The Issue of Abortion

The issue of abortion has taken on new life in recent months. There has been a wave of radical movement in this arena. The Governor of Virginia recently advocated for abortion even at the point of birth. The suggestions were made that a baby could be delivered and set on a table while the doctor and the mother deliberated over whether it was in everyone’s best interest to allow the child to live or die. One legislator from the south reasoned something to the effect of, “They’re going to die anyway. It would be best to kill them before they cost any more than they have.”

In response to this wave, there has been another on the more conservative, life-giving side. Alabama recently signed a bill making abortion illegal. Other states are working on similar legislation. My understanding is that the hope is one of these bills will make their way to the Supreme Court and allow for the possibility of overturning Roe V Wade.

In the midst of this, I read an argument from a young lady I know who attended our church as a child. She argued that while a baby in the womb is human, it is not immoral to abort it within the first and second trimester because, as she said it, it could not survive outside its mother’s womb. She likened it to a person who is braindead but artificially kept alive through life support. She claimed that, just as it is not immoral to “pull the plug” on that life, it would not be sinful to pull the baby out of its mother’s womb. It is, after all, just a life support system. She did argue that, once the baby could live outside of the uterus, it should be illegal to abort it.

I commend this young lady for taking the stand that the unborn are human. She stands where few of her age are willing to stand. I commend her too for standing for the life of the baby after it reaches the third trimester.

Her reasoning, however, for the morality of aborting the child in the earlier trimesters is wrong for at least two reasons:

One, in the case of the brain-dead person she set as an example, the chance of life is considered impossible. So long as there is the hope of recovery, medical personnel would wish to fight for the life of the person. Even when it is determined that life is impossible, it is still a matter of debate how moral it would be to, as she put it, “pull the plug.” In the case of the unborn, even in the earliest stages, the question of life is not on the table. Given the opportunity, the child will almost certainly live. Aborting a baby just because it cannot live outside of the womb is not much different than killing a person just because he cannot live without food and water.

Secondly, the act of “pulling the plug” is generally done in the most humane way possible. Loved ones gather tears are shed, much deliberation has taken place, every possible means of saving the person has been made and, when it is determined that it is no use, they are lovingly allowed to slip into eternity. This is not the case of the unborn. Unwanted, even hated by those involved, a team executioners are hired to kill the baby in the womb, always in the most brutal of manner: it is burned to death with salt water, or its brains are sucked out of its skull, and its body ripped apart limb by limb.

There is no moral connection that can possibly be made between loving allowing the body of one who is dead to slip into eternity and violently slaying an innocent, living, feeling human being and ripping it from the one place on this planet it should have been safe.

Marvin McKenzie

In the fields

Does Starbucks Write Religious Groups Out of Approved Charities?

I think that Christians are prone to a victim type mentality. We probably deserve it. For two thousand years this world has pretty much made victims of Christians. Whether it was from the Romans, the Catholics, the Protestants, or some other unfriendly power those who have held to the idea of seriously living like we believe the Bible teaches has been hunted down, tormented and very often killed. Though, in America, we have had comparative peace for the last couple of hundred years, we haven’t forgotten. By the way, this world has ever let us forget, there has always been a current of resistance to faith. Though persecution may not be incredibly violent for the two centuries, there has been plenty of offing, mocking and general finger pointing at believers. We have some reason to be fearful of the world’s position against Christianity.

That said, this victim mentality frequently leads Christians to misread, overemphasize and over react to world events we deem critical of our faith. An article in The Christian Post puts this into perspective concerning recent allegations by Christians towards coffee giant, Starbucks.[1]  Starbuck's CEO was reported to have said he did not want the business of people who supported traditional marriage. The article in The Christian Post clarifies, “Schultz never said or implied people who support traditional marriage should take their business elsewhere.”

Now I get to the point of my article. 

Our church hosts an annual ladies’ conference. In the past, I am talking about ten or more years, Starbucks has donated coffee to this conference. Until last year. When our ladies asked about getting coffee donated from the nearby Starbucks last year, they were told that their annual quota of donations was exhausted. This year the ladies approached the same Starbucks but did so much earlier in the year. They received the same reply, their donations of the year had been exhausted. 

Not to be discouraged, the ladies approached a newly opened Starbucks store. This time they were interrogated by the store manager as to the nature of the event. When it was revealed that it was for a local church event the store employee told our group that it is Starbuck’s policy not to donate to religious organizations. I have gone online and, at this point, have not been able to find such a policy. 

Maybe it is not the corporation's policy, but it was certainly this local store’s policy. They refuse to donate to our conference, even though they have in the past, specifically because we are a religious institution.

---

[1] http://www.christianpost.com/news/did-starbucks-ceo-really-say-we-dont-want-your-business-92588/, accessed 7-3-17.  

Cross Cultural Baptist Ethics

This is a work of thought only begun. It seems to me that the thing that most angers people of different cultures about the spread of the Gospel is that it almost certainly changes cultures as well as religious faith. Indeed, many missionaries have made it as much a part of their work to change the culture as the faith. Modern missionaries are quick to point out that they are not sent as culture changers but as Gospel preachers. There are some things, however, that ought to change with the introduction of the Gospel.

Behavior that ought to transcend cultures:

Sunday worship

Generous giving

Dignified dress in church

Gospel witness

Monogamy

Apostolic doctrine

Preaching in open

Modesty

Subculture or Counter Culture

Back in April of this year Elizabeth Vargas gave her expose' of what they called this "dangerous subculture" known as Independent Fundamental Baptists. The term subculture struck me as I meditate considerably on the issues of Christianity and culture. It does not seem to me that Christianity ought to fit into the realm of the culture in which it finds itself but it ought to create its own culture. Missionaries are quick to tell me that what I believe to be Christian culture is not but merely American Christian culture.

But the term subculture sounded shocking to me. Almost underground. Include independent Baptists in with the subcultures of
• Marijuana smoking free sexers
• Underground poet societies
• Goth
• Punk, etc.

But even more unnerving to me is the connotation that our "subculture" is somehow beneath what is the true culture of America.

This week I heard a man refer to the Ana Baptists not as a subculture but as a counter culture in their day. That speaks volumes to me. That is Biblical Christianity.
• It is not blended into the culture it finds itself
• It is not under and somehow subservient to the surrounding culture

Christianity is supposed to run counter to the culture in which it is found. It is to oppose, to check and to resist the cultures of this world.

Matthew 5:13-16 KJV
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Christian faith is not supposed to be a sub culture it is supposed to be another culture, a different culture. And that is perhaps our biggest problem today. We appear to be too much like a light under a bushel, we are there, we have light, but it is muffled under the basket of cultural worldliness.

Only when we become counter to the culture will we truly be a light on a hill.