A message delivered from the passage Acts 18:24, Mighty in the Scriptures.

An article written at Reformation21.

Introduction
WITHOUT QUESTION THE abortion controversy is the moral issue of our day. Because it deals with the critical issues of life and death, how the controversy is resolved is the fundamental question we face as a nation.

January 22, l973, the U.S. Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion on demand in America. The decision distinguished between each trimester, restricting abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters to cases where the health of the mother is threatened. However, because “health” was defined loosely enough to include psychological health as well as family and social considerations, the reality in America is abortion-on-demand up to the day of birth.

Since l973 over 30 million abortions have been performed in America. One in four pregnancies is terminated by abortion at the rate of l.5 million per year. There are few families that have not been touched by it. Each one of us is likely to know someone who, in the midst of troubling circumstances, made the painful decision to terminate her pregnancy.
The question that faces the church is forced onto us by the 6th Commandment and the Christian understanding of the sanctity of human life. God calls the church to the aid of the weak and helpless, to be their help and defender. Since Scripture regards unborn life as human life, we cannot but take up their cause and speak for those who have no voice and cannot defend themselves. But before we proceed it may be helpful to clarify that this, indeed, is what the issue is all about.

The abortion debate, more often than not, resembles the proverbial two ships passing in the night. This perhaps is inevitable. In many ways, abortion is an issue which cannot be debated. One is either for killing the unborn or against it. The pros and cons, insofar as they avoid this single central question, beg the question. Our passing ships are surrounded by schools of “red herrings,” often touching our sympathy and interest but, finally, irrelevant to resolving the dispute. Let me attempt to express what the debate is not about and then re-focus on its central concern.

What The Abortion Debate Is Not About
 
 
1.   It is not a debate about freedom of “choice.” Joseph Sobran recently suggested the following scenario in his nationally syndicated column. Let's imagine proponents of slavery defending their position by arguing, “Please understand, we are not pro-slavery. We do not think that slave-owning should be mandatory for white people. We just think that the question is complex. It is a difficult issue. Slavery should remain one of several options, an alternative. People should have a choice as to whether they will own slaves or not.” What is the problem with this argument? It is, of course, an extreme case of begging the question. It overlooks the issue at stake which is the rights of the third party involved, the slaves.
This is exactly our view of the cry for “choice.” It begs the question of the nature of the third party, the fetus, whose existence depends upon the choice being made. It assumes that the fetus is not human, the very issue in question. “Pro-choice” has a nice ring to it, especially when compared with the opposite, “anti-choice.” But, if we step back, analyze the debate and realize that the question being begged is not resolved, then we will quit talking about “choice” and begin to talk about the fetus. If fetal life is human life, the debate about choice ends immediately. After all, we do not offer harried parents the right to choose to terminate their two year olds, at least not until we determine that they are not human. If fetal life is human life then there is no choice to be made.

2.   It is not a debate about women's rights, or about a woman's “right to do with her body whatever she pleases.” First of all, we deny that any one has the right to do with his body whatever he pleases. One may not mutilate oneself. Suicide is still illegal in most of the country, and should be. Life is a gift which God gives, and no one has any absolute “right” to do with it whatever he wishes.

But, more serious than this, here, too, the question as to the nature of the unborn is being begged. The “woman's right to her body” argument assumes that the fetus is part of the woman's body which she, then, has a right to eliminate. Leaving aside the question of whether or not a woman or a man has the right to lop off unwanted appendages, the fetus is not a part of the woman's body. It is foreign tissue and one day her body will naturally reject it. At conception it has its own genetic code, at 3 weeks it will have its own heart beat, at about a month and a half it will have its own brain waves. We answer this argument, quite simply, “It is not your body!” Yes, the woman's body must carry and bear the child. But if we are right in our view of the unborn, a woman's rights and choices must be exercised prior to conception since, to paraphrase an old saying, her rights end where the fetal nose begins.  If fetal life is human life, this argument begs the question since one's personal rights may never be allowed to terminate the rights, much less the existence, of another.
3.   It is not a “religious issue,” or a matter of one side imposing its religion on the other side. We say it is no more a “religious” issue than any other public policy decision. We will only grant that it is a religious issue if others will grant that all public policy, indeed all law, is religious. How is this so? All law arises from, and gives expression to, the values of a people. But values ultimately are unprovable and must be taken by faith. One cannot prove that human life is sacred or, for that matter, that marriage or private property is sacred. These values must be taken by faith and so, by faith, we believe and legislate against murder, adultery, and theft.  Law is inherently religious. To single out anti-abortion laws, as such, is a red-herring.

4.   It is not a matter of the wrongful imposition of morality. Again, all law imposes morality. For example, what if Joe Bloggs wants to open a cafeteria in which no blacks will be served. Can he? Does he have the right to choose not to serve blacks? No, not in America in the l980's. We have laws against such discrimination, and should, because it is contrary to our nation's values. Can Joe pay a woman half of what he pays a man to do the same job?  No, that conflicts with our values too. In fact, America loves enforcing morality with coercion. We compel our citizens to participate in Social Security and all manner of charitable designs without any choice in the matter whatsoever. What amazes us is that the “pro-choice” movement, loaded as it is with people who have been using the state's club to compel civil rights and women's rights and care for the poor, now balk when it comes to protecting the unborn. Again, I believe the question is being begged. Surely, one ought not to have any reservation about stopping abortion and imposing an anti-abortion morality if fetal life is human life. Morality is, should be, and cannot but be legislated.

5.   The abortion debate is not about a constitutional right to abortion.  Berkeley law Professor John Noonan said of Roe v. Wade and its companion decision, Doe v. Dolton, that together they “may stand as the most radical decisions ever issued by the Supreme Court.” Chief Justice Rehnquist considers it an exercise of “raw judicial power.” Why? Because it created a right to abortion out of thin air and in doing so overthrew abortion restrictions in all 50 states. Its division of the pregnancy into trimesters is arbitrary legally and medically. The idea of a constitutional right to abort preborn human life not only begs the same old question concerning the nature of fetal life but, frankly, does not exist.

However, not only do the abortionists insist there is such, they allow it to override other important rights. Should a father have some right to the child that has been conceived? The abortionists say no, and maintain that a woman may destroy a couple's preborn child without the knowledge or consent of the father. Should teenagers be set upon by abortionists without the knowledge or consent of their parents? Abortionists maintain they should. Your teenage daughter, who cannot have her ears pierced without parental permission, can undergo a procedure conducted by a total stranger which, because it destroys what we all agree would one day have become a baby, has more than ordinary potential to leave physical and emotional scars for life. What has become of the right, indeed duty, of parents to protect their children? Should abortion be used as a form of birth control? Should a woman should be able to have an abortion because it is bikini season? The “abortion rights” advocates oppose any restrictions upon abortion whatsoever, and are militant in their defense of the right to destroy unborn life at the whim of the mother.

6.   The abortion debate is not about “compassion” for those now living.  This is one of the more pronounced and effective red herrings. Do women with unwanted pregnancies face extreme difficulties? Of course they do. I understand that U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, a man not otherwise known for his moral insight, recently said that the pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth. Comments like this show a total ignorance for the work being done by the those opposed to abortion. Thousands of crisis pregnancy centers, homes for pregnant girls, and homes for unwed mothers have been started in just the last 20 years all across this nation. Tens of thousands of children have been adopted. The pro-life movement has truly put its money where its mouth is. While compassionate toward those with unwanted pregnancies and eager to help, the line that is drawn by the pro-life movement is a reasonable one. It simply says, whatever you must do, you cannot kill your baby. To obscure this point with talk of compassion for the mother and the future unwanted child is to raise a cynical red herring (as though the solution to being unwanted is to be dead) and begs the question once more. If the pro-life position is right then surely we cannot identify “compassion” with the destruction of the unborn.

7.   Finally, the abortion debate is not about when life begins. George Will called the claim that we cannot know when life begins a “silly” argument, and he is surely right. We all know when life begins. Dr. Hymie Gordon, chief geneticist of the Mayo Clinic, may speak for the medical community in saying, “It is an established fact that human life begins at conception.” Also, Harvard University's Prof M. Matthews-Roth says, “It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception.” From the point of conception, from the point the female egg and male sperm unite, there is formed a distinct, unique, human life. It is not the life of the mother. It is not a part of the father. It has a complete, unique, never to be repeated genetic code, and a complete complement of 46 chromosomes. As already noted, within l8 to 25 days it has a heartbeat. At 45 days it has brain waves. At 8 weeks it has fingerprints, a fully formed structure, and all its organs are present. At 9-10 weeks the child can squint, swallow, and move its tongue. At l2-13 weeks it sucks its thumb, recoils from pain, drinks the amniotic fluid and kicks.  Fifty percent of all abortions occur after the 8th week, at which point Lennart Nilsson, in his book, A Child Is Born, (which, by the way, is not a pro-life tract and is warmly commended by the Journal of the American Medical Association) says, “Everything that will be found in the fully developed human being has now been established” (p. 71). Over l2,000 abortions per year are performed between the 6th and 9th month when the fetus is fully viable.

One may wish to argue as to when the fetus is a “person,” or when “ensoulment” occurs but these, to me, are unresolvable abstractions and just more red herrings. Whatever you wish to call the result of human conception, it is human: it is not animal, it is not plant, it is not mineral. If it is just “matter,” it is human matter. If it is just “tissue,” it is human tissue.  It has never existed before, it will never exist again. It is undeniably distinct, irrepeatable, independent, living human life. If we are to destroy such then surely the burden of proof lies with those who would claim that this form of human life is not sacred and worthy of full protection. If we are to err, let us err on the side of caution!
What The Abortion Issue Is About
 
THOSE WHO OPPOSE abortion could raise their own set of red herrings, such as the implicit racism of some of the pro-abortion discussion (it cuts down on the numbers of children of undesirable races being born), the fate of the millions of women suffering from post-abortion syndrome, and what one author has called “the averted gaze of liberalism,” the matter of fetal pain and the brutality of abortion procedures which burn or dismember the unborn. Instead, we'll go on to the central concern. The issue comes down to this. Is it legitimate to kill unborn, developing human life? The asking of the question ought to answer it. We may speak of “terminating a pregnancy,” or whatever other sanitized euphemism we may wish to use, but the reality is the killing of preborn human life, life which differs from ours only in the length of time it has been alive and received nutrition. All the conceptus needs is time, nutrition, and a favorable environment to become a mature adult. Our position is that all human life is sacred whether it is developing, mature, deteriorating or dying. Further, all human life is to be given legal protection.

Our faith commitment (both sides must make “faith” commitments, since the sanctity or non-sanctity of unborn human life is ultimately unprovable) arises from the Bible from which we, and all of Western Civilization, have gotten the notion of the sanctity of human life. The Bible is clear in its defense of all human life, especially that of the weak, the widow, the orphan, the defenseless. Who is more defenseless than the child within the womb? Yet, today there is no more dangerous place in America to live. Rather than “beg” this question, however, let us examine the Biblical data. The Bible teaches the sanctity of unborn human life in three ways.

The Biblical Testimony
1.   By teaching that all human life is sacred. This is an obvious point to anyone even vaguely familiar with Biblical teaching. This is clearly the meaning of the 6th Commandment, the prohibition of murder (Ex. 20:l3). Human life, unlike insect or animal life, may not be wrongfully destroyed. Why?  Because it alone is in the “image” of God, and therefore sacred. This is explicitly taught in Genesis 9:6, where God says to Noah in the wake of the violence that led to the flood,

“Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. For in the image of God He made man.”

Because man is made in God's image, the wrongful taking of human life requires the ultimate penalty. Human life is of such value that its wanton destruction must be avenged through loss of life. All human life is in the image of God, and therefore sacred.

2.   By teaching that unborn life is human life. Among the many texts to which we could look two stand out.

      i) Psalm l39 has as its prominent theme God's personal knowledge of us. In vv. 7-l6 the Psalmist traces that knowledge to its extremes: “If I ascend to heaven, Thou art there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there,” and so forth. In v. l3 he traces God's knowledge of him to his embryonic beginnings:

 For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb.
God's creative work in the womb began with the “inward parts,” the kilyah, defined by the standard Hebrew dictionary (Brown, Driver & Briggs’ Hebrew & English Lexicon of the Old Testament.) as the “seat of emotions...character,” and by Driver as the “inward man.” It is what makes man, man (Ps 7:9; 26:2; 73:21). What is first formed in the womb is the fundamental element of the personality, thus, “Thou didst weave me.” Our personal history, the history of us as distinct persons, begins in the womb at the beginning of fetal development. He continues:

My frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret and skillfully wrought...Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance (“unformed body”-NIV); and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.

Notice the Psalmist numbers among his allotted days those when he was still “unformed substance” (golem), a word which refers to the “unformed embryonic mass” (Hengstenberg). Notice also the personal pronouns. “I” was made in secret; it was “my” substance; they were days ordained for “me.” One's human existence begins not at birth, but in the womb, in the very beginning stages of development. If this were the only text in all of the Bible that had anything at all to say about unborn human life it would be enough to compel us to respect the humanity of the fetus and protect its development.

      ii) Psalm 51 is believed to have been written in the aftermath of David's sin with Bathsheba. The dominant theme of the Psalm is David's personal experience of sin and his moral accountability to God. We read of “my transgression” (vv.l,3), “my iniquity” (vv. 2,3,9), and “my sins” (vv. 3,9).  He traces back his experience of sin to conception:

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me (v. 5).
The NIV translates even more clearly, “Surely I have been...sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” We may remind ourselves that the non-living do not stand in any moral relationship to God and neither do the non-human. Only human beings are ever “in sin;” inanimate objects and animals never are. Thus the humanity of the unborn is affirmed from the point of conception. “I was a sinful human being from the time I was conceived in my mother's womb,” the Psalmist is saying. As such, we must conclude, his life is to be afforded the same respect and protection that all other human life is given.

These two examples illustrate the consistent Biblical perspective. Throughout the Bible the personal history of various individuals is traced back to the womb. One may review, for example, Job 3:3 (Job encompasses the whole of his existence by referring back to his conception); Jer l:5 (“before you were born I consecrated you”), Lk l:41,44 (John leaps in the womb); Gen 25:22 (Jacob and Esau struggle in the womb), etc. Fetal life is clearly regarded as human life, superintended by God, accountable to God, and part of a continuum of existence which begins at conception and ends at death.

3.   By providing legal protection for the unborn. Even if one were still not convinced that the Bible teaches full humanity and sanctity of unborn human life it is undeniable that it does extend legal protection to life within the womb. Exodus 2l:22-25 envisions a situation in which two men are struggling and accidentally strike a pregnant woman.

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child  so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further  injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband  may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.  But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint  as a penalty life for life...”

The above NASV translation, as well as the RSV, envision a “miscarriage” resulting. The consequence? A fine must be paid for the loss of the child and, if there is any injury to the mother, it is “a life for a life.” What is impressive about this is that it is defined as accidental and, normally, an accidental killing would not have resulted in the forfeiture of one's life (e.g. Ex 21:l3,l4). But here, even the accidental harming of a pregnant woman brings the provisions of the lex talionis to bear: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Ex 21:23-25). Thus the Scripture is placing a strong wall of legal protection around the pregnant woman. An extraordinary value is being placed upon her life and, as a consequence, the child developing within her!

Most modern scholars agree that the NASV translation is a poor one and would follow the NIV, making the case for protecting the unborn even stronger. The NIV translation envisions not a miscarriage but a live birth: “she gives birth prematurely,” and, in this rendering, follows more closely the literal meaning of the Hebrew (lit. “her children go forth,” a phrase regularly used of childbirth; cf. Gen 21:8; 30:26; etc.). The consequence? The text refers to “no further injury.” If only the mother were intended by this phrase, it would say, “no further injury to her” (Heb. lah ending). This is omitted and, hence, the reference is indefinite. It seems that the aim is to include both mother and child. The meaning is, then, if neither mother nor child is injured, one still pays a fine! If either mother or child is injured, it is “life for a life.” Thus, truly exceptional protection is being given to both mother and developing child. So highly valued are they both that the accidental killing of either results in the forfeiture of life. And this is when the killing is accidental! It is ludicrous, even cynical, to think that the Bible can be used to defend abortion. The Scriptures uniformly view the death of the unborn with horror, even when accidental, and would find their intentional killing unimaginable.
 
The Testimony of the Church
OPPOSITION TO ABORTION is no novel doctrine. From the very beginning the church has always and everywhere opposed abortion. The early church distinguished itself from the Roman world in its opposition to the then widespread legal practice of abortion as well as infanticide. Documents from as early as the 2nd Century A.D. strictly forbid abortion, saying, “Thou shalt not destroy thy conceptions before they are brought forth,” (The Epistle of Barnabas, l4:11); “You shall not slay a child by abortion,” (The Didache; cf. Clement's Pedagogus and Tertullian's The Problem of Abortion).  Similarly, Jews of both the Alexandrian and Palestinian schools condemned abortion as contrary to the law of God, the former as well as some of the latter agreeing that the fetus had legal personhood. The Protestant Reformers, Luther and Calvin, strongly opposed it, the latter calling it an “abomination...to kill a fetus in the womb who has not yet been brought into the light.” The Presbyterians declared in l869,

“that we regard the destruction by parent of their offspring, before birth, with abhorrence, as a crime against God, and against nature.”

Among more modern scholars, Karl Barth said, “He who destroys germinating life kills a man.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer called the destruction of developing life “murder.” George H. Williams, Professor of Church History at Harvard Divinity School, summarizes the church's historic position in saying,

“Two thousand years of Jewish-Christian history maintain that the fetus is a person with the right to life.”

Only in the last two decades has this position begun to be challenged by those who profess to be Christians.
 
The Slippery Slope
SO THE QUESTION OF abortion forces us finally to this: what kind of people shall we be? The difference between civilization and barbarism is often a very thin line. Nat Hentoff, a writer for the normally radical New York newspaper, The Village Voice, wrote a series of articles in the fall of 1987 entitled “The ‘Small Beginnings’ of Death,” in which he warned that the strictures against killing human life are coming down, and the results are horrifying. He abundantly documents that what the right-to-lifers have been warning of for years is coming true. Once started, the circle of death will grow ever larger and will become, finally, unstoppable.

Henthoff cites the warnings of Leo Alexander, the American psychiatric representative at the Nuremburg Trials, who wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1949 an article entitled, “Medical Science Under Dictatorship.”  His essay was intended to serve as a warning to the United States as to what can happen when the sanctity of all human life is compromised, particularly by the medical profession. The first steps towards genocide are very short. He wrote,

Whatever proportion these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings.  The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitudes of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which the entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude towards the non-rehabilitable sick.

Dr. Alexander was “greatly disturbed,” according to Hentoff, by developments in the medical profession in the last several decades. After reading an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1984 he said to a friend, “It is much like Germany in the ‘20's and '30's. The barriers against killing are coming down.”

Alexander pointed back to 1920, long before Hitler arrived on the scene, to an “enormously influential” book that was published in Germany entitled Consent to the Extermination of Life Unworthy to Be Lived. Its authors were a distinguished psychiatrist (Alfred Hoche) and a prominent lawyer (Karl Binding). Their question was, “Are there human lives which have not value to society or to their bearer?” Their answer was a bold “yes.” When Hitler gave the first direct order for genocide it came under the guise of euthanasia to a medical profession already far down the road of killing, both in attitude and action. The Holocaust began with the killing of elderly, the chronically ill, the mentally deficient and the handicapped, including children. They were a burden on society, it was argued. They contributed nothing and the cost of their care was enormous. So off they went to killing centers in trucks labeled, “The Charitable Transport Company for the Sick” (the advocates of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia specialize in euphemisms). But, as Alexander pointed out, those trucks carried not only the “useless eaters,” as they were called, but also the principle of the sanctity of all human life.  They were the first 275,000 to be exterminated, a “dress rehearsal,” says Hentoff, for six million Jews and millions of others.
Many, many people scoff at these sorts of parallels.  We all tire of the endless comparisons with Hitler's Germany. But it should be remembered that Germany in the l920's and 30's was the most advanced nation in the world, providing leadership in virtually everything from science, liberal arts and industry, to music and the arts. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop warned in an address given to the American Academy of Pediatrics entitled, “The Slide to Auschwitz,” “I see the progression from abortion to infanticide, to euthanasia, to the problems that developed in Nazi Germany.”

This progression is inevitable because the lines drawn between protected and unprotected life are arbitrary. The development of human life is a continuum beginning at conception and continuing, if allowed, through birth, infancy, adolescence, and adulthood. Any line that is drawn across that continuum will be arbitrary and, therefore, unstable. If abortion is stopped at the end of the first trimester then what about 3 months plus one day? If it is stopped at the end of the second trimester, what about 6 months plus one day? If abortion is legal throughout the whole pregnancy then what about the day of birth? What about the week after birth? One shouldn't think for a moment that this is unthinkable. It is happening already, witness Indiana's infamous infant Doe case, a Downs Syndrome baby who was allowed to starve to death for no other reason than that it was mentally retarded. Neither should one think that this is an isolated incident. It happens with tragic frequency.  A l977 survey of pediatric surgeons found that three-fourths of their number would deny even their own Down's Syndrome infant corrective surgery to alleviate intestinal obstruction, instead, allowing the child to starve to death. More than three-fourths (76.8%) said they would acquiesce in a parent's decision to do the same. Leading ethicists such as Joseph Fletcher are saying, “It is reasonable to describe infanticide as post natal abortion...” (Human Life Review, Summer l982, p.l36). Francis Crick and James Watson, co-discoverers of the structure of D.N.A., have been so bold as to advocate a 3-day waiting period before a child is declared human. Millard Everett, in the book, Ideals of Life, said,

No child [should] be admitted into the society of the living who would be certain to suffer any social handicap - for example any physical or mental defect that would prevent marriage or would make others tolerate his company only from the sense of mercy.
Princeton University's late ethicist, Paul Ramsey, rightly pointed out that every argument which justifies abortion can also be used to justify infanticide. The killing, once started, will not stop.

A nation that destroys its unborn cheapens all human life and opens a Pandora's Box of horrors. It creates a mentality, an outlook, an ethic of death which eventually will destroy any civilization which embraces it. Shall we now perform experimentations on live, aborted fetuses? Shall we now use aborted fetal tissue for medical and cosmetic purposes? Shall we even cultivate and harvest fetal life in our laboratories, allowing them to grow and mature until their organs are ready to be transplanted for use by others? This is our “brave new world,” and it is just around the corner unless the American people draw back in horror and say, “Enough!”

Consider what has happened in this country in just a few short years. We have gone from no abortion to unrestricted abortion. The advocates of abortion have gone from justifying abortion as a necessary evil to defending it as a positive good, a fundamental human right. We have gone from killing unborn life to killing defective newborn life. Thus Mother Teresa's claim that, “there are two victims in every abortion. A dead baby and a dead conscience,” rings true. The conscience of the pro-choice community and perhaps the whole nation has been compromised, seared, and it has died. Since 97-99% of all abortions are not matters of life or death, are not related to rape or fetal defects, they are ultimately matters of convenience. For convenience sake we kill 1.5 million of the unborn annually, terminating 1 in 4 pregnancies. Four thousand are killed every day. 30 million have been killed since 1973. A whole generation has been destroyed because our nation has not been willing to bear the cost and disruption caused by children. This total misconstruing of values in the richest country in the world is what is so damning.

Walker Percy, in the opinion of many America's premier novelist, wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times on January 22, l988, in which he said,

Once the line is crossed, once the principle gains acceptance -- juridically, medically, socially -- that innocent human life can be destroyed for whatever reason, for the most admirable socio-economic, medical or social reasons -- then it does not take a prophet to predict what will happen next, or if not next then sooner or later. At any rate a warning is in order. Depending on the disposition of the majority and the opinion polls -- now in favor of allowing women to get rid of unborn and unwanted babies -- it is not difficult to imagine an electorate or a court ten years, fifty years from now, who would favor getting rid of useless old people, retarded children, anti-social blacks, illegal Hispanics, gypsies, Jews . . .
Why not? -- if that is what is wanted by the majority, the polled opinion, the polity of the time” (Human Life Review, Spring 1988).

Interestingly, the eminent author's letter was not published or even acknowledged by the Times. A follow-up letter from Mr. Percy was likewise ignored.

The media has its bias but, for the church, abortion is an issue which cannot be ignored. For the Christian church it is what Francis Schaeffer called, “the greatest moral test of the century,” and one which it dare not fail.

The great British journalist, Malcolm Muggeridge, has warned,

Our Western way of life has come to a parting of the ways; time's takeover bid for eternity has reached the point at which irrevocable decisions have to be taken. Either we go on with the process of shaping our own destiny without reference to any higher being than Man, deciding ourselves how many children shall be born, when and in what varieties, which lives are worth continuing and which should be put out, from whom spare-parts–kidneys, hearts, genitals, brain boxes even–shall be taken, and to whom allotted. Or we draw back, seeking to understand and fall in with our Creator's purpose for us rather than to pursue our own; in true humility praying, as the founder of our religion and our civilization taught us: Thy will be done.  

This is what the abortion controversy is about, and what the euthanasia controversy will be about when, as must inevitably happen soon, it arises. The logical sequel to the destruction of what are called “unwanted children” will be the elimination of what will be called “unwanted lives”--a legislative measure which so far in all human history only the Nazi Government has ventured to enact.

In this sense the abortion controversy is the most vital and relevant of all. For we can survive energy crisis, inflation, wars, revolutions and insurrections, as they have been survived in the past; but if we transgress against the very basis of our mortal existence, becoming our own gods in our own universe, then we shall surely and deservedly perish from the earth” (Human Life Review, Summer 1975).

**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.

One hundred and seventy years ago the first sanctuary on this site was completed. The building which stands here today is a near replica of that first one, destroyed by fire in l889, and rebuilt in 1892. The question which I would like to pose for our consideration is this: why did those responsible for this edifice build as they did? Why is the architecture as it is? Are there reasons for the arrangement of the stones?
"Architecture for churches is a matter of gospel," say Donald J. Bruggink and Carl H. Droppers, authors of Christ and Architecture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, l965).
Moreover,
"A church that is interested in proclaiming the gospel must also be interested in architecture, for year after year the architecture of the church proclaims a message that either augments the preached Word or conflicts with it" (p.l). 
The Independent Presbyterian Church of Savannah stands as a nearly perfect example of Protestant, and especially Reformed architectural design. The original architect of the first church on this site was John Holden Greene of Providence, R.I., designer of the First Congregational Church of Providence, a man trained in the New England Puritan style of church architecture. Everywhere one looks one sees structural reinforcement of the ecclesiastical heritage of the builders of this church, the heritage of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches.
 
The Reformation
At the time of the Reformation the Protestant leaders altered the architecture and furniture of the Roman Catholic churches which they inherited. Never were the changes merely matters of style. Statues were torn down, altars were replaced with tables, and pulpits were erected because of the theological convictions of the Reformers, and because they "were acutely conscious of the power of architecture and the constant message that it held for the people." "It might fairly be said," say Bruggink and Droppers, "that the Word of God challenged the architecture of Medieval Romanism, and the Reformed responded with an attempt to transform these inherited buildings into structures more suitable for biblical worship" (p. 2,3).
What kind of changes were made? We may begin with the focal point of the sanctuary. The fundamental theological statement that a church makes with its design begins there. What was to be central to sanctuary and, therefore, to the worship of the church? Gaze to the front of any church and you will quickly understand what that church is essentially about.
Let us, then, conduct a guided theological tour of this magnificent sanctuary. Though we have no surviving documents of the builders themselves, their work itself speaks volumes of the theological framework from which they built, and which we continue to embrace today.

Pulpit Versus Altar
Open the front doors of the IPC and walk down the center aisle and what do you see? The dominant feature of this building is unmistakably its remarkable pulpit. Why is there such a massive pulpit?
The early Reformers were convinced that the focal point was not to be the altar, as it was in the Medieval church and remains in Roman Catholic churches today, but the pulpit. This was accomplished in several different ways. Sometimes the pulpit was moved to the center, sometimes it remained on the side but was elevated and enlarged, sometimes a large sounding board was added, sometimes it was the seating of the people that was moved, to positions around the pulpit. The point in each case was to give the pulpit an enhanced prominence so as to make it the central architectural feature of the sanctuary, or at least of the seated congregation. When they built new churches, the Reformers and their successors built so-called "auditory churches," churches made for preaching and listening.
One should not think that in making these changes that the Protestants were introducing something novel. Central pulpits are found in the first formal church buildings, the basilicas of the third century. According to A.L. Drummond, in The Church Architecture of Protestantism, the Reformation's central pulpits "restored the real arrangement of the primitive churches." In the early basilicas as well as gothic churches before the ninth century, "there can be no doubt that the bishop always preached or exhorted, in the primitive times, from his throne in the centre of the apse..." (p. 206).
Still, we ask, why did they do it? Because they believed that the preaching of the word is the chief means of grace. Without slighting the sacraments, the Reformers, nevertheless, understood that the word must accompany them in order to illumine their meaning. Grace is mediated through the understanding. The word, then, is indispensable to the sacraments in a way in which they are not indispensable to the word. Calvin cites Augustine's claim that the word "makes" the elements a sacrament, and adds, "the right administering of the Sacrament cannot stand apart from the word" (Institutes 4:l4:4).
It was the Apostles who said that "faith comes from hearing the word of Christ" (Rom l0:17). Paul said, "God was well pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe" (l Cor l:21). It is the word of God that is "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword" (Heb 4:12). "Preach the word," Timothy, and with him all future generations of the church were charged (2 Tm 4:2). The Prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, the Apostles were all primarily preachers. Throughout the history of the church it has been when the preached word has received emphasis that the church has prospered. Architecturally, this priority should be evident. The pulpit should take the central place.
In addition, the large, central pulpit, such as you see in this sanctuary speaks eloquently of the Protestant principle of sola scriptura. The Reformers were anxious not ever to be found guilty, like Jesus said of the Pharisees, of "invalidating the word of God by your tradition" (Mk 7:13). Preaching is central to the life of the church because Scripture alone is authoritative. All matters of faith and practice are to be determined by the unerring, infallible word of God.
This is a point which today's wandering, microphoned, pulpitless preacher misses, and in doing so draws attention to himself, and his personal authority, which our forefathers would have found offensive. The preacher ascending the steps of IPC's great pulpit is greeted by a brass plaque which reminds him of his task: "Sir we would see Jesus." The design of IPC demands recognition of the primacy of preaching, and the prominence not of the preacher, but of the Scripture alone.

Altar Versus Table 
Accompanying this change came an altered form of Communion. As one looks around the sanctuary one might ask, "Where is the altar?" The answer is, there isn't one. The Reformation replaced altars with tables. The Lord's Supper is a meal, not a sacrifice, said the Reformers. Christ's presence is a spiritual presence with which we have "communion," not a physical presence which is re-offered in sacrifice upon an altar. Christ's sacrifice was once for all, sufficient for all, and never to be repeated (Heb 7:27; 10:10,12). Consequently an altar sends the wrong message. It calls into question the sufficiency of the cross of Christ. It creates the impression that His sacrifice must be repeated, or supplemented. Altars then were removed and replaced with common tables, which were placed to the side, or in the front, beneath the pulpit. The tables were cleared of everything not having to do with the meal (eg. candles, crosses), and anything suggestive of the enactment of a sacrifice. Through these changes the Reformers' conviction of sola gratia, sola fides, solo Christo, salvation by the grace of God alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, was given architectural expression.
Further, the tables were brought forward, and thereby made accessible and visible rather than remote, fenced off from the laity, and shrouded in mystery as were the altars. The family of God was symbolically being welcomed to the Lord's Table. The "priesthood of all believers," a cardinal Protestant doctrine was being affirmed.
How far forward were they brought? One quickly notices the size of the central aisle. Why is the aisle so wide? Because tables must go there! From the time of the Reformation until the 19th Century the practice in the Church of Scotland was actually to seat the people at long tables for the Lord's Supper. When this practice was first abandoned (for convenience sake), the General Assembly condemned the change, and only after the passage of many years was it finally accepted. Eventually the new, communion in the pews, completely supplanted the old practice. The strength of old way was its clear portrayal of the meaning of Communion: it is a meal to which all of God's people, clergy and laity, are equally welcome to come, and feed upon Christ by faith. For this reason, it continues to be observed in this manner at IPC.

Baptismal Font
Next one might notice the baptismal font. The baptismal font was moved from the door of the Medieval church to the front of the Reformed church. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration placed the efficacy of the sacrament in its right performance, apart from living faith, and had led to the practice of private baptisms. The Reformers brought the font to the "face" of the congregation, to be administered in the context of the living church, where all might see and hear (and believe!) as believers and their children were initiated into the body of Christ. There it stands, week after week, as a reminder of the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit, of our baptism into Christ's death, and our resurrection with Him to newness of life.
It is a "font" and not a pool because of the fundamental meaning of baptism. Baptism symbolizes the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is "poured out" upon the people of God, as Joel prophesied and Peter claimed was fulfilled at Pentecost (Joel 2:28ff; Acts 2:l7ff). We therefore pour water as a symbol of the outpouring, or baptism of the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:11; Mk l:8; Lk 3:l6; Jn l:33; Acts l:5; ll:l6; I Cor l2:13).
At this font both believers and their children are baptized. The Reformers and our builders believed in the privileged status of covenant children in the church. The promise made to Abraham, "I will be a God to you and to your children," was expressed in circumcision, by which male infants were initiated into the covenant community (Gen. l7:7ff). This promise was repeated by Peter at Pentecost, "This promise is for you and your children" (Acts 2:39), and receives expression in the initiation of infants into the covenant community through baptism. The architecture of IPC reflects our belief in the God of the covenant, the God who loves our children.
Thus, the worshiper in a Reformed church looks forward and sees symbols of the means of grace. At the center is the pulpit. It is flanked by the font and table. These God-ordained means of communicating Christ are, and should be alone visible.
Even the arrangement of the pews reinforces this architectural message. Look at the lay-out of the congregational seating. Do you see how the pews, both downstairs and in the balcony wrap-around the pulpit, font and table? The Reformers immediately and instinctively altered the pattern of congregational seating. No longer were the people to sit in parallel lines, gazing forward at mystery of priest and altar. Rather they saw the church as the "called out" and assembled people of God, gathered around the means of grace. Thus at IPC the wall pews are angled, and the side pews and balcony pews surround the pulpit on three sides. The people are thereby treated not as spectators of a special priesthood's performance, but as members of the family of God, in fellowship with Christ, and with one another, gathered before the symbols of Christ's presence.

Choir and Organ
Your next question might be, where is the choir and organ? To see them, one must walk into the center of the sanctuary and turn around. What are they doing back there?
The l6^th Century Reformers encountered the split chancel choir, a practice which dates to ll30 and the innovations of Anselm at Canterbury. Prior to this choirs sat toward the front of the sanctuary (the eastern end of the cathedral nave), but with the people. The Reformation moved the choir to the back balcony or lacking such, to the rear or side of the sanctuary, to a position they called a "singing pew." The purpose of this move was to shift emphasis from a "beautifully sung service" provided by a religious elite to congregational singing. Protestant choirs then, according to Bruggink and Droppers were, "primarily to assist the congregation in its singing" (p. 393). The best position for doing so was in the back. In addition, the choir was thereby identified with the congregation, not with the clergy, and was not given a clerical status. This practice was true of Reformation era churches and was provided for architecturally in the centuries that followed. It can be seen in the churches of Scotland and Holland, those built by Sir Christopher Wren following the great London fire (l669), and the Colonial churches in America. The rear choir-gallery was typical of all Protestant churches until the 19th Century.
Organs likewise, when retained, were left in the back of the sanctuary, where they had been for several centuries. There, they do not compete architecturally with the means of grace. Like the choir, the organ was to assist the congregation in its praise of God, a task best done from behind.
Why is it, then, that so few churches today are designed in a manner consistent with Reformation principles? First, it should be noted that many, if not most in Europe are. It is only American Protestants who have so completely lost sight of their heritage. Second, Americans tend to be nontheological, and have given little thought to the meaning of their architecture. Third, there are historical reasons.
The split-chancel choir was revived in Protestant churches through the influence of the Church of England's "high-church" Oxford movement of the mid-l800's. Its leaders provided for the return of the choir to the Medieval position between the people and the restored "altar." What is regarded by many as "traditional" Episcopal architecture was actually a l9th Century innovation, inconsistent with Protestant, and even Anglican practice for 200 years. But it was consistent with the Roman Catholic leanings of the Tractarians. This architectural fashion has been unthinkingly mimicked by others since, without regard for the displacing of the pulpit, the restoration of the altar, and the undesirable distance it puts between the people and the Lord's table.
In recent years a "theater plan" of choir placement has become popular in "low-church" circles, that is, the placement of the choir behind the pulpit, in tiers. This, too, is inconsistent with Protestant doctrine. When so placed, the choir, with, perhaps, the organ pipes, "becomes the most significant visual element in the front of the church." Bruggink and Droppers comment that this practice is less than a century old and that "throughout the prior nineteen centuries of Christ's Church the choir was placed in almost every position throughout the church room except above and behind the pulpit" (p. 395)! They go so far as to call it "choirolatry." It is, for the heirs of the Reformation, an unthinking challenge to the prominence that ought only be given to the pulpit, table, and font, as the symbols of the means of grace. Yet today this arrangement is found in the vast majority of American Protestant churches.
How has this come about? Bruggink and Droppers cite the testimony of Joseph Edwin Blanton, of "wide architectural and musical erudition," saying,
"It is the ...desire of congregations to be entertained, I believe, which has fixed, more or less, the location of the choir in the chancel" (p. 398).
They see a connection between the innovations of the high-church party and the low-church in this respect.
"In low-church Protestantism, the pulpit may be central, but the parishioner, like his highchurch counterpart, goes to church with the expectancy of the drama of the service, except that his drama is not one of ecclesiastical awe and mystery but of a performance by choir and minister in which the personalities involved are given the opportunity to play a larger part in relation to their function in the service" (p. 398). 
They trace this development to the late nineteenth century revivals, when preachers (such as Moody and Sunday) and choirs were viewed more as performers on stages than servants and worshipers of Christ. In less than l00 years this aberrant fashion has swept the field and become the norm among Protestants, and in so doing obscures the clear message communicated by the older Protestant architecture.
The IPC stands clearly on the side of the older tradition. The choir and organ are in the back, where they not only do not compete with the pulpit, but also send the clear message that they are there to worship God, not entertain the congregation.

Art and Symbols
Look around now at the interior of the sanctuary, not looking at any particular item, but taking it all in at once. What is missing? The Reformers removed most of the statues, art, and symbols from their churches. For them, the temptation toward idolatry, warned of in the 2nd Commandment, was too great to allow their continued presence. Worship, to be God pleasing, must be "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23,24), and must be unaided by any physical objects except those ordained by God. Our hearts must be moved by the Holy Spirit, not by beautiful art; by the beauty of holiness not the holiness of beauty. Since God had ordained only baptism and the Lord's Supper as external symbols of grace, no others could be permitted. Thus in the Protestant churches of Europe and Britain, and the Colonial churches of America, one will find a nearly complete absence of pictures, stained glass, candles, icons, symbols, crucifixes, and even crosses.
The Reformers spoke of the "regulative principle" of worship. The elements of true worship are those commanded by God, and those alone. It is not for man to devise new ways to worship. We are not to "add to nor take away from" His command (Deut l2:32). "The acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men...or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture," says the Westminster Confession of Faith (XXIII.l). Innovation has no place here. God alone determines how He is to be worshiped, and He communicates that manner of worship which pleases Him in His word. Their sanctuaries therefore were places of simple, unadorned beauty. The plain beauty of IPC is a reminder of the regulative principle, and the necessity of spiritual worship.

Elder's Seats 
Finally, come back to the pulpit and note the chairs placed beneath it. What are they doing there? Many of the Reformed churches added special seats, or an "elder's pew," for the session of the church. Ours is not a congregational/democratic form of government, where authority rests in the mass of the people. Nor is it a episcopal/hierarchical form of government, where authority rests in individual clergymen. Ours is a representative government, where the people elect their officers, but who, once elected, do have genuine authority. These elders are responsible for the discipline of the church, both in maintaining the purity of the doctrine preached, and the purity of the conduct of the membership. Therefore they were to be "on duty" on Sunday morning, actively fulfilling the duties of their office. Bruggink and Droppers comment:
"Truly, no church order has elevated the elder to a higher plane of responsibility than the Presbyterian. Where else has the elder been given the responsibility of oversight, not only of the conduct of the members of the Church, including fellow officers and ministers, but also of the preaching of the Word...Here the elders are to sit, with their Bibles and their Standards, exercising their responsibility for the right preaching of the Word" (p.339,340).
Thus even the Presbyterian form of church government received architectural expression. The elders were placed where they might listen to the doctrine preached, as well as observe the attentiveness of the congregation. In the Puritan churches of New England the officers of the church either poked with a stick or tickled with a feather those who dozed during the sermon. There is no evidence that this was ever done here (though the seats do face the congregation!), nor is it a practice that commends itself to us, but it does give an indication of the importance of the office of elder to the early Presbyterian churches. We continue to hold the office of elder in high esteem today.
While many churches give what Bruggink and Droppers call "a garbled account of the gospel" in their architecture, this is not so in the case of the founders and builders of the IPC of Savannah. It stand as a supreme example of a church that is Reformed according to the Scriptures. At the center is the Pulpit, the unambiguous focal point of the sanctuary, symbolic of the primacy of the preached word of God. At its side are the sacraments, symbolized by the font and table. Beneath are the elders, under the authority of the word, and yet responsible for right doctrine and practice. Together the three primary means of grace, administered by men ordained to do so, stand devoid of competitors. No choir, no organ, no organ pipes, no symbols. They are in the back, assisting the congregation in its praise of God, leaving the word and sacraments, the means by which Christ is communicated to sinners, stand unobstructed and undiminished before the eyes of God's worshiping people.

Marriage is a wonderful thing. Nearest thing to heaven, I think. This is why we find it difficult to imagine heaven without marriage (see Mt 22:23-33). The deepest, warmest, most passionate, and most enduring human love is marital love.

Yet marriage is not heaven. A bad marriage can be more like the other place. Even good marriages require work, by which I mean, the good in them does not always come easily. Why? One reason is: baggage. We bring lots of baggage into our marriages. Some of it is sinful. Other baggage is just what is common or customary for us and not for our spouse. Like what? I can suggest a few.


Daddy issues

First, there are daddy issues. Sometimes daddy was absent. This has left deep emotional needs, a yearning for daddy’s attention and affection, which gets transferred to one’s spouse. Insecurity, neediness, fear of neglect, clinginess, and need of approval can be characteristic as a result. One’s spouse can never do enough to overcome the insecurity.
Other times daddy was wrapped around his little girl’s finger. He spoiled her rotten. As a result, she is difficult, shall we say, to live with. No man will ever prize her and provide for her like he did. Her husband will never live up to her father. She continues to look to him to solve her problems and meet her needs, emasculating her husband in the process.


Mommy issues

Second, there are mommy issues. Sometimes mommy was overbearing. This has bred an unhealthy dependence. Mommy must be consulted about everything. Mommy’s approval of decisions is crucial, and her disapproval is feared. Rather than making decisions with my spouse, mommy is in the middle of the marriage calling the shots, dominating the homes of her offspring like she did her own.

Some mommies have crushes on their sons. They can never do too much for them, and their sons can do no wrong. Mommy has fussed over them, coddled them, cooked their favorite meals, and responded to their every whim. The poor girl who marries such a boy will never live up to his mother.


Sibling issues

Third, there are sibling issues. Sometimes conflict with siblings while growing up was constant and intense. Lingering bitterness about a cruel brother or a vindictive sister can poison the soul. Ironically, one can yearn at the same time for sibling favor and friendship. This is particularly the case with younger siblings in relation to older siblings. Either way, the enduring conflict is brought into the marriage and undermines family gatherings.
Jealousy among siblings also can be carried into a marriage. Joey was mom’s or dad’s favorite. Parental partiality was overt, unmistakable, and continues. This can become another root of bitterness that infects a marriage, or worse, a pattern that is repeated with one’s own children.


Family issues

Fourth, there are what we might generalize as family issues. Habitual family practices are another sort of baggage. This is particularly the case with problem solving and conflict resolution. Some families don’t solve problems. Conflict erupts, each one walks away, and it never comes up again. Time seems to heal the wounds. Everyone forgets about it, and life moves on. This tends to be the pattern in my Californian family. Others are fighters. They duke it out. They confront, argue, fuss, and in the end, resolve the issues, though the process is painful. Still others perpetuate conflicts endlessly. They fight savagely. Nothing ever gets resolved. Bitter alienation is the norm. Family life becomes an endless cycle of personality conflicts, misunderstandings, misjudged motives, misguided expectations, and unreasonable demands.

Two different family patterns are joined in marriage. The result: consternation.

“What is with the silent treatment? Let’s talk about it.”

“Give me some space. I can’t talk right now.”

“But I’ve never been yelled at like this before. No one ever yelled in my home growing up.”

“I wasn’t yelling. I’m just making my point vigorously.”

The point is we all bring baggage into our marriages. Much of it is merely our ways of doing things– do we squeeze the toothpaste from the middle of the tube or the bottom? Does he take out the trash or she? Are sweet notes occasionally written or not? Is a date night maintained? Are flowers brought home periodically? These are merely cultural issues, what is common for us, yet they too become points of tension.

Baggage. We all have it. Recognizing it is half of the battle. Some of it needs to be repented of. Other of it merely needs to be negotiated.

Sociologists are warning that parents are facing heretofore unprecedented challenges. Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School, has documented the challenges in his book The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing An Epidemic of Mental Illness. He warns of a mental health crisis among youth due to the effects of social media and gaming. He identifies the convergence of several technological trends: 1) the arrival of the iPhone in 2007; 2) the expansion of the internet’s capacity to transmit data; 3) the arrival of social media in 2009; 4) the arrival of smartphone cameras in 2010. With teens spending an average of almost seven hours a day on screens, with one out of four admitting that they are online almost constantly, the result is what Haidt calls “the Great Rewiring” of the adolescent brain.¹ 

Girls are immersed in social media, boys in video games, YouTube, and pornography. The Gen-Z cohort is, he writes, “the first generation in history to go through puberty with a portal in their pockets that called them away from the people nearby and into an alternative universe that was exciting, addictive, unstable, and … unsuitable for children and adolescents.”² They “spent far less time playing with, talking to, touching or even making eye contact with their friends and families.”³ Between 2010 and 2024 rates of depression and anxiety skyrocketed among teens. “The rate of self-harm for… young adolescent girls nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.”⁴ 

These technological changes have been accompanied by two social changes as well, changes in ways of parenting. First, “We decided the real world was so full of dangers that children should not be allowed to explore it without adult supervision, even though the risks to children from crime, violence, drunk drivers, and most other sources have dropped steeply since the 1990s.”⁵ Second, parents left access to the internet unsupervised. “It seemed like too much of a bother to design and require age-appropriate guardrails for kids online, so we left children free to wander through the Wild West of the virtual world, where threats to children abounded.”⁶ Peggy Noonan, in her review of Haidt’s work, refers to the “dark irony” of his findings: “Parents are often physically overprotective of their children out of fear of sexual predators. But those predators have moved online, where it’s easy to find and contact children.”⁷

Haidt cites an article written by a 14-year-old girl for Free Press: “I was ten years old when I watched porn for the first time. I found myself on Pornhub, which I stumbled across by accident and returned to out of curiosity. The website has no age verification, no ID requirement, not even a prompt asking me if I was over 18. The site is easy to find, impossible to avoid, and has become a frequent rite of passage for kids my age. Where was my mother? In the next room, making sure I was eating nine differently colored fruits and vegetables on the daily.”⁸

What is a parent to do? Noonan summarizes his four recommendations:

• No smartphones before high school, only basic phones with no internet.
• No social media before 16. Let their brains develop first.
• All schools from elementary through high school should be phone-free zones– students can store their devices in their lockers.
• • Bring back unsupervised play. Only in that way will kids naturally develop social skills and become self-governing.⁹

On the one hand, these are uniquely challenging times for the parents seeking faithfully to rear their children. On the other hand, nothing has changed. It is as always the responsibility of the adults in the home to ensure that their children are protected from corrupt and corrupting influences; ensure that their children are reared in “the nurture and admonition of Jesus Christ.”

1 Haidt, The Anxious Generation, 7.
2 Haidt, The Anxious Generation, 6.
3 Haidt, The Anxious Generation, 6.
4 Haidt, The Anxious Generation, 31.
5 Haidt, The Anxious Generation, 67.
6 Haidt, The Anxious Generation, 67.
7 Peggy Noonan, “Can We Save our Children From Smartphones?”, Wall Street Journal, April 4, 224.
8 Haidt, The Anxious Generation, 67.
9 Noonan, “Smartphones,” WSJ.

The number that is bandied about is 50%. The average man has 50% greater brute strength than the average woman. She is a “weaker vessel,” as the Bible pointed out 2000 years ago (1 Pet. 3:7). Watch a WNBA game and observe the players struggle to get off the ground as they leap for the basket. Or go to an exercise facility and compare their lifts with men in the military or bench presses. The difference is pronounced. Women simply lack the muscle mass. This is why the world of men is a scary place for women, absent civilizing norms that prohibit male violence against females.

What have women through the centuries learned to do to protect themselves? Use words. Studies from a generation ago also used the figure of 50 percent. The average woman uses 50 percent more words than the average man. Women have developed facility with words. They can talk. With words they are able to protect themselves and persuade. Many, many women in a domestic argument can talk circles around their husbands, leaving them confused and disarmed. Or annoyed and frustrated. The Proverbs, undoubtedly written (under Divine inspiration) from a male point of view, liken the words of some wives to a “dripping faucet” (Prov. 27:15). They say,

It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife. (Prov. 21:9)

No doubt this is why Peter counsels Christian women to win their unbelieving husbands to Christ “without a word” (1 Pet. 3:1). Every strength is a weakness. Women are good with words. However, they will tend to rely on words, overuse words, and thereby defeat the cause they mean to champion, whether it be for the conversion of their husbands or competition for their attention.

Typically, it takes Emily five seconds to ask a question that I can’t answer. I’ll come home with a story. I earnestly will have tried to relate the details. Once I complete my narrative, or before, she will respond with three “what about…” questions for which I have no response. Why don’t I know the answers? Because I didn’t ask. Because I failed to talk, to investigate, to inquire about multiple rather obvious areas of interest or concern. Yet she did. Instinctively. I can only respond lamely, “I don’t know.” Not only do I lack the words with which to provide sufficient details, but I also lack the perception into human relations that would prompt the questions in the first place.

I recall fondly Emily on the phone with her mother. Her words would flow with machine-gun like rapid-fire from her mouth. Suddenly, the stream of verbiage would stop. She had paused for the splittest of split seconds which allowed “Netsi” to seize the mic. Emily would listen, leaning forward on her toes, awaiting the slightest pause in her mother’s monologue in which she could grab back the mic. On and on it would go, back and forth, torrent of words upon torrent of words.

No doubt there are those who want to complain that I am citing anecdotal evidence, not recent scientific studies. This I readily confess. Yet my anecdotes are something like the common knowledge of humanity since Adam. Conduct a Bible study at my house from 7 to 8:30 p.m. The men’s study clears out by 8:45 p.m. The women continue to “visit” past 9 p.m. At 9:30, the incredible buzz in the other room continues. At 10:00, the volume has declined only slightly. Finally, by 10:30, all is quiet on the western front.

Men and women are different. Marriage is the union of those with complimentary differences. This is the strength of good marriage. Marriages are strong when the temptation to ridicule or despise the differences is resisted. Jokes about women who never stop talking are proverbial. The typical father-husband type featured in the typical sitcom is dumb. He is backward, culturally unaware, always the last to know, made to look foolish, laughed at not with.

Men want to provide and protect. Men are wired that way. Their bodies are structured for that role. This desire to provide and protect is built in. It’s in our DNA. The wise woman will figure out how to carve out that space for her husband to do so, even in this day of non-farming, non-factory assembly line white-collar predominance.

Women want to communicate. They want to talk. They like to “share.” They are good at it. It is built in. It is in their DNA. The wise man will figure out how to carve out that space for his wife to do so, particularly in this fragmented, virtual, and plastic world. 

It has been said (by me and others) that marriage is the most sanctifying of all relationships. Put together two sinners, saved sinners, redeemed sinners, and even sanctified sinners, and there will be trouble. The Taylor-Johnson temperament analysis test that Emily and I took before marriage resulted in flashing red lights for our counselor Howard Eyrich. The analysis predicted conflict between two headstrong personalities. So it was.

Heated arguments characterized our early years. Our battles were aggravated by being but six months married (and Emily but 20 years old) when thrust into the pressure-cooker of the ministry of IPC. If you think (I hope you don’t) that still today we both remain the babies of our birth-order: self-centered, impatient, demanding our way, you should have seen us 37 years ago. Many of the rough edges have been knocked off. The need to accommodate, to compromise, to put another first, to consult (especially about the children), to reach agreement about meals, social life, vacation, etc., etc., etc., has been good for us. We are less selfish. We are less indulgent of our own quirkish habits. We are more sensitive to each other’s needs and less absorbed in our own. We have a long way to go. Yet progress has been made. As a couple, we hardly ever fight anymore. We enjoy harmony and mutual understanding and mutual appreciation. Our passions have matured into deep love and still deeper mutual emotional dependence. Life without each other is only painfully contemplated.

However, growth in grace in marriage requires that both husband and wife develop the skill of nuanced intolerance. We all have bad habits, besetting sins, and glaring weaknesses. Often these liabilities hurt relatives, injure family members, offend work-mates, and alienate neighbors. No one knows our weaknesses better than our spouses. This is why marriage partners who are so intimidated by their mate so as never to confront, or who coddle rather than gently correct their offenses do them no favors. If one’s default response is to avoid conflict with one’s spouse no matter what, marriage ceases to be a sanctifying institution. If the knee-jerk response in marriage is the equivalent of the anti-anti-war slogan of the 1960s, “My country right or wrong,” bad behavior is reinforced, bad habits become habitual, and growth in grace is undermined.

Admittedly, one walks a fine line. Good wives wish not to undermine their husband’s leadership or show disrespect. Many wives have learned that their husbands don’t take constructive criticism very well. With the best of motives, they draw a harmful conclusion. They overlook bad behavior, and worse, defend their husbands to the death.

Similarly, husbands wish to avoid forfeiting wifely affection or stirring up wifely displeasure. Many husbands have learned that their wives don’t receive criticism very well. So they’ve learned to say nothing. They’d rather preserve the peace.

Meanwhile, these couples may face a growing number of alienated relatives and a shrinking pool of friends. Why? Because the sanctifying influence of marriage has been undermined by husbands who surrender leadership in the home, and wives who misconstrue what it means to be submissive.

Emily’s father said of his daughters that they needed a “strong hand.” She and I both needed a spouse who would push back, confront, argue, and fight the necessary marital battles against bad behavior so that we as a couple would win together the relational war that leads to relational felicity (as Jane Austin might say). Emily would say she needed a husband who was mean. I interpret her to say not that I am literally mean (who could be nicer?) but that she needed a husband who would be more than a step-n-fetch it, who would not indulge her every whim, or yield to her every demand.

I for my part needed a wife who was feisty. I needed a wife who would not be intimidated by me, who would not tolerate my verbal silences, or emotional neglect, or weak excuses; who would demand my attention and affection and push-back against my idiosyncracies. I would have been a terrible husband for a “sweet” Christian girl who would overlook all my bad tendencies. A recent high-profile divorce involving a prolific Reformed theologian has all the hallmarks of this very problem: busy, busy, important theologian, lecturing, writing, teaching, broadcasting, while neglecting wife and children. She accepts it for 20 years reasoning that he is doing such important work, kingdom work, God’s work. Meanwhile the children are a mess, the home is chaotic, and the family is in ruins. After 20 years she says, “Enough!” and walks out, irretrievably.

The same “my spouse right or wrong” often will spill over into childrearing: it will spawn “my child right or wrong.” Is Johnny guilty of bad behavior? Oh, he’s tired. Did he misbehave? Oh, he’s hungry. Did he start a fight with another child? Well, he never behaves this way around anyone else. Normally he’s so sweet, so tender, so kind. (Implied: it’s the other child’s fault). The lack of objectivity in marriage spills over into a lack of objectivity in childrearing and produces little monsters whose bad behavior is always excused. These children rarely face the consequences of their sins and so grow up into big monsters.

Couples that do not sanctify each other’s sins inflame each other’s faults. Selfishness, lust, rage, jealousy, avarice, worldliness, laziness, and covetousness all get reinforced. The marriage covenant becomes a compact from hell. Their vices get worse, their virtues fade.

We do our spouses no favors when we indulge their bad behavior. Granted, there is a fine line between a nagging wife or a perpetually critical husband and a properly discerning spouse. Yet it is vital that we find a place for critical nuance if our marriages are to be the sanctifying institution that they are meant to be. •

The maternal instinct in our wives makes better men of us husbands. It pushes us to be more
conscientious as protectors and providers. It forces us to pay attention to the needs of wife and family. It punishes us when selfishly we neglect our duties and pursue our own narrow interests. Most of us are better men because we are married. Our wives’ maternal-driven demands have forced us to grow up, to be adults, to put others first, and to fulfill our manly responsibilities.

However, the fierce loyalty that is a by-product of the protective maternal instinct easily can be
corrupted. Not infrequently it undermines objectivity. Criticism of one’s family, one’s spouse,
and especially one’s children rarely can be heard dispassionately. Hyper-sensitivity often leads to misinterpretation of the comments of others. It turns their jokes into slights, observations into criticisms, ambiguities into cruelty, and unintended oversights into calculated attacks. It further spills over into poisonous jealousy, the bitter refusal to countenance the superiority of any other person or spouse or family in any manner whatsoever over one’s own. Criticism of others spreads like cancer as one must tear down the competition in order to elevate one’s own.

Every strength, we see time and again, easily becomes a weakness. What can be done about it?
C. S. Lewis argues that

The relations of the family to the outer world – what might be called its foreign
policy – must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to
be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders.¹

Why does he say this? Because of the maternal instinct. He explains:

A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the
world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all
other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests.²

What then is the husband’s role?

The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not
given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the
intense family patriotism of the wife.³

She, far more than her husband, has a “natural preference” for her own people, Lewis maintains.
She has an “intense family patriotism.” He then makes use of an illustration.

If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the
child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you
sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? ⁴

Still doubtful? He then asks,

Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire
your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick
up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would
like? A bit of an Appeaser? ⁵

What is a husband to do? Lewis advises that he represent the more moderate less intense face of the family to the world. To this we would add that he work to moderate his wife’s views. Help her to see that the joke was not a slight, the question was not a criticism, the oversight was not an attempt to injure, the observation was not a complaint, the correction of her child was not an attack.

The maternal instinct makes the world go round, putting men to work in service of women’s
concerns. It gives human community the shape of female interests. Yet it is subject to corruption. In God’s design it needs the balance of a husband’s foreign policy experience.

1 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952; New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 113-114.
2 Lewis, Mere Christianity, 114.
3 Lewis, Mere Christianity, 114.
4 Lewis, Mere Christianity, 114.
5 Lewis, Mere Christianity, 114.

Classical, Christian, and Covenantal Education

Louise Perry, author of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, a 30-something United Kingdom columnist, feminist, and host of a podcast with the title of this article, has written insightfully about the three stages of a woman’s life. Here is her analysis. A woman is first a maiden: young, single, at the peak of her physical beauty. To one degree or another she is admired and sought for her physical appearance. Then she marries, and in the normal course of things she becomes a mother. Motherhood consumes her thoughts and energies for the next couple of decades. She is depended upon by her children and husband alike for care of the household. Finally, her children leave home, marry, and have their own children. She is now full of the wisdom that comes from years of experience as a maiden and mother. She is honored as a matriarch.

Among the foolish tragedies of our time is the elevation of the first stage (maiden) over that of the second (mother) and third (matriarch). Most of our cultural attention is on the maiden. She is the ideal. She appears in all the advertisements. Her older mothers and even matriarchs expend exorbitant amounts of time, energy, and money trying to retain a maiden-like appearance. They dress like maidens, talk like maidens, even medically alter their bodies, trimming here, adding and lifting there in order to look young. Like maidens.

At the same time motherhood is denigrated and the matriarch is invisible. “I’m just a mother,” or worse, “a stay-at-home mother.” Childbirth sometimes takes a toll on the female form. So do the years. It is crucial to minimize this, women are told subtlely and not-so subtlely. Why? Because it is the maiden who is prized, not the mother or matriarch. A maiden-like appearance must be maintained at all costs.

As for matriarchs, they are just old, that’s all. They are old, out-of-touch, behind the times, out-of-fashion and out-of-shape. Consequently, their accumulated wisdom is left untapped. Their vast knowledge of how to live with a man, of how to rear children, of how to navigate home, vocation, and avocation, of how to negotiate with the neighbors and handle the in-laws is unsought and unheard.

Can we not do better than this? Must we always follow the pattern established by the world? Traditional cultures honor matriarchs. So do biblical cultures. “Older women,” says the apostle Paul, are to “train the younger women to love their husbands and children” (Ti 2:4). Ordinarily matriarchs have learned these lessons and can give the younger women the benefit of their knowledge. The older women, the matriarchs, can teach the younger women how “to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands” (Ti 2:5).

That we still name our daughters Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Ruth, and not Bathsheba or Rahab reveals a remnant of respect for mothers and matriarchs. Solomon stepped down from his throne and “bowed down” to his mother when she entered his presence. He then had her seated at his right hand, the place of honor (1 Kg 2:19).

Our mothers and matriarchs need not pretend to be maidens. Whatever the world might do, the Christian community must honor all three natural stages of a woman’s life. If anything, we must honor mothers and matriarchs above our young maidens. Indeed, it should be our goal that our young maidens will aspire to be what our mothers and matriarchs now are.

Women are not men and men are not women. We state the obvious for the sake of a civilization that no longer grasps the obvious, denies the obvious, and is at war with the obvious. God made us male and female (Gen 1:28). There are distinctive qualities of maleness not shared by femaleness, and distinctive qualities of femaleness not shared by maleness. What are they? The visible ones are physical. Women (our immediate concern) are designed to bear and nurture children. That is their distinctive quality. They are capable of many other things. They have many other gifts. Yet the unique thing that they are able to do is conceive life within them, nourish that life to maturity, and then provide sustenance for that life once it is born. This female capacity for conception, gestation and lactation is something like a God-given miracle-power that supersedes all other human activities and endeavors.

The future of the human race, we are told, the very survival of humanity depends on climate
control. Or perhaps it depends on nuclear disarmament. No doubt these are vital issues, even if their importance may be overstated. Yet it is no exaggeration to say that the continuation of the human species depends on the continuing willingness of the female of the species to exercise her super-power of conceiving, bearing, and nourishing children.

Accompanying this physical design is a corresponding maternal psychology. All women have it, to varying degrees, whether they have children or not. Women have a built-in high degree of concern for safety, for security, for stability that men do not share. Men can afford to be reckless. A woman cannot. She instinctively knows that her body must be protected if she is to bear children. She guards it. She has a built-in concern for safety because she has an innate concern for her children or potential children. We all know this. She is a “momma bear” long before she is a momma, concerned for the safety and security of the home and the children that may inhabit it.

What is my point? It is crucial that men recognize this maternal instinct, particularly husbands.
We suffered a break-in years ago. Within hours, an alarm system was installed, not at my
instigation. Years ago, our church hired a security guard for nighttime choir practice not because the men were nervous about walking to their cars in the dark. The world of men is a scary place for women, witness the response to the idea of so-called “transgender women,” that is biological men, using women’s restrooms and locker rooms. Most men can overpower and outrun most women. Of course there is a built-in concern for safety and well-developed and highly nuanced female methods of dealing with the world of men. This is why men find women complicated, even mysterious. Unable to rely on physical strength for protection, they have developed subtle strategies that compensate. The much derided “feminine mystique” (thank you Betty Friedan) is this female ability to protect herself, to get her way, to navigate her way through the always potentially, not infrequently violent world of men.

Husbands, when you shout at your wife, erupt angrily towards her, ignore her concerns, or
ridicule her fears, you destabilize her world. Both harshness and indifference affect and upset her more than it does you. Allow this to become a pattern, and you risk permanently alienating
her affections.

Husbands and would-be husbands, your employment record matters to her. Why? Not so much for the sake of prestige but security. Are you able to hold on to a job? Are you going to be able to support a family? Your wife or future wife is likely to want to devote considerable attention to her children in ways that you will not. This is true whether she is employed or not. Will she be able to do so?

Do you understand and accommodate her concern for security, financial and otherwise? Why do you think that God made you bigger, stronger, and faster than she is? What is the purpose behind the design if not for you to protect her and provide for her, whatever form that protection and provision takes? This includes emotional and physical protection, protection against future harm, against present fears, and against dangers from the past. These concerns of women are hard-wired. Are their men going to ridicule their anxieties, or gently address them in a way that is reassuring?

I am increasingly aware of a problem in marriage that no doubt has been an issue all through the centuries. It is a problem, however, that has been compounded by changing technology. Of what do I speak? The problem of married couples living under the same roof but living separate lives.

Start with a couple that is allowing some emotional distance to grow between them. They are busy with the children, or with work, or even with differing leisure pursuits. Little conversation takes place between them. Oh, they used to talk a lot – about everything. This is what drew them to each other. Deep conversation is what characterized their courtship and their first years of marriage. However slowly, gradually, time and the pressures of life have squeezed out all but the most superficial of conversations: what’s for dinner, carpool arrangements, clothes that need to be washed, the grocery list, and so on. Logistics alone do not a happy marriage make.

This is where modern technology comes in. Smart phones and personal computers make it possible to spend the evenings occupied with different screens watching different programs. The days of a single black and white family television around which the whole family gathered are long gone. Before long, this trend may even develop into spending the evenings in different rooms and going to bed at different times. Worst of all, differing schedules may mean that meals are not eaten together. Instead of family meals, family members scavenge the kitchen and microwave their prey. Alone.

What can be done about this? Fight. Not each other, but this trend. Be intentional. Establish venues in which togetherness is automatic. If couples are at least in the same room at the same time, it is possible for conversation to take place. The impossible at least becomes likely. Fail to do this and vulnerabilities are created. The affections of your spouse may be stolen by a scoundrel who takes the time to listen to what he/she has to say, and talks to him/her about things other than diapers and rent.

Do I have any solutions? No, but I do have a few practical recommendations.

First, eat two meals a day together. There will be exceptions. However, the norm should be two family meals a day. Get up early if necessary for breakfast. Eat late if necessary for dinner.

Second, spend the evening in the same room. Do not go to separate rooms. You may read different things. One may read and the other watch something, or listen to something. But be in the same room. You may choose not to talk. There may be awkward silences. Yet you can talk if you are physically occupying the same space.

Third, compromise on what is to be watched. Develop an interest in your spouse’s interests. My mother watched hours, and hours, and hours of war movies with my father and seemed to enjoy them. Families had to do this when there was one family TV. We can do this again.

Fourth, have family worship together. Read the Bible and pray. Perhaps even sing the Psalm/hymn of the month.

Fifth, build into each other’s schedules. Exercise at the same time and at the same place even if your routines differ. Grocery shop together. Run errands together.

Undoubtedly, you can add to this short list. The point is: live life together. That is why you got married. You didn’t want to be alone. It is not good to be alone.

Do these solutions seem simplistic? Do they fail to get to the heart of the matter? Yes, they are shallow, and yes, they do fail to go deep. There often are much deeper problems in marriage. However, for the moment, I just want to get couples sharing time and space. I am convinced that sometimes things just develop that no one intended because we get busy and life takes over.

My thinking is that if life is structured differently the communication that is now unlikely will take place leading to progress in the deeper issues.

Don’t live separate lives under the same roof. Only if you live together can wives respect and follow the lead of their husbands, and husbands love their wives and live with them in an understanding way.

Dr. Johnson was a guest on the Jonathan Master podcast, Theology on the Go" discussing his recent publication, "Who Needs the Church". After listening, return to the bottom of the original article where you can win a free copy. See link at the bottom of this article.

“I’m a Christian, but I don’t need a church. Nature is where I find God.” Whatever the stated reasoning, those who avoid church attendance and membership often do so without understanding why believers need the Church and the Church needs them. (Read more here.)

The June 24 reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision signals the first successful counterattack in the decades long war against reality. We might also designate it a war against women as women. At the heart of the progressive/liberal ideology is the intention to eliminate all distinctions between men and women in favor of typical male interests and inclinations. Men stereotypically prioritize career over family and sexual adventurism over sexual fidelity. Women, they say, must be able to do the same. Natural, biological, physiological, and emotional priorities of real women must be jettisoned for the superior (?) values of men. The transgender movement is the logical and absurd culmination of that trajectory: men (those with male bodies) can actually be women, and women (those with female bodies) can actually be men. The reality of biological sex (gender), that is unalterable in the real world, nevertheless, cannot be allowed to limit the “expressive self,” one’s own definition of what and who one is.
The roots of this conflict with reality can be found in the modern feminist movement. Women can never be equal with men, it is argued, if pregnancy is allowed to disrupt one’s aspirations. Men are able to participate in sexual promiscuity without consequences. Their futures, their plans are not at-risk when they recklessly consummate their lusts/desires. However, women may be hindered from getting their high school diploma, or their college degree, or promotion on the job because of an unwanted pregnancy. They are not free to fulfill their sexual lives like men are. Because in a post-Freudian world sexual fulfillment is the chief end of man, this biological reality, it is argued, is intolerable.
The only solution to this inequity is to grant women the right to terminate their pregnancies. Only then will they be able to pursue both sexual fulfillment as well as social and vocational success on equal terms with men. Thus, two monumental movements joined hands in common cause: the sexual revolution and the feminist movement. From these then flow their offspring: the full LBGTQ+ agenda.
What reality is being overlooked? Start with the obvious: the child targeted for abortion. Once conception takes place, there now exists in the real world a distinctive human being. It has a unique genetic code that differs from that of the mother and father. All that separates it from an adult human is time and nutrition. We all once were fetal humans.
Remarkably this reality is almost always ignored by the pro-abortion movement. Their entire argument is for the rights of the woman, her control over her own body, and so on. The rights of the unborn are dropped en toto. The human life developing in the womb simply doesn’t exist except as a thing to eliminate.
Is there more? Yes. The real-world differences between men and women are ignored. Men do not and cannot get pregnant. A human life cannot grow within a man. This most glorious of human phenomena is limited to women. He cannot provide the nurturing environment in which that development takes place. He does not and cannot develop emotion bonds with that developing life. He does not and cannot develop the maternal instinct to protect and provide for the child that is growing within her. No amount of philosophical sophistry can remove this most basic difference between men and women.
What this means is that women can never engage in sexual relations as recklessly as do men. This is true if for no other reason than the woman gets the abortion, not the man. She suffers the painful emotional, physical, and spiritual consequences of that abortion, he does not. Abortion may reduce some consequences of pregnancy (e.g., interference with one’s plans) but creates others at the same time. She suffers the sadness, the sorrow, the regret, and the feelings of guilt for killing the baby that would have been.
The June 24 Dobbs decision is not a pro-life decision. It is a pro-constitution (in which there is no right to abortion) and anti-court decisions made by judicial fiat (like Roe v. Wade). It restores the question of abortion to the people and their elected representatives. It is the first check in what has been a tidal wave of victories for liberal, secular, progressive ideology stretching back over decades. It will force the nation to discuss the differences between men and women, the biological and other consequences of sexual relations (even that there are consequences), what abortion actually is, and what is the best environment in which conceptions should take place (i.e., marriage), and children should be reared (with a mother and father).
We will join that discussion, and hope to see good come from it. When humanity wars against reality, reality always wins. Maybe this judicial counter-attack will make that fact more apparent.

Dr. Johnson preached this message, "I Will Build My Church", at Midway Presbyterian Church in Powder Springs, Georgia.

Introduction
Racism is a scourge upon the human race and a prominent theme in today’s social conversation. Racism is a hate-sin and a hate-crime. Its history is as old as the human race and as intractable as evil itself. Its prominence in American history, from slavery to de jure segregation in the South to de facto segregation in the North is a blight upon our national record. Its eradication is an important social goal of which Christians are enthusiastic supporters. Racism is incompatible with Christ’s disciples, who are to “regard no one according to the flesh” (2 Cor. 5:16).

However, this goal of eliminating racism is being undermined by the recklessness with which the accusations of racism are being hurled about. Typically, the term itself is left undefined. Not just individuals, but whole classes of persons are being labeled as racist while other groups are said to be incapable of racism. The word “racism” is often modified by other terms such as “implicit,” “structural,” “institutional,” and “systemic.” A whole nation is branded with the evil: “America is a racist nation.” Yet the meaning of racism is left vague and illusive.

We have a pastoral concern about this. It is important that sin be identified so that it can be repented of and repudiated. Imprecise accusations lead to unresolved guilt feelings. Believers are being told they are guilty of something though they are not quite sure of what that something is. Worse, if they deny that they harbor any negative attitudes or feelings against people of other races; or claim that they are not guilty of prejudicial, bigoted, or discriminatory attitudes or actions against other races, this denial itself is said to be evidence of racism. The accusation itself is unfalsifiable: one is guilty no matter what, without recourse, except to admit to what one does not believe is true.

Consequently, it is vital that we understand what racism is and what it isn’t. An accurate, carefully nuanced definition with accompanying descriptions is necessary if we are to confess our guilt where it is real as well as avoid manipulation by externally imposed false guilt.

To read Mr. Johnson's entire article entitled Thoughts on Racism, click the PDF below.

If anyone qualifies as the godfather, or better, the midwife of contemporary Christian music, it would be Chuck Fromm. From 1975 to 2000 Fromm was the head of Maranatha Music in Costa Mesa, California, the birthplace and source of the contemporary genre in the early 1970’s. He was in the middle of organizing and promoting the hugely popular Friday and Saturday night Christian concerts that were attracting thousands of young people in Southern California and Oregon, a number of which I attended while an undergraduate at the University of Southern California. In 1991 he founded and edited Worship Leader magazine, coining the phrase “worship leader” even as its subscription rate rose to 40,000.

His description of his conversion to contemporary music genre described in Fuller Focus magazine is fascinating.^[2] A musically inclined young man, Fromm sang in his church youth choirs in the mid-1960’s, and even formed a traveling singing group called “The New Life Singers.” One evening while his group was singing what had been marketed as “youth music,” he experienced an epiphany. The Christian rock band, “Love Song,” performed a new song at the rapidly growing Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, “in a vernacular of music that I understood from my culture,” he said. “They were speaking of something that was really going on, not something baked in a different universe and imported. That music—even before I thought about the lyrics—made everything I was doing prior to that inauthentic.”^[3]

One cannot hear this testimony without sympathy. His experience connects with many of the members of the “boomer” generation. The environment of Moody-Sankey gospel songs, of Peterson, Gaither, and of George Beverly Shea solos, was to us another universe. Granted, baby-boomer generational hubris tends to see pre-boomer and post-boomer cultural preferences in these sorts of overwrought categories (“a different universe”), but he has a point. I too belonged to a traveling singing group (we were the “Young Life Singers”) which performed Otis Skillings’ “Life!” We dressed up in our yellow polo shirts and navy slacks, synchronized our hand and body motions, and sang, “Life! Pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa.” My buddies and I felt like dorks, but the trips were fun and the gospel was being presented, so we endured. But compared to what we were hearing on AM 93 KHJ every day, church music was from another planet.

Much as Fromm’s testimony resonates, it is also rich with irony. He seems not to recognize that the church music environment that was a “different universe” from what he calls “my culture,” was in fact a familiar and comfortable culture for many others. What he came to reject, many others continued to embrace and love. For some, their familiar and comfortable church culture had deep roots, reaching back through the Protestant Reformers to the early church. At the same time, the importation of his culture into the church was inevitably deeply alienating to those in the church for whom it was new and foreign. How many times have we heard older people say, “I do not recognize my church anymore”? After 40 years (or even 450 years) of relative sameness, they walked into their church service one Sunday, saw a “praise band” up front, heard strange music played with non-traditional instruments (electric guitars, drums, tambourines, etc.), and were profoundly disoriented and disturbed by the experience. If they dared to express concern, they were cautioned not to obstruct outreach to the young. The church, it was explained, was reaching the rising generation. They soon learned that the only people to which the church cared to minister the gospel were young people, or so it seemed. Apparently older people, who were put-off by the new, did not need gospel ministry. So, it was in with the youth culture, and out with whatever preceded it.

“Worship wars,” as they are called, are really culture wars. “Contemporary worship” is really a determination to prefer the taste preferences of a segment of the youth-oriented contemporary culture (typically anglo-contemporary, but sometimes Latino, African-American, Hip-Hop, Cowboy, skate-boarders, etc.) over an older church culture. Have the ecclesiastical ramifications of that determination been considered? Can the church avoid fragmentation and division according to cultural preference if “authenticity” requires that “my culture” be the dominant form in which Christian devotion is expressed? What happens to Fromm’s baby boomer culture of soft-rock when it proves alien to a new generation of young people who insist on music and instrumentation ,which, for them, is familiar and comfortable? What happens when Gen-X or Gen-I rejects contemporary Christian music as traditional, 1970’s stuff, and “inauthentic?” There are two options. The church can either reject the innovations of the new generation and establish Boomer-forms of contemporary Christian worship as the new orthodoxy; or, it can embrace each new wave of cultural change and commit the church to perpetual liturgical innovation, shaped, one should note, by the preferences and tastes generated by secular America’s popular culture and its profit-driven entertainment industry.

The problem in today’s worship wars is that the “what’s new” game has been played now for several generations. Much of the gospel song genre of the turn-of-the-twentieth-century sounds like carnival or ballpark music to young ears because it was generationally-targeted when it was introduced. Moody-Sankey & Co. swept away the metrical psalms and evangelical hymns (Watts, Wesley, Toplady, Newton, Doddridge, etc.) and the traditional music that preceded them. Gospel songs then gave-way to Peterson and Gaither, who then gave way to Maranatha Music and CCM. Multiple generations of Evangelicals, from around the turn of the century to the present, have lost touch with that older Protestant tradition.^[4]

It is to this older tradition, captured in the traditional hymnal, Psalter, and historic orders of service, which we must return if we are to unify the generations at the hour of worship. This older tradition, reaching back to the Reformers, and behind them to the ancient church to which they appealed for their reforms, is the church’s own liturgical culture.^[5] This older tradition belongs to no single age, ethnic, or interest group. It does not involve the imposition of the culture of one group over another, whether young or old, white or black, European or non-European, because it is its own culture. The hymnal, Psalter, traditional orders, and, we would add, traditional instrumentation, constitute the historic worship culture of the church as it has slowly and organically evolved. It is the church’s “canon,” to which additions and alterations are made over time as worthy contributions (e.g., compositions) gain recognition. Embracing this older tradition can save us from the “liturgical Trotskeyism” of continuous revolution to which our default-drive now commits us. Who knows what eccentricities shall unfold before our eyes in the years ahead if we do not consciously draw back from the philosophy that pegs worship practices to the rapidly mutating American popular culture, and instead anchor the church’s public praise to Scripture and our historic ecclesiastical culture.

What is needed, more broadly, is a restored biblical ecclesiology, a constant theme in all of David Wells’s work.^[6] Undergirding his call to truth and virtue has been a subordinate call to a biblical doctrine of the church. “It is time to become Protestant once again,” he insists.^[7] Among the greatest strengths of traditional Protestant worship and ministry is that it is historically rooted. The whole catholic (small “c”) tradition has influenced the shape of the ministry and worship of Reformed Protestantism. Another way of saying this is to say that the worship and ministry of Reformed Protestantism has taken ecclesiology seriously. Because it has, it can provide a pattern for the present and the future. This is of no small importance given that very little in the way of a doctrine of the church remains among evangelical Christians. Evangelicalism is parachurch, Wells says, “to the point where the local church, in biblical terms (has become) increasingly irrelevant . . . or, at best, a luxury. It has become more of an optional extra, less of a necessity.”^[8]

Historic Reformed Protestantism takes seriously the history and doctrine of the church. It honors the church local and universal, visible and invisible. It esteems the historic form of public ministry. It values catholicity. It respects the “communion of the saints,” past, present, and future. Decisions regarding worship practices typically have not been made in isolation from other churches or from the Christian tradition of worship. Adaptations normally have not been made quickly or idiosyncratically, but have been gradual, and made in consultation with the whole church across the ages. Those who are interested in liberating the church from unwarranted cultural influences should be particularly interested in historic Reformed ministry and worship. Traditional Reformed Protestantism resists the incursions of western pop-culture with its hyper-individualism, rootlessness, love of novelty, superficiality, and the cult of youth that have been so prominent in the shaping of contemporary worship.

What I hope to show in the following pages is that the principle of catholicity requires that we establish a single universal or common public service, that the principle of the communion of the saints requires that such a service gather together all the saints without regard for race, ethnicity, sex, culture, and especially for our purposes, age and generational differences. These, I hope to show, are the principles of the apostles, and should remain the ideals for us today.

Francis Schaeffer once encouraged us to imagine walking down the street and encountering a young thug beating up an elderly woman. He is striking her again and again as she clings to the purse he is attempting to snatch. Schaeffer asks, “What does it mean to love my neighbor in that situation?” Unquestionably, loving my neighbor means that I use the force (righteous wrath) necessary to subdue the (evil) thug and rescue (love) the (innocent) elderly woman. Love and justice, goodness and holiness, grace and wrath are not opposites. They are complementary. Ultimately, they are interdependent. Love without justice is mere sentimentalism. Justice without love is sheer vindictiveness. In God, however, “Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other” (Ps. 85:10). Love seeks justice for those loved. Justice protects, avenges, and vindicates those loved. The cross of Christ is the perfect expression of both the love of God who saves unworthy sinners and the justice of God who requires that a just price for salvation be paid.

The Simplicity of God
There is a perfect harmony between what we perceive to be tensions between the various attributes of God. Strictly speaking, there are not multiple attributes but one glorious divine essence. The classic theologians often placed divine simplicity first in their discussion of the attributes, arguing that a right understanding of simplicity is essential for a right understanding of all the attributes. God is simple. He is spirit, undivided, singular, uncompounded. He is One, without body, parts, or passions. When we study God’s attributes, we are not contemplating different parts of God. We consider each attribute separately because of the limitations of our reasoning powers. “There are not in God many attributes, but one only,” declared the Puritan Lewis Bayly, voicing the view of classic theism, “which is nothing but the Divine Essence itself, but whatsoever you call it.” God’s attributa divina is inseparable from His essentia Dei.

Given the essential unity of the divine attributes, what can we say about the relationship between what we perceive to be the softer and harsher expressions of His character, between love and wrath, between mercy and justice? It may be helpful to answer our question by focusing on love, the attribute around which discussion and controversy swirl. “God is love,” the Bible and popular opinion agree. How, then, are we to understand His justice and wrath?

There are not multiple attributes but one glorious divine essence.

More Than Love
First, God is love, yet more than love. Love is treated by the older theologians as a subset of goodness. God’s goodness—what Stephen Charnock termed “the captain attribute”—is the genus of which love, grace, mercy, kindness, and patience are the species. This method of classification itself implies that “God is love” doesn’t mean that God is love to the exclusion of His other attributes (1 John 4:8). The Apostle John does not write that “love is God.” The equation cannot be reversed. The Bible also says that God is “light” (1 John 1:5), and that God is a “consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). The same grammatical construction is used in all these cases. The God who is love is also “faithful” and “just,” John also tells us (1 John 1:9). “Though God is infinitely benevolent,” says the nineteenth-century Presbyterian J.W. Alexander, “infinite benevolence is not all of God.” God’s love is a just love, and His justice is a loving justice. We must not allow one attribute to overwhelm and nullify the rest. Charles Spurgeon puts it this way: “God is . . . as severely just as if He had no love, and yet as intensely loving as if He had no justice.”

Define Love
Second, the Bible must be allowed to define love. Not infrequently, the love of God has been understood in such a way as to deny God’s moral qualities. “I believe in a God of love,” someone might say as he goes on to abolish judgment day and quench the fires of hell. Moral categories are tossed out altogether in the name of love. “A loving God would never,” the well-meaning assertion begins, and then follows a list of lifestyle distinctions or moral demands that God, it is alleged, would never make. He would never condemn me, or want me to be unhappy, or disapprove of my conduct, or challenge my chosen identity. Why wouldn’t He? Because, so the claim goes, He is only and always accepting of everyone and everything. God has been redefined by an amorphous understanding of love, notions untethered from holiness and Scripture itself. When the Apostles say that God is love, they mean that He is agap, not ers, caritas, not amor—self-giving and sacrificial love, not romantic love, not erotic love, not warmly sentimental love, and not uncritically accepting love. God’s love is distinguishing, correcting, and righteous love.

It is not uncommon for families to be convinced that they ought to do family worship, to want to do family worship, to talk about doing family worship, and yet fail ever to establish a consistent pattern of actually doing family worship. Men in particular seem easily intimidated, seeing themselves as inadequate, fearful they won’t know what to do, or that they won’t know what to say. We assembled The Family Worship Book hoping to alleviate these fears. All the necessary resources may be found there (an outline, hymns and Psalms, Bible reading record, resources for prayers, catechisms, etc.). Here is what we recommend for those who wish not only to get family worship started but to keep going (see The Family Worship Book, pp. 17–21).

First, establish a set time. Whether its morning or evening, establish a consistent time for the family to gather. Then adjust for the regular weekly calendar conflicts. When our children were school age, we gathered at 7:00am at the breakfast table every weekday except Tuesday (I had a 6:30am church prayer meeting) and Saturday (the children slept in). Those two days we met at alternate times. Sundays our devotions were with the whole church.

Second, keep it short. 10 to 15 minutes is achievable. Don’t plan for failure by aiming at hour–long family devotions. Even a half–hour may stretch the capacities of younger children and challenge the patience of distracted teens. 10 to 15 minutes a day adds up to an hour to an hour and a half in a 6–day week. Multiply that over 52 weeks, over 18 years, means a lot of Bible covered, a lot of praises sung, and a lot of prayers offered.

We did not practice family worship in the house in which I was reared. My parents were good people, Christian people, and church–going people. Yet regular family devotions were not a feature of our home. We didn’t pray together, or read Scripture together, or sing praises together.

Consequently, when first exposed to family worship it came to me as a new idea. I had practiced personal devotions for some time. I had been committed to public worship since childhood. Yet the practice of family worship had not occurred to me. Nevertheless, when once introduced to the concept it had a “well of course” quality to it. It made sense. Families as families should worship God. Public prayer is for public things, private prayer is for private things, and family prayer is for family things. The family as a family has sins to confess, benefits for which to give thanks, and needs for which to make requests. Family worship is logical, sensible, and practical.

Most importantly, family worship is biblical. Before there was a church, the family itself was a “little church.” The true religion was passed from father to son, from Adam to Seth to Enosh to Noah, as families “called upon the name of the Lord” and “walked with God” (Gen. 4:25, 26; 5:24). As the people of God began formally to be organized, it was Abraham as covenant head who was instructed to “command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him” (Gen. 18:19). Parents are commanded under Moses to teach their children God’s words “diligently,” to do so “when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise” (Deut. 6:7). Joshua commits his whole family to God saying, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:15). So on it continues from Job (1:5) to David (2 Sam. 6:20), to Daniel (Dan. 6:10), to the Proverbs (1:8; 2:1; 3:1–2; 22:6) to the Psalms (Ps. 78:5–7; 101:1–4).

For the second time in my 35 years at IPC the congregation has given me an extra two months off as a sabbatical, which when added to the regular one month of vacation time, meant I was away for three months in 2021. I am grateful, extremely grateful, for the time allotted.

I hesitate to talk about myself. However, there seems to be some interest in what all I did. So let me explain. Sabbatical time is working time. After nearly 40 years of ordained ministry, I have accumulated a lot of “stuff” which in a permanent written form might be useful to our congregation and the broader church. I pray daily that I will not attempt to reduce to writing anything that others have already done or can do more effectively than I am able. There is no sense in reinventing the wheel or building a wheel inferior to those already built or in the process of being built. Most of what I have published over the years has been written because I saw a void that needed to be filled (see especially The Family Worship Book, Leading in Worship, Worshipping with Calvin, The Identity and Attributes of God, The Christian Sabbath, Catechizing Our Children, etc.). 

So what did I do during my two months of sabbatical? Granted that such an article will generate the excitement of a “what I did during my summer vacation” school paper, here is my accounting for my sabbatication.

Writing
I did a lot of writing. A lot. Let me separate my work into three categories.

Works published
Final editing was done on the following books and articles, each of which was published in 2021.

Books:

1. Leading in Worship (published in Spanish Feb. 28)
2. Westminster Confession of Faith for Study classes (published in Chinese May 18)
3. The Christian Sabbath (published by Banner of Truth Trust June 14) 
4. Westminster Confession of Faith for Study classes (published in Spanish July 2)
5. Understanding Family Worship: Its History, Theology, and Practice (Christian Focus Publications, published December 7, 2021)

Articles:

6. “Leading in Public Prayer,” article in New Horizons Magazine (published June 2021)
7. “Worship at General Assembly: What We Want” posted article on The Aquila Report (published July 16, 2021)
8. “Yes, Scripture Reading Really Does Change People,’ article in 9Marks Journal (published July 26, 2021)
9. “What is ‘the Name’?” article for Reformation 21 (published October 13, 2021)
10. “The Blessedness of God,” article for Banner of Truth magazine (published November 2021)
11. Two blog posts for Christian Focus promoting the new book, Understanding Family Worship, entitled "Why Should We Have Family Worship," and "How to Do Family Worship" (anticipated early 2022)

Works approved for publication
Final writing and editing was done on the following, now at the publisher and soon to be published:

Books:

12. Who Needs the Church (Christian Focus Publications, anticipated June 2022)
13. Expositions on the Gospel of John (Reformation Heritage Books, anticipated Summer 2022)
14. Excellencies of God (Reformation Heritage Books, anticipated August 2022)
15. Expositions of Acts of the Apostles (P & R Publishing, anticipated 2024)
16. Who Am I, Portuguese edition, anticipated 2022. 

Articles:

17. “Love, Justice, and Wrath,” Tabletalk (submitted December 2021)
18.  “Catholicity and Intergenerational Worship,” Gloria Deo Journal of Theology, Spring 2022

Works for which publishers will be sought

19. Inquirers’ Class material (wrote and rewrote the entire class content)
20. Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (revised and expanded, English version)
21. The Pastor’s Public Ministry (Evangelical Press *pending, revised and updated)

All totaled, of what was written, prepared, or published in English, this equals 3,800 plus pages written, edited, or revised in 2021. I wore out several blue Bic pens. The careful reader will note that four books are scheduled to be published in English in 2022. This volume of work would not have been possible without the sabbatical. 

Travel
Is that all we did? Why no. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, as the English say. Emily and I made this a special year for special trips: four days in January in Bluffton, three days in February at Ponte Vedra, a week in March at Newport Beach to meet Nora Johnson, a week in April in Hilton Head, a week in May at North Litchfield Beach, SC, two weeks in June in Boone, NC, a return to Newport Beach for a week in July with the whole Johnson extended family, a week with Sally in Chicago in September, and a return to Boone for two weeks in October. All told, we were off for 13 weeks or 3 full months, two for sabbatical and one for vacation. Our basic pattern for all 13 weeks was read, study, write until late morning, eat lunch, and play for the rest of the day. Part of our leisure was reading, so I read… alot.

Reading
I read a number of “devotional” books in connection with my morning prayers:

• J. I. Packer, Knowing God
• Richard Alleine, The World Conquered by the Faithful Christian
• Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm
• J. I. Packer, Rediscovering Holiness
• Thomas Goodwin, The Heart of Christ
• Edward Pearse, The Great Concern
• Thomas Watson, The Beatitudes
• Amy Carmichael, If: What Do I Know of Calvary Love
• John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied
• John Brown, Godly Prayer and Its Answers
• C. H. Spurgeon, Cheque Book in the Bank of Faith

I also read a number of histories and/or biographies:

• Paul Johnson, Intellectuals
• Michael Green, Thirty Years that Changed the World
• Stephen Nichols, R. C. Sproul: A Life
• Voddie Baucham, Fault Lines
• Daniel Brown, The Boys in the Boat
• Tom Holland, Dominion
• Elizabeth Passarella, Good Apple: Tales of a Southern Evangelical in New York
• Ellen Vaughn, Becoming Elizabeth Elliot
• Rodney Stark, How the West Won
• Sean McMeekin, Stalin’s War
• Michael Winship, Hot Protestants: A History of Puritanism in England and America
• James Hornfisher, The Last of the Tin Can Sailors
• James Hornfisher, Ship of Ghosts: The Story of the USS Houston, FDR's Legendary Lost Cruiser, and the Epic Saga of Her Survivors
• John Piper, Contending for Our All
• John Piper, The Hidden Smile of God
• John Piper, The Roots of Endurance
• John Piper, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy

Finally, in keeping with my general disinterest in fiction, I read one – Somerset Maughan, The Painted Veil.

Speaking
Covid continued to limit the number of uncancelled conferences. I preached or lectured outside of IPC just twice.

• In September, while visiting Sally and family in Chicago, I zipped over to Boise to speak twice at the local Reformation conference on the subject of worship.  
• In November, I delivered a paper to the Evangelical Theological Society on “Catholicity and Intergenerational Worship.”  

As you can see, sabbatical time was indeed working time. Hopefully this labor will bear fruit for the kingdom of Christ, and my labor will prove not to have been in vain. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do this work. 

From 1998 - 2022