**Originally published as sermons
"What Is Man?"
PSALM 8
January 24, 1992
1 O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth, Who hast displayed Thy splendor above the heavens! 2 From the mouth of infants and nursing babes Thou hast established strength, Because of Thine adversaries, To make the enemy and the revengeful cease.
3 When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, The moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that Thou dost take thought of him? And the son of man, that Thou dost care for him? 5 Yet Thou hast made him a little lower than God, And dost crown him with glory and majesty! 6 Thou dost make him to rule over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet, 7 All sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field, 8 The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.
9 O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth!
"What is man," the Psalmist asked long, long ago. His answer was exuberant: "Thou has made him a little lower than God, and dost crown him with glory and majesty!" The answer that is being given today is not so clear. Then as now, there is no more important question for our civilization to answer than this one.
Is human life special? May humanity be differentiated from the animals and the rest of creation? Is man unique, and is his life sacred? The traditional answer is yes. The universal opinion of our biblically shaped culture until just a few years ago was that man alone of all the creatures was made in the image of God. The imagio dei defined our distinctive hegemony over and superiority to the rest of creation. Few questioned that human life was to be preferred to other forms of life, whether plant, insect or animal. Our criminal laws assume that human life has great value and cannot be harmed without serious consequences. Still today, most people instinctively know that the value of the life of a human infant is superior to that of a fly or cat.
But of late this view has been seriously challenged. A modern, humanistic alternative has begun to rival the traditional Christian position. Its proponents answer the above question decidedly no. Human beings differ from the rest of creation only in degree, not kind. Preference for the human species is branded bigotry: "specism." Human life is not so sacred, ethicists argue, that in times of duress it cannot be terminated, as in the cases of unwanted pregnancies, birth defects, or terminal illnesses. The "sanctity" of life must give way before the principle of the "quality" of life. If an existing or "potential" life will only breathe and not enjoy a "meaningful" quality of life, then that life may be terminated, it is argued. Worse yet, if an existing or "potential" life may compromise the quality of life of those now living (e.g. can't afford to feed the baby; can't afford the medical bills of the elderly), it may be terminated.
Though the proponents of the modern view hate to hear it said, both positions are "faith" convictions, and as such are not empirical and unprovable. The statements that "human life is sacred," and "human life is not sacred" are both statements of religious conviction. One cannot prove that either is true. Finally one can only say, "I believe" that human life is thus and so.
Thus the current crisis in our nation is a religious crisis, inevitably. The cultural war is a religious war. It pits those who hold to a transcendent, absolute, revealed, Christian standard of morality against those who hold to a humanistic, relative, and rationalistic standard. Hanging in the balance is the right to determine the kind of nation America will be. The winner will determine whether our race will see itself as a loving family with God as its Father and definitive rules for the household, or as Malcolm Muggeridge might have put it, as a herd, governed only by instinct, to be bred for the sake of the collectivity.
For this reason, the question "what is man" is the question which we face and the hinge on which the future of our civilization turns. The abortion issue is the current focal point of this broader debate. It is the battle that will determine the outcome of the culture war. Everything rides on this single issue, as the following questions illustrate.
Marriage And Intimacy
First, are heterosexual monogamous sexual relations the only morally valid expression of our sexual nature, or only one of many equally legitimate options? For centuries biblically shaped cultures such as our own have given legal and social preference to heterosexual, monogamous marriage, and have legally discouraged other arrangements. Divorce, illegitimacy, and homosexuality were all stigmatized, if not outlawed as a consequence. But of late we see enormous pressures to normalize single parenting, to sanction homosexual marriages, to permit homosexual and lesbian adoptions, and even allow the artificial insemination of lesbians. Today, children (who have no say) are being raised without a father or mother. What previous generation saw as a fundamental right denied only by an act of God (i.e. the death of one parent), is now seen as optional. Deliberately, intentionally, we are bringing children into the world who will never have a mother or father.
The philosophical hinge on which this revolution turns is naturalism. What is man? Human beings are animals. There is nothing special about them, and as a consequence, there is nothing special about the act that brings them into being. There is no higher meaning to be placed on in the sex act. It has no mystical element. It is purely physical and animal. As with animals, mating can be a transient, happenstance thing. Children, like Bambi, can be left to be raised by their mothers, or by the herd. Fathers are expendable. Sex and even life itself involves no obligations.
It is difficult to overstate the crudity of today's popular culture. Casual sexual encounters, leaving little to the imagination, dominate our public airwaves. Dialogue between the sexes, as portrayed by the media, consists of a string of suggestive comments, loaded with double entendre. Twisted, deranged sex is regularly sensationalized by talk shows and "made-for-TV" movies. In our schools, sex education is now being taught in the first grade. First graders are being taught about alternate lifestyles. First graders are taught to be open-minded about homosexuality, lesbianism, and AIDS. Children are being taught about their right to sexual expression, and equipment designed to make it safe are made available not at the porn shop, not at the liquor store, not even at the pharmacy, but at the public schools.
The hinge on which all this turns is the question, "What is man?" If man is an animal, then let him copulate like an animal, propagate like a rabbit, and leave the litter to the herd. Let him even do worse than animals, and kill his offspring, even while in the womb. But if life is sacred, then the act that creates life is sacred. If then the sex act is sacred, then let society promote the limiting of its expression to the permanent bond of one man and one woman, and stigmatize all the rest. Stigmatize? Yes, because of the value of human life. That newly created human life must be nurtured in the environment that is healthiest for it, the security and stability of heterosexual, monogamous marriage. And woe to the society that doesn't so restrict it.
The Family And Children
Second, do children once born belong to the family, or do they belong to society and the state? The traditional and Christian view has always been that children and parents are bound together by covenant and blood. To parents belongs the right to train, discipline, and educate their children according to their own convictions. To families belongs the right to bequeath to their children the family religion, values, trade, and property.
The modern, humanistic view sees the family as a convenience, existing at the pleasure of the state. The ties between parent and child are seen as a nuisance, and expendable. You may remember the scene from "The Deer Hunter", when the Khumer Rouge propagandist drew a picture of a family for the assembled village and then crossed out he parents. Because families are a great reservoir of traditional values, they are a barrier to the humanist's vision of progress. For them, the claims of the family must be secondary to that of the state. The state has the right, even the obligation to educate children in a way that is good for the whole of society. Children likewise have rights superseding those of their parents. Family property should be confiscated at death through inheritance taxes, and redistributed to society as a whole. The ties between parents and children are seen as being without significance.
Again the hinge is, "what is man?" Are we like animals, for whom the bonds between parents and offspring are weak, transient, and temporary? If so, then abortion, infanticide, and statism make sense. But if family connections are the most important of all; if the family is the primary institution, from which all others gain their legitimacy; if the family is the God-ordained institution within which children are to be nurtured and trained, then woe to that society that tries to rear its children communally. Are we a herd? Or are we a family, with a heavenly Father, in whose image we are made, and whose children we are?
The Value of Human Life
Third, is human life from conception sacred and inviolable or ordinary and expendable? The Christian answer is not debatable. Both Scripture and tradition speak with one voice. The Christian position has always been that human life is sacred and abortion is forbidden. Even looked at from the position of science, there is really no debate. From conception, a new human being is formed, having the complete and utterly unique complement of 46 chromosomes. The product of the union of human sperm and egg is (to state the obvious) human. It is not plant, animal, or mineral. It is human.
The pro-abortionists rarely attempt to prove that the conceptus is non-human. He doesn't have to. He already argues that human life itself is but animal life and is expendable. So what if it is human. Human life deserves no special consideration.
Modern humanism has produced, as a consequence of this "animal philosophy" a number of powerful movements in our society. We have an "animal rights" movement, that opposes experimentation and development that harms animals. By what right, they ask, do we prefer human life to laboratory rat life, or the survival of lumberjacks to the spotted owl? We have an "environmental" movement, the extreme elements of which seem to prefer trees and bushes to human life. We have a fetal research movement which favors the harvesting of fetal tissues and fetal organs. We have a euthanasia movement and the reality of infanticide, advanced through utilitarian arguments about the quality of life. Malcolm Muggeridge, in an article entitled "The Humane Holocaust," noted that "it took no more than three decades to transform a war crime into an act of compassion, thereby enabling the victors in the war against Nazi-ism to adopt the very practices for which the Nazis had been solemnly condemned at Nuremberg."
The hinge is, "What is man?" If man is an animal, then the utilitarian philosophy will predominate. If all human life is not sacred then none of it is. The unwanted unborn, the terminally ill, the handicapped newborn all become expendable. We will begin, as C. Everett Koop has warned, to "Slide to Auschwitz."
This past year a young seminary student at Reformed Seminary in Orlando and his wife conceived twins, which tragically turned out to be what we used to call "Siamese," joined at the heart and liver. The remaining months of pregnancy were an agony of unresolved questions and fear for them. An army of experts examined and reexamined the developing baby girls. Finally they were born in December, and for 20 days they struggled to survive. On the 21st day they were separated surgically, as one, Mary Elizabeth had begun to fail. Unexpectedly the surviving baby, Sarah Katherine, the stronger of the two died the next day. Immediately the questions began to be asked by many who knew them. Why did it happen? Shouldn't the tragedy have been stopped earlier? Wouldn't it have been better to have aborted them early, so that the family would not have had to suffer so long? Isn't this a good example of a time when abortion should be performed?
No, I don't think so. Why not? Because however tragic their situation was, the twins were not animals. They were human beings with eternal souls. By leaving the timing of their life and death in the hands of God, where it belongs, their humanity was not despised, but respected, as was the humanity of all other handicapped persons as well. What good came of it? During their few short days the girls were loved. This is as much as any of us can hope for. Mother Theresa picks up abandoned infants literally out of garbage piles just for the sake of loving them for a few hours before they die. They will enter eternity with a feeling of something other than alienation and rejection. This is no small thing, because we are dealing not with animals but with human beings made in the image of God who need to be loved with the love of Christ.
"But our technology keeps the dying alive long after they should have been allowed to die, robbing them of their wealth and dignity," it is argued. Yes, but death never has dignity. It is a curse on sin, and inherently undignified by Divine design. Nevertheless it is true that we are not required to preserve life forever artificially. Koop says there is a difference between preserving life and prolonging the process of dying. It is okay to die naturally. But it is never permissible to take a life actively or to starve a person to death purposely, or allow the incoherent to dehydrate. Why? Because we cannot compromise the sanctity of even a single human life without compromising the sanctity of all human life.
Abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are often seen as means of solving a given individual problem. The argument may even be made, that on a given occasion, one or more of the above did resolve a difficult situation. Aunt So and So was taken off the I.V. and dehydrated and died over a three-day period. The problem of Auntie's six-month long coma was solved. The problem is, the sanctity of human life was also compromised, and so in the process of solving one problem a million others were created, a whole holocaust worth of problems. Now medical practitioners have shifted their focus from saving lives at all costs (exactly what you want doctors and nurses to be thinking about) to looking at the options. Now we're saying we are competent to decide who will live and who will die. It is better that some should suffer for an extra week, or month, or year, than that people acting as little gods should make arbitrary decisions about life and death, according to the prevailing winds of public values. We are not now and never will be competent to make these decisions. Woe to that society which will not leave these things in the hands of God who alone has the right to give life, and take it away.
“A Consistent Ethic of Life:
The 6th & 7th Commandments Together”
EXODUS 20:1-17
January 23, 2005; September 19, 2004
1Then God spoke all these words, saying,
2"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3"You shall have no other gods before Me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7 "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
8"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.9 "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
12"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.
13"You shall not murder.
14"You shall not commit adultery.
15"You shall not steal.
16"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Imagine this scene: A group of teenage girls and young women carrying pro-life signs, urging the safeguarding of the lives of the unborn. Imagine them further, dressed in short, tight skirts, bare midriffs, tight-fitting tops, and low necklines. Does anyone see a contradiction in the message they are communicating? Their message is not as blatantly inconsistent as Larry Flint’s brief fling with putting Bible verses on his centerfolds, or Mickey Cohen’s ambition to be a Christian gangster (why not, he asked; there are Christian lawyers, Christian shopkeepers, and Christian school teachers, aren’t there?). But I see a growing and increasingly damaging disconnect between the 6th and 7th Commandments. The sixth, forbidding murder, is based on the larger principle of the sanctity of life; the seventh, forbidding adultery, is based on the larger principle of the sanctity of marriage. These two Commandments are mutually dependent––they do not and cannot stand alone. The typically not understood principle is that if human life is sacred, then the act that generates human life is sacred. Conversely, if the act that generates life is treated as a thing that is recreational or casual in nature, then the biological end of that act will not long be regarded as sacred either. To put it crassly, if sex is cheap, life is cheap, and vice-versa, if life is cheap, sex is cheap. One would never casually, flippantly, or promiscuously end a human life; neither should one casually, flippantly, or promiscuously generate a human life. In other words, if we are to be consistently pro-life, then the act that generates life must be regarded as sacred. Furthermore, all that tends toward sexual expression outside of the sacred context of marriage must be forsaken, whether they be found in literature, cinema, television, fashion, or personal speech.
I’ve gotten a little ahead of myself, so let me back up and argue more comprehensively for 1) the sanctity of life; 2) the sanctity of the act that generates life; 3) that which must be forsaken if we are to be consistently and credibly pro-life.
Sanctity of life
First, is human life sacred? Does human life have a distinctive value and dignity that distinguishes it from lower forms of life, such as plant, insect, or animal life? Nearly everyone would answer this question in the affirmative. Even those “who wouldn’t kill a fly,” typically do, and without the least twinge of conscience.
Is this just “specicism” on our part, as avant garde ethicists call it, or is there some basis in reality for placing a higher value upon and demanding better treatment of human life?
It has to be admitted that on naturalistic principles alone there is no basis in fact for affirming a distinctive sanctity and dignity for human life. If we inhabit a world without God, then our claim to be special does look something like the inter-species equivalent of racism and sexism. We are, in fact (on the basis of this model), merely a more complex form of molecules existing in a world which has no reason or capacity for valuing complexity over simplicity.
But if we turn to the Bible as God’s word to humanity, we find a divinely established ethic of life. He declares the nature and worth of human beings.
We are set-apart from the animals from the beginning of creation.
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)
We alone bear the image of God. Because we do, innocent human life may not be destroyed, and those who do wantonly kill others must pay the ultimate price:
Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:6)
As bearers of the image of God, human life is endowed with a unique dignity and sanctity. This is the background to the 6th Commandment:
“You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13)
The New Testament assumes the principle of human sanctity and dignity throughout its ethical teaching, applying it even to how we speak to each other.
With (our tongue) we bless our Lord and Father; and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. (James 3:9,10)
James’ point is that we cannot claim to bless the God we cannot see and, at the same time, curse the likeness of God, which we do see in those around us. The image of God in man is the ethical basis for respectful treating of all human beings: we protect their lives, their health, their physical wellbeing, and treat all others with dignity and respect.
Jesus extends the principle of the sanctity of human life even to our thoughts. So important is it that we respect human life that our hearts must be rid of hatred, lest sin conceived in the mind lead to its actual expression in human relationships.
“You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.” (Matthew 5:21,22)
The principle of human dignity includes the unborn, since unborn human life cannot be anything other than human life. It is not mineral, plant, or animal life. The fetus’ genetic code is human, and its every molecule is human. It bears the image of God from conception to birth and throughout its life outside of the womb. It cannot be terminated, tampered with, or experimented upon without undermining the sanctity of all human life.
Sacred Sex
Second, if human life is sacred, then one cannot trivialize the act that generates new life. What is the biological meaning of sexual acts? They are the means by which new life is created. The sanctity of human life (the 6th Commandment) is the background to the 7th Commandment, and a host of other commandments, that restrict sexual expression. The 7th depends on the 6th. Because life is sacred sexual acts must be sacred. The wanton, careless, promiscuous generation of plant and animal life is apparently not a moral concern of God’s. Cats may have all the litters they want with all the partners they want, resulting in countless unwanted and uncared for kittens, if they so choose. Not so with humanity. What the 7th Commandment teaches is that marriage, that is, the permanent union of one man and one woman, is the only safe context within which human life may be generated, nurtured, and reared. Consequently it is the only context within which legitimate or sanctioned sexual relations may take place. Anonymous sex, casual sex, recreational sex, premarital sex, extramarital sex, all cheapen the potential product of the procreative act, the conceived child. These promiscuous sexual acts, in effect, say that human children are of such little value that they can be conceived, nurtured, and reared in any context, without mother or father or both. The 7th Commandment says just the opposite. Human life is of such importance that it may only be conceived, nurtured, and reared within the permanent context of committed marriage. Because human life is sacred, all sexual expression must be restricted to the relatively safe context of marriage.
This principle of “sacred sex,” as we put it, is so vital that Jesus addresses our thought life respecting it, as he did respecting life itself. It is crucial that our thoughts be pure lest sin conceived in the mind lead to sin expressed by the body.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell.” (Matthew 5:27-30)
Lust must be “nipped in the bud,” as the expression goes, lest sexual urges be expressed outside of marriage and one places one’s eternal soul at risk. Jesus does not hesitate to hang the risk of hell’s torments over our heads. The marital bond is sacred and, because it is, divorce must be restricted as well. Jesus goes on immediately to say:
“And it was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31,32)
We may surmise that one reason (among the many) why divorce is forbidden is the value of maturing human life. Human beings are of such worth that they must be reared in intact homes. Divorce subjects young image-bearers to a nurturing environment that is damaging to their development. Consequently, divorce must be discouraged and severely restricted.
Consistency
Are you convinced? Our argument is that because human life is sacred (the 6th Commandment), the sexual act that generates life is sacred (the 7th Commandment). Because human life is of great value, it must be conceived, nurtured, and reared in the God-ordained environment of permanent marriage. What are the implications of this principle? They are legion. Our third point is: Anything that would tend to undermine the sanctity of human life or the act that generates human life must be avoided. This places us in direct and constant conflict with our culture which constantly and aggressively promotes promiscuity.
First, in the realm of fashion, Christians must dress modestly. Christians must be careful never to dress in a way that is sensuous or suggestive. The Apostle Paul puts it this way,
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness. (1 Timothy 2:9,10)
Dress “modestly and discreetly,” says the Apostle Paul. Wear clothing that is “proper,” not improper. Christian women should not wear clothing that is too tight or form fitting. They should not wear skirts that are too short, or wear necklines that plunge too low. Why? Because the distinctives of the female form stir up lust in men. Putting that form on sensual display increases the likelihood that sin imagined will lead to sin committed. We lose all credibility in the fight for life if we dress in a way that makes more likely the promiscuity that leads to the unintended pregnancy that leads to the abortion. This is not rocket science. We all know that there is a difference between dressing in a way that is feminine and discreet, as opposed to a way that is sensual and provocative. If we believe in the sanctity of all human life, including unborn human life, we will dress modestly.
Second, regarding visual and auditory media, Christians must avoid all images, music, language, and lyrics that stir up lust. We must be vigilant to avoid cultural forms that break down inhibitions, which are likely to promote the sinful thoughts that lead to sinful acts, or are likely to break down the will’s resistance to those acts. We lose credibility as a pro-life community if we choose as entertainment for ourselves and our children sensual and promiscuous shows, programs, movies, concerts, CD’s, DVD’s. To be blunt: TV cannot be watched, the radio and CD’s cannot be listed to, cinema cannot be enjoyed, except highly selectively. Why? Because we cannot be part of endeavors which cheapen sexual acts, which in turn cheapen the value of human life. We cannot say life is sacred, on the one hand, and then on the other allow ourselves to be entertained by and poisoned by those that cheapen the act that generates human life. Those who are pro-life must forsake this amoral and immoral culture to a degree that we have not been willing to up to this point. Otherwise our entertainment choices shout to the world that we are not serious about being pro-life, not if we cannot be disciplined about forsaking as “entertainment” the glamorizing of the immorality that makes the abortions “necessary” in the first place. Job “made a covenant” with his eyes “not to look lustfully at a girl” (Job 31:1). The Apostle Paul says our minds are to dwell on the pure and honorable (Philippians 1:9). We must be more serious about doing the same.
Third, in the realm of speech, Christians must avoid all intimate or suggestive language, double entendre, and “off-color” jokes. The Apostle Paul says,
But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. (Ephesians 5:3,4)
The Apostle Paul, in this passage, connects immorality and filthy, silly and coarse speech. Again he says,
for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. (Ephesians 5:12)
There are things that should not be talked about, certainly not with anyone but one’s spouse. Talk, jokes, discussions, etc. regarding intimate things break down our inhibitions, our natural sense of shame, our natural reserve. The worldly-wise use “dirty talk” intentionally to do this very thing, to begin to dismantle inhibitions. What one can’t talk about one is unlikely to do. There are short steps, however, from thinking, to discussing, to doing. If we are credibly pro-life, we will guard the purity of our speech so as to guard the purity of our lives, so as to guard the sanctity of life.
What we are saying, in summary, is that Christians must limit all sexual expression to marriage. Anything that tends to break down sexual moral discipline must be forsaken. I do not think that I exaggerate for one moment. Jesus said that we are to take extreme measures in avoiding lust, cutting off the offending hand and plucking out the offending eye (Matthew 5:27-30). His images are hyperbole, of course, but they do indicate the most extreme action on our part to avoid sexual sin. Forsake and abandon whatever starts you down that road. Young people, determine to enter marriage with your virtue untarnished. Married people, determine to remain faithful throughout your marriage, and to remain committed to your marriage as long as you live. We cannot credibly claim to be pro-life if we are undermining the God-ordained institution in which sacred human life is to be conceived and nurtured.
To be consistently pro-life requires that one be consistently pro-marriage, and consistently anti-everything that tends to undermine marriage as the sole context within which human sexual expression is to occur. Only if we in the pro-life community clean up our own act, only if we live morally chaste lives, can we expect the world to take us seriously.
We do not retreat from the gospel when we take time to discuss our ethical principles. Have we shown disregard for the sanctity of human life, perhaps even participating in an abortion? Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, even the foremost of all (1 Timothy 1:14,15). Have we shown disregard for the sanctity of marriage? Do we need to repent of thoughts, words, entertainment choices, and deeds that have cheapened the procreative act? Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more (Romans 5:15,20). It is only when we face our failures that the gospel shines its most glorious rays of mercy and forgiveness into our hearts, and the doors for further service open most widely.
“Human Nature and Law”
ROMANS 1:18-32
January 21, 2007
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
“Who are you to impose your morality on us?” snarled an angry radio talk show host, repeating a question that is asked a thousand times a day. The assumption behind the question is that moral choices are entirely a matter of personal choice and preference. The pervasiveness of moral relation is well known and frequently lamented in our circles. Less understood is the assumption that goes with it, that is, that nothing can be said inherently to be suitable or appropriate to the dignity of human beings because human nature itself cannot be known. “What is man?” the Psalmist asks (Psalm 8:1). “We don’t know,” the contemporary world answers. Consequently all options for man are open.
I was going to entitle this message “Man’s Nature and Law. But I knew that my title would be perceived as politically incorrect. Many would be more offended by my use of “exclusive language” than in the subject to be explored. I take this observation as a sign of the depths of silliness to which our civilization has descended. The use of the exclusive term “man” rather than an inclusive term like “humanity” or “persons,” would immediately close the ears of those with tender social consciences and end the conversation (though do note the abrasive “man” attached to “hu” and “sons” attached to “per,” leading me to suggest to un-amused feminists that we need to start calling ourselves “hupers”).
But now I’m getting sidetracked, so back to the point. Behind the title is the observation that previous generations of Americans and Europeans enforced “Christian” moral teaching because they were convinced that human nature could be known. They believed that both Scripture and nature teach what man is. We can know, they reasoned, what is suited to human nature, or compatible with human nature, and therefore right for human beings. Similarly we can know what is degrading to human nature and, consequently, ought to be prohibited, since no one ought to be subjected to that which dehumanizes. There were always gray areas that were debated. But the main outlines of the discussion were agreed upon.
Harmony between the revelation of God in nature and the revelation of God in Scripture is in fact the Bible’s own view. The Apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is that humanity can know the truth of both God and morals through nature. Regarding God:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
Regarding morals, note his argument from nature:
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Romans 1:26,27)
The “unnatural” is identified with the “indecent’ and the “degrading.” He said similar things a few sentences before these:
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. (Romans 1:24)
“Lust” in the heart leads to immorality or “impurity” so that their bodies are “dishonored.” That which is unnatural and immoral is also “degrading” and “dishonor(ing)” for its participants. In verse 28 he says further that a “depraved mind” leads them “to do those things which are not proper.”
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, (Romans 1:28)
For a mode of conduct to be not “proper” is for it to be unsuited or unfit for human beings, or, in a word, unnatural. “Does not even nature itself teach you?” the Apostle Paul asks elsewhere (1 Corinthians 11:14). Yes, it does teach us. In fact, the Apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is that one doesn’t need a Bible to know that homosexual acts are morally wrong––nature reveals it. One might call it the argument from anatomy. Nature’s design shows us how our body parts are meant to function, and in particular, how the parts designed to generate life were meant to be used. When used contrary to nature and placed where they do not belong is to pervert their function, reject the natural order, and rebel against nature’s God. It is s compounding of sin, for it requires a rejection of God’s revelation both in Scripture and nature.
This is true not only of homosexuality, but a whole host of sins listed by the Apostle:
being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; (Romans 1:29-31)
He then concludes:
and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:32)
“They know the ordinance of God,” he says. “All people know, by nature, that the comprehensive list of sins in the preceding verses are not only wrong, but deserve God’s judgment. There is still a natural law, and all people know it,” writes David VanDrunen, commenting on Romans 1 (A Biblical Case for Natural Law, Grand Rapids: Acton Institute, 2006, p. 18). Further along in his argument the Apostle Paul writes of pagans without the law of Moses:
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, (Romans 2:14,15)
Gentiles “not having the law” nevertheless know the law of God because God has written it “in their hearts,” their consciences “bearing witness” to the truth, condemning them or defending them. Again Van Drunen comments:
“This is a natural law because human nature itself proclaims this law and judges whether it has been kept; people are ‘laws unto themselves’ because their own nature declares it.” (my emphasis, p. 19)
Freedom
The American system never envisioned unfettered human freedom. The founders and their descendants did not mean to create a world in which consenting adults could do whatever they might agree to do. They understood that human corruption is such that individuals and groups might agree to do that or be pressured into doing that which was an affront to the dignity of any human being. Consequently they outlawed prostitution, polygamy, pornography, public nudity, abortion, and sodomy because they were convinced that such behavior is inherently degrading to its practitioners, who often were seen as victims. Another way of saying this is to say that they could not imagine that any sane person, or any person free from desperate personal circumstances, or any person not overcome by soul-destroying greed, would voluntarily agree to sell his or her body, agree to share a bedroom with a second or third wife, agree to strip naked and pose or perform sexual acts for cameras or audiences, agree to kill their unborn child, or agree to sodomize or be sodomized. People are at times overcome by these corrupting afflictions and influences and consent to do the unthinkable. Sometimes they are even convinced, or convince themselves, to murder and rape. Yet society rightly prohibits them from acting on their impulses. Why then does self-degrading behavior persist? We can elaborate several reasons.
1. Mental incompetence. While on a mission trip to Peru I witnessed an older woman walking down the street with the bottom half of her dress torn away, leaving herself exposed. She seemed oblivious. Those who saw her felt pity. Why? Because we instinctively knew her to be humiliating or degrading herself. She was obviously mentally incompetent. Who else would shame oneself in this way except someone who was mentally deranged? Answer: no one with a clear mind. Those with clear minds do not publicly disrobe, do not perform in pornographic media, do not kill their unborn, or engage in homosexual acts. Only the fog of a sick mind could overcome one’s natural defense against moral degradation.
2. Desperation. Strippers, porn “stars,” prostitutes, and women who abort their children are often driven to do so by financial desperation. They perceive that they have no alternatives. So they sell their bodies or destroy their children to avoid poverty or ensure survival. It is interesting that as actresses become more successful they become less and less willing to disrobe. The inherent shame of public nudity is not dissipated by frequency of experience, but only, it would seem, by increasing financial security. What else but fear, insecurity, or despair could persuade one to offer one’s body to lecherous men, bare one’s body before a world of viewers, or destroy one’s unborn child?
3. Exploitation. Sometimes the powerful are able to provide sufficient financial or vocational incentives, or perhaps social recognition or advancement, to persuade the weak, needy, or vulnerable to prostitute themselves. This reason is closely associated with the preceding, except the motive for consenting is more greed than despair. Secretaries are persuaded to become mistresses, junior partners are persuaded to have affairs, girlfriends are persuaded to abort their child because of an offer that can’t be refused. The powerful are able to make the “payoff” so great that the natural resistance of the weak is overwhelmed. Most people will do anything if enough money is involved. Yet should everything be legal? Should we allow, for example, people to sell their organs, an extra kidney for example, if the price is right? Should society allow consenting adults to participate in Gladiatorial Games leading to death if they are willing to do so, having been made willing by the dream of great wealth? or fame? Only the mentally incompetent, the desperate, the oppressed (or greedy) would voluntarily engage in such behavior. Consequently a just and compassionate society would legally protect the exploited ones from the perversion or persuasion of the powerful. A just and compassionate society would understand what man is, would understand what degrades man, and would legally protect the weak from the dehumanizing exploitation of the strong.
Instead our political discourse is dominated by the language of “rights.” Freedom for “consenting adults,” disregard for “victimless crimes,” and the right to do what I want “in the privacy of my own home” are the core concerns of our society. Popular media indulges benign portrayals of prostitutions (“Pretty Woman”), homosexual romance (“Brokeback Mountain”), and even glamorizes the lives of strippers and porn “stars.” Some have even begun to speak of “sex-industry workers” and have contemplated unionization. We are normalizing that which is our shame. We no longer seem to know what man is or care about what humiliates, degrades, and dehumanizes him. Consequently we are no longer able to protect the weak or ourselves from these assaults on human dignity.
Social Schizophrenia
In truth, we know better. Society still will not allow consenting adults to mutilate each other or kill each other. Society will not allow two people to voluntarily establish a slave-master relationship, complete with shackles and chains. Society will not allow a storeowner to turn a customer away from the lunch counter merely because of the color of his or her skin. We still have some sense of what is sick, humiliating, or degrading. Ironically the only group that still employs nature-based moral terminology is the feminist movement. Feminists regularly speak of pornography as objectifying women, as turning women into playthings, into objects that exist for the gratification of men. They speak of this as degrading and dehumanizing for women. The problem is, the feminists cannot answer the question of “why” it is dehumanizing. If all the players in the porn game are consenting adults, why not? Pagan feminists have no answer to that question because they will not acknowledge that human nature can be known and that certain behavior inherently degrades and dehumanizes, while other behavior is fit and apt for human beings.
A preview for a popular show was broadcast during a football game a couple of weeks ago in which a woman in her underwear was to be seen climbing atop a man in an office into which a group of unsuspecting co-workers were entering. My thought: this is animalistic. These are the copulating practices of animals who have no self-control, who wear no clothes, and who know no shame. For the creators of the show it was meant to be funny. Apparently for average Americans it is thought to be funny too. For those who know what man is, it is degrading for all who are concerned: the man, the woman, the writers, the cameramen, and the audience.
Public Moral Environment
Alas, we are dismissed as prudes. But our concerns are more profound than typically realized. As the feminists have recognized, what dehumanizes one dehumanizes all because we inhabit a common social space. We all breathe the same social air and walk the same social landscape. When the threshold of degradation lowers, that degradation spreads and alters our common environment. A modern-day Rip Van Winkle, who fell asleep in the 1950’s and awakened in 2000, would be astonished at the commonplace violent, vulgar, brutal, even animalistic images by which we are surrounded. We are assaulted by sensuous images on billboards as we drive down the street, by provocative scenes on the television as commercials interrupt our game-watching, by enticing pop-up invitations as we maneuver on the internet. The normalizing of dehumanizing behavior has cheapened the value of all of our lives. Privacy issues are never quite so simplistically private as some would suggest.
What is man? There can be no more serious question. Yet our society doesn’t know the answer. What degrades and dehumanizes man? Our society doesn’t seem to know that either. The general public has been disarmed by the language of “rights” and “freedom,” and public life is morally at sea, drifting towards a disaster, brought on by a morally degraded, dehumanized, and desensitized citizenry. Consequently one of the tasks of the church today is to remind the world of the dignity and sanctity of all human life. We have a “prophetic” responsibility to speak to our society. What is man? He is made in the image of God. He relates primarily not downward with the animals, but upward, as the Psalmist reminds us, having been made “a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:7,9; cf. Psalm 8:5). Are we thereby imposing our sectarian moral values? No, we ask our countrymen with the Apostle, “doesn’t even nature teach you” these things (1 Corinthians 11:14). And does your conscience not bear witness to the truth of what we say (Romans 2:14,15)? As neighbors we should be careful to treat others with dignity and respect. The way that we treat our neighbors should demonstrate our respect for the sanctity of human life. As citizens we should work to protect both the weak and our common public life from the vulgar and crude, and prohibit that which dehumanizes and degrades our fellow-citizens. Our public laws should reflect the dignity and sanctity of all human life by what they allow and disallow, by what they encourage and discourage.
"What Is Man?"
PSALM 8
January 24, 1992
1 O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth, Who hast displayed Thy splendor above the heavens! 2 From the mouth of infants and nursing babes Thou hast established strength, Because of Thine adversaries, To make the enemy and the revengeful cease.
3 When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, The moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that Thou dost take thought of him? And the son of man, that Thou dost care for him? 5 Yet Thou hast made him a little lower than God, And dost crown him with glory and majesty! 6 Thou dost make him to rule over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet, 7 All sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field, 8 The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.
9 O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth!
"What is man," the Psalmist asked long, long ago. His answer was exuberant: "Thou has made him a little lower than God, and dost crown him with glory and majesty!" The answer that is being given today is not so clear. Then as now, there is no more important question for our civilization to answer than this one.
Is human life special? May humanity be differentiated from the animals and the rest of creation? Is man unique, and is his life sacred? The traditional answer is yes. The universal opinion of our biblically shaped culture until just a few years ago was that man alone of all the creatures was made in the image of God. The imagio dei defined our distinctive hegemony over and superiority to the rest of creation. Few questioned that human life was to be preferred to other forms of life, whether plant, insect or animal. Our criminal laws assume that human life has great value and cannot be harmed without serious consequences. Still today, most people instinctively know that the value of the life of a human infant is superior to that of a fly or cat.
But of late this view has been seriously challenged. A modern, humanistic alternative has begun to rival the traditional Christian position. Its proponents answer the above question decidedly no. Human beings differ from the rest of creation only in degree, not kind. Preference for the human species is branded bigotry: "specism." Human life is not so sacred, ethicists argue, that in times of duress it cannot be terminated, as in the cases of unwanted pregnancies, birth defects, or terminal illnesses. The "sanctity" of life must give way before the principle of the "quality" of life. If an existing or "potential" life will only breathe and not enjoy a "meaningful" quality of life, then that life may be terminated, it is argued. Worse yet, if an existing or "potential" life may compromise the quality of life of those now living (e.g. can't afford to feed the baby; can't afford the medical bills of the elderly), it may be terminated.
Though the proponents of the modern view hate to hear it said, both positions are "faith" convictions, and as such are not empirical and unprovable. The statements that "human life is sacred," and "human life is not sacred" are both statements of religious conviction. One cannot prove that either is true. Finally one can only say, "I believe" that human life is thus and so.
Thus the current crisis in our nation is a religious crisis, inevitably. The cultural war is a religious war. It pits those who hold to a transcendent, absolute, revealed, Christian standard of morality against those who hold to a humanistic, relative, and rationalistic standard. Hanging in the balance is the right to determine the kind of nation America will be. The winner will determine whether our race will see itself as a loving family with God as its Father and definitive rules for the household, or as Malcolm Muggeridge might have put it, as a herd, governed only by instinct, to be bred for the sake of the collectivity.
For this reason, the question "what is man" is the question which we face and the hinge on which the future of our civilization turns. The abortion issue is the current focal point of this broader debate. It is the battle that will determine the outcome of the culture war. Everything rides on this single issue, as the following questions illustrate.
Marriage And Intimacy
First, are heterosexual monogamous sexual relations the only morally valid expression of our sexual nature, or only one of many equally legitimate options? For centuries biblically shaped cultures such as our own have given legal and social preference to heterosexual, monogamous marriage, and have legally discouraged other arrangements. Divorce, illegitimacy, and homosexuality were all stigmatized, if not outlawed as a consequence. But of late we see enormous pressures to normalize single parenting, to sanction homosexual marriages, to permit homosexual and lesbian adoptions, and even allow the artificial insemination of lesbians. Today, children (who have no say) are being raised without a father or mother. What previous generation saw as a fundamental right denied only by an act of God (i.e. the death of one parent), is now seen as optional. Deliberately, intentionally, we are bringing children into the world who will never have a mother or father.
The philosophical hinge on which this revolution turns is naturalism. What is man? Human beings are animals. There is nothing special about them, and as a consequence, there is nothing special about the act that brings them into being. There is no higher meaning to be placed on in the sex act. It has no mystical element. It is purely physical and animal. As with animals, mating can be a transient, happenstance thing. Children, like Bambi, can be left to be raised by their mothers, or by the herd. Fathers are expendable. Sex and even life itself involves no obligations.
It is difficult to overstate the crudity of today's popular culture. Casual sexual encounters, leaving little to the imagination, dominate our public airwaves. Dialogue between the sexes, as portrayed by the media, consists of a string of suggestive comments, loaded with double entendre. Twisted, deranged sex is regularly sensationalized by talk shows and "made-for-TV" movies. In our schools, sex education is now being taught in the first grade. First graders are being taught about alternate lifestyles. First graders are taught to be open-minded about homosexuality, lesbianism, and AIDS. Children are being taught about their right to sexual expression, and equipment designed to make it safe are made available not at the porn shop, not at the liquor store, not even at the pharmacy, but at the public schools.
The hinge on which all this turns is the question, "What is man?" If man is an animal, then let him copulate like an animal, propagate like a rabbit, and leave the litter to the herd. Let him even do worse than animals, and kill his offspring, even while in the womb. But if life is sacred, then the act that creates life is sacred. If then the sex act is sacred, then let society promote the limiting of its expression to the permanent bond of one man and one woman, and stigmatize all the rest. Stigmatize? Yes, because of the value of human life. That newly created human life must be nurtured in the environment that is healthiest for it, the security and stability of heterosexual, monogamous marriage. And woe to the society that doesn't so restrict it.
The Family And Children
Second, do children once born belong to the family, or do they belong to society and the state? The traditional and Christian view has always been that children and parents are bound together by covenant and blood. To parents belongs the right to train, discipline, and educate their children according to their own convictions. To families belongs the right to bequeath to their children the family religion, values, trade, and property.
The modern, humanistic view sees the family as a convenience, existing at the pleasure of the state. The ties between parent and child are seen as a nuisance, and expendable. You may remember the scene from "The Deer Hunter", when the Khumer Rouge propagandist drew a picture of a family for the assembled village and then crossed out he parents. Because families are a great reservoir of traditional values, they are a barrier to the humanist's vision of progress. For them, the claims of the family must be secondary to that of the state. The state has the right, even the obligation to educate children in a way that is good for the whole of society. Children likewise have rights superseding those of their parents. Family property should be confiscated at death through inheritance taxes, and redistributed to society as a whole. The ties between parents and children are seen as being without significance.
Again the hinge is, "what is man?" Are we like animals, for whom the bonds between parents and offspring are weak, transient, and temporary? If so, then abortion, infanticide, and statism make sense. But if family connections are the most important of all; if the family is the primary institution, from which all others gain their legitimacy; if the family is the God-ordained institution within which children are to be nurtured and trained, then woe to that society that tries to rear its children communally. Are we a herd? Or are we a family, with a heavenly Father, in whose image we are made, and whose children we are?
The Value of Human Life
Third, is human life from conception sacred and inviolable or ordinary and expendable? The Christian answer is not debatable. Both Scripture and tradition speak with one voice. The Christian position has always been that human life is sacred and abortion is forbidden. Even looked at from the position of science, there is really no debate. From conception, a new human being is formed, having the complete and utterly unique complement of 46 chromosomes. The product of the union of human sperm and egg is (to state the obvious) human. It is not plant, animal, or mineral. It is human.
The pro-abortionists rarely attempt to prove that the conceptus is non-human. He doesn't have to. He already argues that human life itself is but animal life and is expendable. So what if it is human. Human life deserves no special consideration.
Modern humanism has produced, as a consequence of this "animal philosophy" a number of powerful movements in our society. We have an "animal rights" movement, that opposes experimentation and development that harms animals. By what right, they ask, do we prefer human life to laboratory rat life, or the survival of lumberjacks to the spotted owl? We have an "environmental" movement, the extreme elements of which seem to prefer trees and bushes to human life. We have a fetal research movement which favors the harvesting of fetal tissues and fetal organs. We have a euthanasia movement and the reality of infanticide, advanced through utilitarian arguments about the quality of life. Malcolm Muggeridge, in an article entitled "The Humane Holocaust," noted that "it took no more than three decades to transform a war crime into an act of compassion, thereby enabling the victors in the war against Nazi-ism to adopt the very practices for which the Nazis had been solemnly condemned at Nuremberg."
The hinge is, "What is man?" If man is an animal, then the utilitarian philosophy will predominate. If all human life is not sacred then none of it is. The unwanted unborn, the terminally ill, the handicapped newborn all become expendable. We will begin, as C. Everett Koop has warned, to "Slide to Auschwitz."
This past year a young seminary student at Reformed Seminary in Orlando and his wife conceived twins, which tragically turned out to be what we used to call "Siamese," joined at the heart and liver. The remaining months of pregnancy were an agony of unresolved questions and fear for them. An army of experts examined and reexamined the developing baby girls. Finally they were born in December, and for 20 days they struggled to survive. On the 21st day they were separated surgically, as one, Mary Elizabeth had begun to fail. Unexpectedly the surviving baby, Sarah Katherine, the stronger of the two died the next day. Immediately the questions began to be asked by many who knew them. Why did it happen? Shouldn't the tragedy have been stopped earlier? Wouldn't it have been better to have aborted them early, so that the family would not have had to suffer so long? Isn't this a good example of a time when abortion should be performed?
No, I don't think so. Why not? Because however tragic their situation was, the twins were not animals. They were human beings with eternal souls. By leaving the timing of their life and death in the hands of God, where it belongs, their humanity was not despised, but respected, as was the humanity of all other handicapped persons as well. What good came of it? During their few short days the girls were loved. This is as much as any of us can hope for. Mother Theresa picks up abandoned infants literally out of garbage piles just for the sake of loving them for a few hours before they die. They will enter eternity with a feeling of something other than alienation and rejection. This is no small thing, because we are dealing not with animals but with human beings made in the image of God who need to be loved with the love of Christ.
"But our technology keeps the dying alive long after they should have been allowed to die, robbing them of their wealth and dignity," it is argued. Yes, but death never has dignity. It is a curse on sin, and inherently undignified by Divine design. Nevertheless it is true that we are not required to preserve life forever artificially. Koop says there is a difference between preserving life and prolonging the process of dying. It is okay to die naturally. But it is never permissible to take a life actively or to starve a person to death purposely, or allow the incoherent to dehydrate. Why? Because we cannot compromise the sanctity of even a single human life without compromising the sanctity of all human life.
Abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are often seen as means of solving a given individual problem. The argument may even be made, that on a given occasion, one or more of the above did resolve a difficult situation. Aunt So and So was taken off the I.V. and dehydrated and died over a three-day period. The problem of Auntie's six-month long coma was solved. The problem is, the sanctity of human life was also compromised, and so in the process of solving one problem a million others were created, a whole holocaust worth of problems. Now medical practitioners have shifted their focus from saving lives at all costs (exactly what you want doctors and nurses to be thinking about) to looking at the options. Now we're saying we are competent to decide who will live and who will die. It is better that some should suffer for an extra week, or month, or year, than that people acting as little gods should make arbitrary decisions about life and death, according to the prevailing winds of public values. We are not now and never will be competent to make these decisions. Woe to that society which will not leave these things in the hands of God who alone has the right to give life, and take it away.
“A Consistent Ethic of Life:
The 6th & 7th Commandments Together”
EXODUS 20:1-17
January 23, 2005; September 19, 2004
1Then God spoke all these words, saying,
2"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3"You shall have no other gods before Me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7 "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
8"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.9 "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
12"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.
13"You shall not murder.
14"You shall not commit adultery.
15"You shall not steal.
16"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Imagine this scene: A group of teenage girls and young women carrying pro-life signs, urging the safeguarding of the lives of the unborn. Imagine them further, dressed in short, tight skirts, bare midriffs, tight-fitting tops, and low necklines. Does anyone see a contradiction in the message they are communicating? Their message is not as blatantly inconsistent as Larry Flint’s brief fling with putting Bible verses on his centerfolds, or Mickey Cohen’s ambition to be a Christian gangster (why not, he asked; there are Christian lawyers, Christian shopkeepers, and Christian school teachers, aren’t there?). But I see a growing and increasingly damaging disconnect between the 6th and 7th Commandments. The sixth, forbidding murder, is based on the larger principle of the sanctity of life; the seventh, forbidding adultery, is based on the larger principle of the sanctity of marriage. These two Commandments are mutually dependent––they do not and cannot stand alone. The typically not understood principle is that if human life is sacred, then the act that generates human life is sacred. Conversely, if the act that generates life is treated as a thing that is recreational or casual in nature, then the biological end of that act will not long be regarded as sacred either. To put it crassly, if sex is cheap, life is cheap, and vice-versa, if life is cheap, sex is cheap. One would never casually, flippantly, or promiscuously end a human life; neither should one casually, flippantly, or promiscuously generate a human life. In other words, if we are to be consistently pro-life, then the act that generates life must be regarded as sacred. Furthermore, all that tends toward sexual expression outside of the sacred context of marriage must be forsaken, whether they be found in literature, cinema, television, fashion, or personal speech.
I’ve gotten a little ahead of myself, so let me back up and argue more comprehensively for 1) the sanctity of life; 2) the sanctity of the act that generates life; 3) that which must be forsaken if we are to be consistently and credibly pro-life.
Sanctity of life
First, is human life sacred? Does human life have a distinctive value and dignity that distinguishes it from lower forms of life, such as plant, insect, or animal life? Nearly everyone would answer this question in the affirmative. Even those “who wouldn’t kill a fly,” typically do, and without the least twinge of conscience.
Is this just “specicism” on our part, as avant garde ethicists call it, or is there some basis in reality for placing a higher value upon and demanding better treatment of human life?
It has to be admitted that on naturalistic principles alone there is no basis in fact for affirming a distinctive sanctity and dignity for human life. If we inhabit a world without God, then our claim to be special does look something like the inter-species equivalent of racism and sexism. We are, in fact (on the basis of this model), merely a more complex form of molecules existing in a world which has no reason or capacity for valuing complexity over simplicity.
But if we turn to the Bible as God’s word to humanity, we find a divinely established ethic of life. He declares the nature and worth of human beings.
We are set-apart from the animals from the beginning of creation.
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)
We alone bear the image of God. Because we do, innocent human life may not be destroyed, and those who do wantonly kill others must pay the ultimate price:
Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:6)
As bearers of the image of God, human life is endowed with a unique dignity and sanctity. This is the background to the 6th Commandment:
“You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13)
The New Testament assumes the principle of human sanctity and dignity throughout its ethical teaching, applying it even to how we speak to each other.
With (our tongue) we bless our Lord and Father; and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. (James 3:9,10)
James’ point is that we cannot claim to bless the God we cannot see and, at the same time, curse the likeness of God, which we do see in those around us. The image of God in man is the ethical basis for respectful treating of all human beings: we protect their lives, their health, their physical wellbeing, and treat all others with dignity and respect.
Jesus extends the principle of the sanctity of human life even to our thoughts. So important is it that we respect human life that our hearts must be rid of hatred, lest sin conceived in the mind lead to its actual expression in human relationships.
“You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.” (Matthew 5:21,22)
The principle of human dignity includes the unborn, since unborn human life cannot be anything other than human life. It is not mineral, plant, or animal life. The fetus’ genetic code is human, and its every molecule is human. It bears the image of God from conception to birth and throughout its life outside of the womb. It cannot be terminated, tampered with, or experimented upon without undermining the sanctity of all human life.
Sacred Sex
Second, if human life is sacred, then one cannot trivialize the act that generates new life. What is the biological meaning of sexual acts? They are the means by which new life is created. The sanctity of human life (the 6th Commandment) is the background to the 7th Commandment, and a host of other commandments, that restrict sexual expression. The 7th depends on the 6th. Because life is sacred sexual acts must be sacred. The wanton, careless, promiscuous generation of plant and animal life is apparently not a moral concern of God’s. Cats may have all the litters they want with all the partners they want, resulting in countless unwanted and uncared for kittens, if they so choose. Not so with humanity. What the 7th Commandment teaches is that marriage, that is, the permanent union of one man and one woman, is the only safe context within which human life may be generated, nurtured, and reared. Consequently it is the only context within which legitimate or sanctioned sexual relations may take place. Anonymous sex, casual sex, recreational sex, premarital sex, extramarital sex, all cheapen the potential product of the procreative act, the conceived child. These promiscuous sexual acts, in effect, say that human children are of such little value that they can be conceived, nurtured, and reared in any context, without mother or father or both. The 7th Commandment says just the opposite. Human life is of such importance that it may only be conceived, nurtured, and reared within the permanent context of committed marriage. Because human life is sacred, all sexual expression must be restricted to the relatively safe context of marriage.
This principle of “sacred sex,” as we put it, is so vital that Jesus addresses our thought life respecting it, as he did respecting life itself. It is crucial that our thoughts be pure lest sin conceived in the mind lead to sin expressed by the body.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell.” (Matthew 5:27-30)
Lust must be “nipped in the bud,” as the expression goes, lest sexual urges be expressed outside of marriage and one places one’s eternal soul at risk. Jesus does not hesitate to hang the risk of hell’s torments over our heads. The marital bond is sacred and, because it is, divorce must be restricted as well. Jesus goes on immediately to say:
“And it was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31,32)
We may surmise that one reason (among the many) why divorce is forbidden is the value of maturing human life. Human beings are of such worth that they must be reared in intact homes. Divorce subjects young image-bearers to a nurturing environment that is damaging to their development. Consequently, divorce must be discouraged and severely restricted.
Consistency
Are you convinced? Our argument is that because human life is sacred (the 6th Commandment), the sexual act that generates life is sacred (the 7th Commandment). Because human life is of great value, it must be conceived, nurtured, and reared in the God-ordained environment of permanent marriage. What are the implications of this principle? They are legion. Our third point is: Anything that would tend to undermine the sanctity of human life or the act that generates human life must be avoided. This places us in direct and constant conflict with our culture which constantly and aggressively promotes promiscuity.
First, in the realm of fashion, Christians must dress modestly. Christians must be careful never to dress in a way that is sensuous or suggestive. The Apostle Paul puts it this way,
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness. (1 Timothy 2:9,10)
Dress “modestly and discreetly,” says the Apostle Paul. Wear clothing that is “proper,” not improper. Christian women should not wear clothing that is too tight or form fitting. They should not wear skirts that are too short, or wear necklines that plunge too low. Why? Because the distinctives of the female form stir up lust in men. Putting that form on sensual display increases the likelihood that sin imagined will lead to sin committed. We lose all credibility in the fight for life if we dress in a way that makes more likely the promiscuity that leads to the unintended pregnancy that leads to the abortion. This is not rocket science. We all know that there is a difference between dressing in a way that is feminine and discreet, as opposed to a way that is sensual and provocative. If we believe in the sanctity of all human life, including unborn human life, we will dress modestly.
Second, regarding visual and auditory media, Christians must avoid all images, music, language, and lyrics that stir up lust. We must be vigilant to avoid cultural forms that break down inhibitions, which are likely to promote the sinful thoughts that lead to sinful acts, or are likely to break down the will’s resistance to those acts. We lose credibility as a pro-life community if we choose as entertainment for ourselves and our children sensual and promiscuous shows, programs, movies, concerts, CD’s, DVD’s. To be blunt: TV cannot be watched, the radio and CD’s cannot be listed to, cinema cannot be enjoyed, except highly selectively. Why? Because we cannot be part of endeavors which cheapen sexual acts, which in turn cheapen the value of human life. We cannot say life is sacred, on the one hand, and then on the other allow ourselves to be entertained by and poisoned by those that cheapen the act that generates human life. Those who are pro-life must forsake this amoral and immoral culture to a degree that we have not been willing to up to this point. Otherwise our entertainment choices shout to the world that we are not serious about being pro-life, not if we cannot be disciplined about forsaking as “entertainment” the glamorizing of the immorality that makes the abortions “necessary” in the first place. Job “made a covenant” with his eyes “not to look lustfully at a girl” (Job 31:1). The Apostle Paul says our minds are to dwell on the pure and honorable (Philippians 1:9). We must be more serious about doing the same.
Third, in the realm of speech, Christians must avoid all intimate or suggestive language, double entendre, and “off-color” jokes. The Apostle Paul says,
But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. (Ephesians 5:3,4)
The Apostle Paul, in this passage, connects immorality and filthy, silly and coarse speech. Again he says,
for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. (Ephesians 5:12)
There are things that should not be talked about, certainly not with anyone but one’s spouse. Talk, jokes, discussions, etc. regarding intimate things break down our inhibitions, our natural sense of shame, our natural reserve. The worldly-wise use “dirty talk” intentionally to do this very thing, to begin to dismantle inhibitions. What one can’t talk about one is unlikely to do. There are short steps, however, from thinking, to discussing, to doing. If we are credibly pro-life, we will guard the purity of our speech so as to guard the purity of our lives, so as to guard the sanctity of life.
What we are saying, in summary, is that Christians must limit all sexual expression to marriage. Anything that tends to break down sexual moral discipline must be forsaken. I do not think that I exaggerate for one moment. Jesus said that we are to take extreme measures in avoiding lust, cutting off the offending hand and plucking out the offending eye (Matthew 5:27-30). His images are hyperbole, of course, but they do indicate the most extreme action on our part to avoid sexual sin. Forsake and abandon whatever starts you down that road. Young people, determine to enter marriage with your virtue untarnished. Married people, determine to remain faithful throughout your marriage, and to remain committed to your marriage as long as you live. We cannot credibly claim to be pro-life if we are undermining the God-ordained institution in which sacred human life is to be conceived and nurtured.
To be consistently pro-life requires that one be consistently pro-marriage, and consistently anti-everything that tends to undermine marriage as the sole context within which human sexual expression is to occur. Only if we in the pro-life community clean up our own act, only if we live morally chaste lives, can we expect the world to take us seriously.
We do not retreat from the gospel when we take time to discuss our ethical principles. Have we shown disregard for the sanctity of human life, perhaps even participating in an abortion? Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, even the foremost of all (1 Timothy 1:14,15). Have we shown disregard for the sanctity of marriage? Do we need to repent of thoughts, words, entertainment choices, and deeds that have cheapened the procreative act? Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more (Romans 5:15,20). It is only when we face our failures that the gospel shines its most glorious rays of mercy and forgiveness into our hearts, and the doors for further service open most widely.
“Human Nature and Law”
ROMANS 1:18-32
January 21, 2007
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
“Who are you to impose your morality on us?” snarled an angry radio talk show host, repeating a question that is asked a thousand times a day. The assumption behind the question is that moral choices are entirely a matter of personal choice and preference. The pervasiveness of moral relation is well known and frequently lamented in our circles. Less understood is the assumption that goes with it, that is, that nothing can be said inherently to be suitable or appropriate to the dignity of human beings because human nature itself cannot be known. “What is man?” the Psalmist asks (Psalm 8:1). “We don’t know,” the contemporary world answers. Consequently all options for man are open.
I was going to entitle this message “Man’s Nature and Law. But I knew that my title would be perceived as politically incorrect. Many would be more offended by my use of “exclusive language” than in the subject to be explored. I take this observation as a sign of the depths of silliness to which our civilization has descended. The use of the exclusive term “man” rather than an inclusive term like “humanity” or “persons,” would immediately close the ears of those with tender social consciences and end the conversation (though do note the abrasive “man” attached to “hu” and “sons” attached to “per,” leading me to suggest to un-amused feminists that we need to start calling ourselves “hupers”).
But now I’m getting sidetracked, so back to the point. Behind the title is the observation that previous generations of Americans and Europeans enforced “Christian” moral teaching because they were convinced that human nature could be known. They believed that both Scripture and nature teach what man is. We can know, they reasoned, what is suited to human nature, or compatible with human nature, and therefore right for human beings. Similarly we can know what is degrading to human nature and, consequently, ought to be prohibited, since no one ought to be subjected to that which dehumanizes. There were always gray areas that were debated. But the main outlines of the discussion were agreed upon.
Harmony between the revelation of God in nature and the revelation of God in Scripture is in fact the Bible’s own view. The Apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is that humanity can know the truth of both God and morals through nature. Regarding God:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
Regarding morals, note his argument from nature:
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Romans 1:26,27)
The “unnatural” is identified with the “indecent’ and the “degrading.” He said similar things a few sentences before these:
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. (Romans 1:24)
“Lust” in the heart leads to immorality or “impurity” so that their bodies are “dishonored.” That which is unnatural and immoral is also “degrading” and “dishonor(ing)” for its participants. In verse 28 he says further that a “depraved mind” leads them “to do those things which are not proper.”
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, (Romans 1:28)
For a mode of conduct to be not “proper” is for it to be unsuited or unfit for human beings, or, in a word, unnatural. “Does not even nature itself teach you?” the Apostle Paul asks elsewhere (1 Corinthians 11:14). Yes, it does teach us. In fact, the Apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is that one doesn’t need a Bible to know that homosexual acts are morally wrong––nature reveals it. One might call it the argument from anatomy. Nature’s design shows us how our body parts are meant to function, and in particular, how the parts designed to generate life were meant to be used. When used contrary to nature and placed where they do not belong is to pervert their function, reject the natural order, and rebel against nature’s God. It is s compounding of sin, for it requires a rejection of God’s revelation both in Scripture and nature.
This is true not only of homosexuality, but a whole host of sins listed by the Apostle:
being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; (Romans 1:29-31)
He then concludes:
and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:32)
“They know the ordinance of God,” he says. “All people know, by nature, that the comprehensive list of sins in the preceding verses are not only wrong, but deserve God’s judgment. There is still a natural law, and all people know it,” writes David VanDrunen, commenting on Romans 1 (A Biblical Case for Natural Law, Grand Rapids: Acton Institute, 2006, p. 18). Further along in his argument the Apostle Paul writes of pagans without the law of Moses:
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, (Romans 2:14,15)
Gentiles “not having the law” nevertheless know the law of God because God has written it “in their hearts,” their consciences “bearing witness” to the truth, condemning them or defending them. Again Van Drunen comments:
“This is a natural law because human nature itself proclaims this law and judges whether it has been kept; people are ‘laws unto themselves’ because their own nature declares it.” (my emphasis, p. 19)
Freedom
The American system never envisioned unfettered human freedom. The founders and their descendants did not mean to create a world in which consenting adults could do whatever they might agree to do. They understood that human corruption is such that individuals and groups might agree to do that or be pressured into doing that which was an affront to the dignity of any human being. Consequently they outlawed prostitution, polygamy, pornography, public nudity, abortion, and sodomy because they were convinced that such behavior is inherently degrading to its practitioners, who often were seen as victims. Another way of saying this is to say that they could not imagine that any sane person, or any person free from desperate personal circumstances, or any person not overcome by soul-destroying greed, would voluntarily agree to sell his or her body, agree to share a bedroom with a second or third wife, agree to strip naked and pose or perform sexual acts for cameras or audiences, agree to kill their unborn child, or agree to sodomize or be sodomized. People are at times overcome by these corrupting afflictions and influences and consent to do the unthinkable. Sometimes they are even convinced, or convince themselves, to murder and rape. Yet society rightly prohibits them from acting on their impulses. Why then does self-degrading behavior persist? We can elaborate several reasons.
1. Mental incompetence. While on a mission trip to Peru I witnessed an older woman walking down the street with the bottom half of her dress torn away, leaving herself exposed. She seemed oblivious. Those who saw her felt pity. Why? Because we instinctively knew her to be humiliating or degrading herself. She was obviously mentally incompetent. Who else would shame oneself in this way except someone who was mentally deranged? Answer: no one with a clear mind. Those with clear minds do not publicly disrobe, do not perform in pornographic media, do not kill their unborn, or engage in homosexual acts. Only the fog of a sick mind could overcome one’s natural defense against moral degradation.
2. Desperation. Strippers, porn “stars,” prostitutes, and women who abort their children are often driven to do so by financial desperation. They perceive that they have no alternatives. So they sell their bodies or destroy their children to avoid poverty or ensure survival. It is interesting that as actresses become more successful they become less and less willing to disrobe. The inherent shame of public nudity is not dissipated by frequency of experience, but only, it would seem, by increasing financial security. What else but fear, insecurity, or despair could persuade one to offer one’s body to lecherous men, bare one’s body before a world of viewers, or destroy one’s unborn child?
3. Exploitation. Sometimes the powerful are able to provide sufficient financial or vocational incentives, or perhaps social recognition or advancement, to persuade the weak, needy, or vulnerable to prostitute themselves. This reason is closely associated with the preceding, except the motive for consenting is more greed than despair. Secretaries are persuaded to become mistresses, junior partners are persuaded to have affairs, girlfriends are persuaded to abort their child because of an offer that can’t be refused. The powerful are able to make the “payoff” so great that the natural resistance of the weak is overwhelmed. Most people will do anything if enough money is involved. Yet should everything be legal? Should we allow, for example, people to sell their organs, an extra kidney for example, if the price is right? Should society allow consenting adults to participate in Gladiatorial Games leading to death if they are willing to do so, having been made willing by the dream of great wealth? or fame? Only the mentally incompetent, the desperate, the oppressed (or greedy) would voluntarily engage in such behavior. Consequently a just and compassionate society would legally protect the exploited ones from the perversion or persuasion of the powerful. A just and compassionate society would understand what man is, would understand what degrades man, and would legally protect the weak from the dehumanizing exploitation of the strong.
Instead our political discourse is dominated by the language of “rights.” Freedom for “consenting adults,” disregard for “victimless crimes,” and the right to do what I want “in the privacy of my own home” are the core concerns of our society. Popular media indulges benign portrayals of prostitutions (“Pretty Woman”), homosexual romance (“Brokeback Mountain”), and even glamorizes the lives of strippers and porn “stars.” Some have even begun to speak of “sex-industry workers” and have contemplated unionization. We are normalizing that which is our shame. We no longer seem to know what man is or care about what humiliates, degrades, and dehumanizes him. Consequently we are no longer able to protect the weak or ourselves from these assaults on human dignity.
Social Schizophrenia
In truth, we know better. Society still will not allow consenting adults to mutilate each other or kill each other. Society will not allow two people to voluntarily establish a slave-master relationship, complete with shackles and chains. Society will not allow a storeowner to turn a customer away from the lunch counter merely because of the color of his or her skin. We still have some sense of what is sick, humiliating, or degrading. Ironically the only group that still employs nature-based moral terminology is the feminist movement. Feminists regularly speak of pornography as objectifying women, as turning women into playthings, into objects that exist for the gratification of men. They speak of this as degrading and dehumanizing for women. The problem is, the feminists cannot answer the question of “why” it is dehumanizing. If all the players in the porn game are consenting adults, why not? Pagan feminists have no answer to that question because they will not acknowledge that human nature can be known and that certain behavior inherently degrades and dehumanizes, while other behavior is fit and apt for human beings.
A preview for a popular show was broadcast during a football game a couple of weeks ago in which a woman in her underwear was to be seen climbing atop a man in an office into which a group of unsuspecting co-workers were entering. My thought: this is animalistic. These are the copulating practices of animals who have no self-control, who wear no clothes, and who know no shame. For the creators of the show it was meant to be funny. Apparently for average Americans it is thought to be funny too. For those who know what man is, it is degrading for all who are concerned: the man, the woman, the writers, the cameramen, and the audience.
Public Moral Environment
Alas, we are dismissed as prudes. But our concerns are more profound than typically realized. As the feminists have recognized, what dehumanizes one dehumanizes all because we inhabit a common social space. We all breathe the same social air and walk the same social landscape. When the threshold of degradation lowers, that degradation spreads and alters our common environment. A modern-day Rip Van Winkle, who fell asleep in the 1950’s and awakened in 2000, would be astonished at the commonplace violent, vulgar, brutal, even animalistic images by which we are surrounded. We are assaulted by sensuous images on billboards as we drive down the street, by provocative scenes on the television as commercials interrupt our game-watching, by enticing pop-up invitations as we maneuver on the internet. The normalizing of dehumanizing behavior has cheapened the value of all of our lives. Privacy issues are never quite so simplistically private as some would suggest.
What is man? There can be no more serious question. Yet our society doesn’t know the answer. What degrades and dehumanizes man? Our society doesn’t seem to know that either. The general public has been disarmed by the language of “rights” and “freedom,” and public life is morally at sea, drifting towards a disaster, brought on by a morally degraded, dehumanized, and desensitized citizenry. Consequently one of the tasks of the church today is to remind the world of the dignity and sanctity of all human life. We have a “prophetic” responsibility to speak to our society. What is man? He is made in the image of God. He relates primarily not downward with the animals, but upward, as the Psalmist reminds us, having been made “a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:7,9; cf. Psalm 8:5). Are we thereby imposing our sectarian moral values? No, we ask our countrymen with the Apostle, “doesn’t even nature teach you” these things (1 Corinthians 11:14). And does your conscience not bear witness to the truth of what we say (Romans 2:14,15)? As neighbors we should be careful to treat others with dignity and respect. The way that we treat our neighbors should demonstrate our respect for the sanctity of human life. As citizens we should work to protect both the weak and our common public life from the vulgar and crude, and prohibit that which dehumanizes and degrades our fellow-citizens. Our public laws should reflect the dignity and sanctity of all human life by what they allow and disallow, by what they encourage and discourage.
Posted in Articles