Paul Givan's bill on abortion - examined in light of God's Word
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- CBR NI are not just another pro-life group in Northern Ireland. We are a collection of people from across the county who are united in our desire to bring a full and absolute end to abortion in our country.
We believe in bringing the truth revealed in God’s word into conflict with the evils of the age and the worldly wisdom of man.
Following in the footsteps of former abolitionist movements, we aim to end one of the greatest human miseries and moral evils ever to be entrenched in our world.
Website:
cbrni.org/
UK Website:
www.cbruk.org/
Facebook:
/ centreforbioethicalref...
Twitter:
/ cbr_ni
Instagram:
/ cbr_ni
God Bless you
Join the CBR NI Team on Monday evenings, at 8.00 PM for updates on the campaign to Stop the Bill, and what efforts are being made to bring a full Repeal/Abolishment Bill of Abortion to the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as information on what you can do to demand equality, justice and righteousness for all human beings in Northern Ireland.
Join us on the Zoom link below and share it widely with those in our land who hold pro-life views.
us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMrdeygrT4rHN0KyxdOCXu0agNNFGA4NCWA?fbclid=IwAR2PJOcKfT2qgq79jg-qBaJObUwXXTQ6yaponjA-L0E-nvv2p1v5Lc94xok
What we do now will have implications for decades to come…
Here are some comments I made on Facebook in response to a CBR NI post linking to this video. I see this has been taken down so I decided to post a slightly edited version of my comments here for anyone who wants to engage with the Biblical arguments made in the video and perhaps consider a different view point.
As regards the Scriptures you quote I agree with you entirely in the way you interpret them. Abortion is evil. It is an abomination in God's eyes. However, where we disagree is on the application of these verses to this particular issue. Inasmuch as the prophets were speaking to the people of God, I agree that among God's people today (the church) there should be no tolerance of evil whatsoever. So on that basis, I'm in favour of a zero tolerance approach to evil in any form within the church. But in what ways were God's people to advocate for justice in the nations around them?
First, the overriding responsibility of Gods people then and now was to live God-honouring lives as a witness to the nations around them. This I take to be my primary calling in society and for that reason I believe that the way in which we as Christians debate issues over which we disagree is of much more importance than who wins the argument because slander, animosity, division and backbiting among Christians actually destroys our witness and renders our stand for the truth ineffective.
Second, where the prophets addressed the surrounding nations, they spoke out against evil - named it as such, warned of the consequences and called for repentance. Based on that, I would want to engage in a similar way (along with compassion for the victims of injustice and the offer of grace for all who turn away from evil) in the secular / pagan society of our day.
Third, with regard to how the OT people of God were to challenge injustice in the world around them, I think we have to look at the story of Daniel for the nearest parallel to our situation today. Here we find God's people trying to make sense of how they are to live for Him in a pagan society and there is much to be learned from the stand they took. Daniel refused to be coerced into eating the king's food - he stood up for his rights as a follower of God, you might say, when he and his companions were in danger of simply becoming absorbed indistinguishably into Babylonian society with the expectation that they would simply conform to all its norms. His companions would not compromise themselves by bowing down to the statue; at the risk of their lives, they refused to become involved personally in what they saw to be an evil practice. And when the law demanded that Daniel give up the practice of his faith, he refused to obey this law and continued in his obedience to a higher authority - God. All of this has profound implications for the way we engage in society today and reminds us that it may often be costly to take our stand as God's people.
However, I can see no direct reference to how Daniel might have sought to influence the laws of the Babylonians although he was certainly in a position to do so. I can only guess what his approach might have been. My suspicion is that an all or nothing approach in challenging unjust laws in Babylonian society would have been impossible and I imagine that he simply took every opportunity open to him to challenge injustice in whatever way he could. I think that is what Jesus meant when he said that His followers were to be the salt of the earth. We are to use whatever influence we have to challenge the corruption in our society and we simply cannot fulfill this function on an all or nothing basis. We have to do it one step, one unjust law, or one aspect of an unjust law, at a time as we have opportunity. I absolutely endorse your position that we must campaign for the complete abolition of abortion but I don't see that as necessarily meaning we can't work at an incremental level as well.
God bless
Paul
Thank you so much for taking the time to draft this response. These are exactly the kinds of conversations that we need to have as Christians and they are the types of conversations that we encourage. We 100% agree with you that slander, animosity, division and backbiting is damaging to the Kingdom. That is why we adhere to Matthew 18:15-17 when trying to work with people. Sadly, we have to make many things public for believers to understand as our brothers and sisters refuse to talk to us in the way that you have so graciously done. Indeed we hear much of the cloak and dagger stuff that goes on within churches, parties and organisations. This is not something to share publicly but I am happy to discuss privately.
A lot of this comes down to what exactly it means to be salt and light in our communities. Sadly, I believe that the modern Evangelical church believes this means that we just be nice and do good things and then all of a sudden people will come to Christ. Of course, this is approach to our faith it in direct conflict with biblical instruction (2 Timothy 4:1-2). As a result of this stance Christian organisations refuse to bring the Gospel into conflict with the culture of death that exists within our society. They adopt a pragmatic approach rather than a biblical approach and, as such, they hide their light and lose their saltiness. This manifests itself in your second point. Simply listen to pro life organisations in NI. They do not publicly call abortion sin, they do not call it murder and they do not call for repentance. One pro life leader in NI recently posted a video where the repeatedly referred to abortion as 'termination of pregnancy'. This is wrong. As a church our message should be clear - abortion is murder and there is forgiveness for murder through Jesus Christ. Failure to do so is failure to share the Gospel.
I completely agree with you that there should be a zero tolerance approach to evil within the church. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen. For example, a PCI elder is currently training doctors and nurses to perform abortions. The PCI have been informed and have refused to listen. This is because what this elder is doing fits into the PCI's view that abortion should not be abolished but, rather, should be 'safe, legal and most importantly, rare' and that abortion should be available up to birth on mental health grounds (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q10 and Q5b www.presbyterianireland.org/getmedia/8e5e41c6-147a-496a-b2a0-9a78493199d0/PCI-Abortion-Consultation-Guidance-(2019).pdf.aspx). There is currently a high degree of tolerance within the church to this issue. As a result I also believe that our ‘end goal’ and the ‘end goal’ of other pro life groups is not the same and therefore I don’t believe that we have the same destination.
Your Daniel reference was interesting and I think is a good example on how as Christians we can be pragmatic on certain issues but not others. On the food issue he was willing to negotiate but when asked to disobey the 2nd commandment he point blank refused to comply. As a result, he was thrown into the lions' den, God delivered him safely and the King decreed ‘that in all my royal dominion people are to tremble and fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God, enduring forever; his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end.’ (Daniel 6:26). The same is true of King Nebuchadnezzar in Ch 4. The same could be true in NI. If we trusted God to deliver us from this evil instead of compromising with it there could be revival across this nation when he does.
Personally I think a better parallel can be found in 2 Kings and the story of King Josiah. When he read God’s law he recognised that the practice of child sacrifice was evil and ‘he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech.’ He literally brought it to an immediate end by destroying the place in which it happened.
Compare the immediate nature of King Josiah and compare it to modern pro life incrementalists.
He didn’t:
1. Attempt to make child sacrifice ‘unthinkable’.
2. Declare that you couldn’t sacrifice a disabled child.
3. Declare that a child cannot be sacrificed after a certain age.
4. Declare that a child must be given pain relief before being sacrificed.
Instead, he brought it to an immediate end. Why ? Because child sacrifice would have continued and the unequal measures introduced by such decrees would have been an abomination to God.
It is our full belief that if the churches, Christian politicians and Christian organisations all got behind immediate abolition then God would deliver it. Unfortunately, they don’t believe that.
If you would like further dialogue you are more than welcome to come to our Monday meeting and ask questions or we can set up a private chat. If you know anyone within CARE we would appreciate it if you would do the same. We want to sit down as brothers and sisters and seek God’s will.
@@AbolishAbortionNI Thank you again for taking the time to discuss this important issue respectfully and from a Biblical point of view. I completely agree with almost everything you say. The church in Northern Ireland has been very weak in its response to the issue of abortion - not only in what it has or has not said on the issue - but also in its very limited involvement practically in the care and support of women who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies. We have an unfortunate theological heritage which views any involvement in the world around us with suspicion.
I don't understand how a professing Christian - much less a church elder - can possibly be involved in the training of others to provide abortion services. However, I don't know the person you are referring to or what his situation is so am a little reluctant to judge outright - but on the face of it I agree with your assessment.
Again you are absolutely right that good deeds alone are not enough - and certainly not the only thing required of us - to fulfill our calling to be salt and light in the world around us. How will our 'good deeds' enable those around us to 'praise (our) Father in heaven' unless they know that it is the transforming power of the gospel that motivates and enables them. You are quite right. We seem to have lost confidence in the gospel and as a result often shy away from bringing it directly into the public square.
My only point of disagreement with you, from a Biblical perspective, is that in your video you take words addressed by the prophets to the people of God and apply them directly to the issue of abortion in our society today. The citizens of Northern Ireland are not the people of God - no matter how much some might like to think so! It is the church who are the people of God today and it is therefore in the church that these words have their direct application.
Unfortunately I think the same is true of the example of Josiah which you quote above. This is something that happened in Israel - among the people of God. Its application is to the ruthless elimination of every kind of evil from among the people of God, which is something we must take very seriously. However, this story has no direct application to the citizens of Northern Ireland as a whole or to how as Christians we are to engage with them.
Which is why I have argued that to find principles we can apply to our engagement in society, we have to look at the approach the prophets took when they addressed the nations around Israel and, even more so, to the book of Daniel in which the people of God find themselves in a situation similar to ours in which, like us, they had to learn what it meant to live as the people of God in a society that did not acknowledge Him or His ways.
I appreciate your invitation to join the meeting on Monday night and in some ways would like to do so but on balance I'm not sure there is anything further to be gained. I understand and appreciate the heart behind what you are trying to do and am grateful for the opportunity to have discussed the issue with you from a Biblical point of view. I don't think there is anything else I can add except perhaps to remind you of the old saying that 'politics is the art of the possible' and to urge you to take that on board!
Blessings again
Having checked out the links in your comments above and watched the first part of your session dealing with CARE's Myth-Busting article, read your article on Wilberforce and examined the response submitted by PCI to the NIO consultation, I feel I must now add a few more comments after all. In my previous comments, I engaged with the Biblical basis you advance for your position and explained why I think it is mistaken. This time I want to address your criticisms of CARE, PCI and the DUP.
With regard to CARE you are critical of the fact that they set out their position using what you regard as vague terms such as 'life-affirming laws' and the 'value and dignity of every human life' without defining what they mean. You accuse them also of being Biblically weak because they base their position on Genesis 1: 26 (the fact that we are made in the image of God) and Psalm 139: 13-14 (the fact that we are fearfully and wonderfully made). I suggest that this is a perfectly valid and even more soundly based approach than yours because it goes right back to creation. The approach that CARE takes is to affirm the goodness of our creator and the goodness of the Good News, emphasising the positive benefits in our society of living in right relationship with God and with our neighbours. This is a perfectly valid approach to take and one that I salute whole-heartedly. The problem I have with your discussion of this is that you seem to set one approach (their more positive one) against the other (your more negative one) as if we have to choose between them - and as if yours is the superior one and the only one that Scripture will allow. By doing so you are creating a divide which does not exist. Both approaches are perfectly compatible. As salt we draw attention to and challenge the corruption in our society, as light we draw attention to the goodness of our God and affirm the benefits of living under His gracious rule. The two go together. By setting one in opposition to the other you are creating a division which simply isn't there. Where you want to rail against the darkness, CARE want to switch on the light. If I had to choose between the two I'd choose the latter every time since it is the light that has the power to dispel the darkness. I find your dismissal of their approach and the Biblical basis for it totally unfounded.
But if your treatment of CARE's views is unfounded, your wilful misrepresentation of the views of PCI is frankly inexcusable. You claim that their position is 'that abortion should not be abolished but, rather, should be 'safe, legal and most importantly, rare'. You have taken the words they used in their response to the NIO consultation as representative of the totality of their position on abortion. This is complete nonsense and you know it. What you fail to acknowledge is that the consultation was set up in the light of the fact that the NIO had been tasked by Westminster with setting up abortion services in Northern Ireland as part of the the law they had recently imposed on us. Given the circumstances and constraints of the consultation, PCI were arguing that if abortion services have to be provided then it should be done in such a way as to ensure that abortion is 'safe, legal and most importantly, rare'. They were accepting the reality of the situation in which we currently find ourselves in a way that you are refusing to do and again I support their position on this. But this does not mean, as well you know, that they have now settled for this and are no longer seeking and campaigning for the complete abolition of abortion. Your allegation that this is so is, I imagine, deeply offensive and should be withdrawn immediately.
It seems to me that your assessment of the DUP as incrementalists and nothing more is also willfully ignorant of the facts. I would be critical of some of the ways in which the DUP have handled the issue of abortion in the past but you seem to have forgotten that for many years it was they, and they alone, who consistently stood against any change to the abortion law in Northern Ireland. They took a firm stand against abortion in all circumstances, other than when the life of the mother was at risk. And furthermore they continue to campaign for the complete abolition of abortion in Northern Ireland every bit as much as Wilberforce campaigned for the complete abolition of slavery. They have called it murder in a number of speeches given in Westminster and I can't believe you don't know this. By setting the abolitionist and incrementalist approach in opposition to each other, as if you can't be both, you once again create a divide that doesn't exist. Your suggestion that those who vote in favour of incremental change are only interested in pursuing an end to abortion by incremental means and cannot at the same time campaign for complete abolition is manifestly untrue as Wilberforce clearly shows. Your casting of the DUP and others as purely incrementalist in their approach is quite erroneous and ignorant of the facts.
Based on your treatment of the three groups mentioned above I am not in the least surprised that they are reluctant to engage in any further dialogue with you. I imagine they have concluded that it would be quite pointless to do so. You are not interested in the truth - only in gathering support for your version of it. You are quite wrong to say that their end goal is not the same as yours. I believe that they want a complete end to abortion every bit as much as you do; that the other Christian pro-life groups are working and praying for this, believing every bit as much as you do that God is able to deliver it. Its just that you have chosen not to see it. To find the reason why these groups will not engage with you I suggest you look much closer to home than you seem willing to do. By your arrogant dismissal of and willful misrepresentation of their views it is you who are cutting yourselves off from them; not the other way round.