imagine how.

JOHN: Because if God knew Jeremiah even before he was conceived, then it must be that his parents had to get together or they’d be doing something wrong, frustrating God’s plans, not forming the life which is properly his, etc. And that seems highly implausible.

DAVID: That is an interesting and separate question from the one we are looking at.

JOHN: Well, I am arguing that perhaps the verse should not be taken in that direction, at the risk of implausible conclusions.

DAVID: Okay, let me address that. First, this subsequent issue you are raising pertains to the parents and their coming together, whereas our question pertains to the issue of moral relevance with respect to the value of human life. Therefore, it is a fallacious avenue to pursue (ignoratio elenchi). Second, we can certainly pursue that question if you like, but not until after the present question is settled. Third, your objection, at any rate, carries the implicit assumption that it is possible the parents could fail to come together (and thus do something ‘wrong’).

JOHN: I’m employing what I understand to be an analogous argument to yours about the nature of the verse, to demonstrate a reductio.

DAVID: See the second point.

JOHN: Yeah, I realize you think they are separate issues. But it strikes me as the same sort of reasoning being applied to different parts of the verse.

DAVID: Let us assume for the sake of argument that the verse carries the implication that I am arguing for. Let us continue in that vain. So, if that verse carries the implication I am arguing for, then what does that tell us about the moral relevance pertaining to the value of human life?

JOHN: That’s a loaded question (which is, by the way, what I think Ray Comfort was doing).

DAVID: An ‘arguendo’ does not a loaded question make.

JOHN: No, that’s not it. It’s the term “human life.” But setting that aside for a moment…

DAVID: Do we need to get into imago Dei? I would point to Psa 139:15 (cf. Job 10:9–11) as answering that question with its implicit reference to Genesis.

[A pause in the conversation for a few moments.]

JOHN: I think I lost track of what exactly I should answer—what the consequence would be of agreeing the verse implies that God directed the development of Jeremiah in the womb, or of agreeing that God directs the development of everyone in the womb? Sorry, I’m getting tired.

DAVID: You raised the issue of what the morally relevant question is with respect to valuing human life (with respect to the abortion issue in the context of The 180 Movie). My answer, calling upon those two texts from Scripture, seeks to answer you on that score, showing that the morally relevant question is answered by the fact that all human life belongs to God—not only in the womb but even prior to that. That is, abortion is wrong because that life belongs to God. Not to itself, nor to its mother, but to God. That answers what the morally relevant question is.

JOHN: Right, okay, which to me seems to leave us precisely where we started—namely, what counts as “human life.” The fact that God knew Jeremiah even before he was conceived (when obviously Jeremiah the person, the human life, was not around) doesn’t help to settle that question.

DAVID: If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life, would that not also apply to when it is a human life?

JOHN: If I accepted your interpretation of the verse for the sake of argument, that God knitting Jeremiah in the womb suggests that any developing embryo, fetus, etc., belongs to God and therefore only God has the right to direct what will or will not happen to that (developing) life, then yeah, I could see how that could apply to the morality of abortion. But I would suggest that that is a different argument than relying on defining a blastocyst as a human person or life or whatever. And I think that is a lot of weight for a single verse to carry, when the verse isn’t explicitly about that.

DAVID: Answer that question I asked you, please: “If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life, would that not also apply to when it is a human life?”

JOHN: You are assuming it all counts as human life. That is precisely what I question.

DAVID: I am getting to that.

JOHN: Okay. Then yeah, I granted that with my previous comment. (Also, I need to get going soon, after your next point.)

DAVID: All right, now observe the following. If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life (which answers the question of moral relevance), and if that person constitutes a human life upon being born (infant), then the moral relevance of abortion is answered at every stage in between—from conception to infancy.

JOHN: Right, which I just granted.

DAVID: At what point you happen to consider it a human life is irrelevant if that person belongs and is known to God even before it is a human life.

JOHN: Well, it wouldn’t be a person. But yes, I granted that.

DAVID: It would not be a person according to who or what?

JOHN: If the issue is that the (developing) human life or person “belongs to God” and therefore only God has the moral right to direct its progress or non-progress, then okay. That is an argument different from arguing that it is wrong because the blastocyst is a human life or person.

DAVID: Right. Whether it is a person, a human life, a potential human, etc., all of those points are irrelevant, given the answer to the moral relevance question.

JOHN: Okay. And I did explicitly state in the other conversation that a different argument could be advanced using a different morally relevant fact. So I think I will tentatively agree that, if I grant that interpretation of the verse, the argument could then follow.

DAVID: There are countless ways to answer this question. I have simply advanced two.

JOHN: Sure.

DAVID: The prior one I never actually got to finish because our conversation was hijacked.

JOHN: Yeah, the topic can rile people up.

DAVID: Are you too tired to argue for how that interpretation creates a problem for my argument?

JOHN: I think so. I am supposed to get up fairly early tomorrow. But, if you’d like, I’m game to pick it up another time.

DAVID: Sure thing.

JOHN: Okay, cool.

~ * ~

Have you watched The 180 Movie? Has it sparked conversations in your life about the moral issue of abortion? Do you have any positive encounters to share?