Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘commentary’ Category

Marvel – God gives us gifts! Don’t harden your heart against those gifts.

Posted in commentary, News on March 6, 2012| Leave a Comment »

Normally I warn against making an argument for the protection of life from ‘mere’ sentiment.  God provided a wonderful reminder that heart-felt joy has tremendous power!

A young woman brought her new baby to Desiring God last week and immediately attracted a crowd!  There is a preciousness to new life that is beyond explanation.  Just looking at a weeks-old baby is entertaining!

There is no denying the gift this boy is.

Another consequence of entertaining horrific ideas like infanticide, euthanasia or ‘after-birth abortion‘ is the wall it builds against the language of giftedness and the pleasure we experience in those gifts.  The more we talk of children – disabled or not – as existing at the whim of bigger, stronger human beings, we walk a little farther away from the wonder and delight that new life is.

And the farther we walk away, the harder our hearts become.  Another terrifying thing about the recent article on after-birth abortion was how it demands mothers make decisions about the value of their babies, replacing the natural desire to nurture and care for that child from the first seconds he breathes the air to one of analysis and risk/reward ratios.  It replaces a father’s desire to provide and protect with calculations about the value of this little life.

This is a real danger for babies.  Our natural inclination is toward our own small, selfish desires.  Little human beings intrude into our small-minded plans significantly.

Yet, they are gifts!

We must stand against the evil of abortion – before and after birth – for all kinds of reasons. One weapon I believe I have neglected is wonder and pleasure and delight in the good gifts that children are to God’s world.  And I am saying that with full understanding of the painful reality of disability and disease in this life.

Yet that tiny boy I saw this week – not yet a ‘person’ according to some – was exactly that: a weapon against evil and a testimony to God’s extraordinary goodness to a fallen world through the simple delight we experience in new life.

Read Full Post »

The defense has been much more telling than the original article

Posted in commentary on March 5, 2012| 5 Comments »

The article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live, has generated far more telling commentary than the article itself.

For example, Nicholas Shakel, writing for the University of Oxford blog Practical Ethics:

You may not like the idea that the instant of birth doesn’t draw a morally significant boundary between a permissible and impermissible killing, but so what? What makes you so important that your dislike, your violent disagreement, your outrage means that no one should hear this opinion? Obviously, nothing at all. So you have a simple choice. You can either argue back or shut up. What you can’t do is try to shut me up.

Forgive me for missing his point, but didn’t the article get published?  Nobody has been shut up. A few people have responded irresponsibly, even threatening the original authors with violence, and they should be held accountable.  The rest of us see it as wrong and are willing to say so.  Advocating that there is no moral defense for the killing of infants (as I do) is not the same as saying publishing the article should be illegal.

Another response, also published in Practical Ethics, has Professor John Harris “clarifying his position on infanticide” which he claims has been misread:

There is a big difference between an analysis of the moral symmetry of some abortions and some cases of infanticide on the one hand and the defence of infanticide or indeed the advocacy of infanticide on the other. I have always drawn a clear line between what I call “Green Papers” and “White Papers” in ethics. Green papers are intellectual discussions of the issues, white papers are policy proposals. I have never advocated or defended infanticide as a policy proposal. I would not and do not advocate the legalization of infanticide on the basis of any alleged ethical parity of infanticide with abortion.

Sometimes I’m just left scratching my head.  Do ideas matter to him or don’t they?  Do they only matter once they become actionable, like through legislation?  What if your idea encourages someone else to act on it – does that make you an innocent actor?

In his article, Ethical problems in the management of some severely handicapped children, Professor Harris doesn’t openly attack the problem of ‘selective treatment’ (that is, deciding which child’s condition should be treated and which should result in the death of the child) but instead accepts selective treatment as normative and asks simply how the child should be killed.  As I read it, it didn’t really matter if it was intended to be ‘green’ or ‘white’ – it was clearly advocating for a certain kind of behavior.  It seems clear he is fine with the active killing of some children.

His more recent equivocation (excuse me, clarification) on infanticide is all the more puzzling because his entire professional life is dedicated to ideas, so they must matter to him.  His attempt to back away from the practice of infanticide itself is denying the power of the very discipline he practices – which must in itself be troubling to him.  At least I hope so.

There are many others, but I’ll end with this. The editor of the journal has allowed there is nothing truly new about the after-birth abortion article, except possibly its application to social as well as medical reasons for killing children:

The ethical discussion of infanticide dates back several thousand years. At least 100 articles have been published on infanticide in the Journal over its history, with articles both for and many against it. Some of the world’s most famous living philosophers have written about its merits and justification over the last 40 years. . .

That’s helpful.  The argument has gone on for thousands of years, so we must see ourselves in the long stream of those who have argued against it and prepare our children to continue the argument after we are gone.  And we can do so from the greatest of positions – 100% certainty that the practice will end someday!

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:3-4 ESV)

Read Full Post »

It didn’t enter my mind to kill him.

Posted in commentary, Scripture on March 4, 2012| 6 Comments »

Paul is dozing in his ‘soft rocking chair’ at the moment, a picture of contentment on a snowy day in March.  Many people would envy the ease with which he lives – no anxiety about his needs, no worries about tomorrow, no jealousy about what anybody else has.

When I tell the story about Paul’s birth, I include the first 15 seconds of his entry into the world as some of the happiest moments of my life.  The sudden news of his not having eyes immediately changed how I thought about him, not because there was any deficiency in him but because I did not understand and cling to the sovereignty of God over all things.  And that day turned into a nightmare of doctors and interviews and tests – and my soul was crushed, frightened and anxious.

But it never entered my mind to kill him. I’m glad for that.

I wonder, if I had been a student of Peter Singer, Michael Tooley, John Harris or Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, if I would have lingered over such a thought.

God is merciful in many ways, including even the thoughts he spared me from having.

But even if I had entertained such a horror, there is still hope to live free from the guilt of bad memories.

Just consider the Apostle Paul.  We’re introduced to him as Saul in Acts 8:

But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. (Acts 8:3 ESV)

Yet, God would literally blind him so that he could see Jesus more clearly.  And he would later write some of the most comforting words to those who see their own sin for what it is:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1-2 ESV)

Because of Jesus, we are free from old, sinful ways and horrible thoughts. We are free to love and live to show God is our greatest treasure.

Still, I’m glad I never had the thought to end his young life 16 years ago.

Read Full Post »

They are shocked that we are shocked!

Posted in commentary, News on March 1, 2012| 5 Comments »

Jan Lacher forwarded me the Journal of Medical Ethics editorial response to the negative comments they are receiving on the article they published, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

(Yes, I know, I just wrote yesterday not to give this more attention than it deserves.)

I’m not even sure where to begin!

Even considering the writing errors and dropped words (obviously it was written in a hurry; these errors are not typically acceptable for a prestigious journal), the straw-man arguments, and the cherry-picking of comments to make the opposition look dumb and/or racist, the most striking thing to me was how shocked the editor was.

Could anyone really be shocked that this article would receive such an emotional response?

Actually, I believe he was shocked; I don’t believe the editor was being disingenuous.

We all tend to hang out with people like us.  In an interesting article from some years back, Why everyone you know thinks just like you, Shankar Vedantam pointed to research that suggested we can discover a person’s political views by knowing the views of their friends.

So, if the editor, Julian Savulescu, behaves like most of us, he spends most of his time with people who believe what he believes, which creates a self-justifying cycle about what is and is not acceptable to think and talk about.

In this case he tells us what he believes:

However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. . .

The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument.

See the problem?  Quite a few of us don’t believe the killing of vulnerable people – be they unborn or born – is worthy of intellectual engagement because it is inherently wrong. Therefore, there can be no well reasoned argument in defense of this inherently wrong thing.

Moreover, they do believe in Truth, moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas and moral outlooks – they simply call it rational argument.

In this case, their rational argument begins with the premise that bigger, stronger people get to make decisions about the worth of smaller, weaker people.

I’m going to guess that Dr. Savulescu hangs out with people much like himself, so he doesn’t run into folks like us too often.  It is easy to caricature and dismiss people you don’t know and don’t respect – I’m tempted to do so all the time until God reminds me he saved me while I was still a sinner.

Thus, we should not be surprised at their confusion at people being genuinely angry, nor should we be surprised at their dismissing our arguments as being irrational.

So, here’s the real challenge for people living the life of disability – we have to constantly repeat ourselves about the value of all human life, including those who live with disabilities.  This is so self-evident to us that we can forget that not everyone agrees.

Clearly, not everyone agrees.

That’s ok. Someday our persistence in telling and retelling an old, old truth will be rewarded:

And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
(Galatians 6:9-10 ESV)

Read Full Post »

This evil appears new. It is not.

Posted in commentary, News on February 29, 2012| 7 Comments »

The headline was intended to provoke a response:  After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

It worked.

And it is a trap for those who stand against such evil.

Obviously, real evil like this must be called out for what it is.  But when we do so, we actually grant the writers greater standing and credibility in the world than they deserve.  And they will be heros, to some, for their “courageous” academic work given the hundreds of angry blog postings and commentaries that already exist.

If we ignore it, the culture continues down a heart-hardening slope where the language concerning the destruction of the most vulnerable becomes normalized.  Evil behavior can then follow behind this language.

So, if it isn’t wise to ignore it, and it isn’t helpful to call it out, what should we do?

Here’s my suggestion: Call it what it is, and then dismiss it.  Be persistent in helping people see how evil this thinking is, and also how old it is. Strip it of its power to incite rage and let them run into a wall of determined, eternal, protective regard for the weakest among us.

The idea they propose isn’t really even clever or edgy.  For example, their promoting a new term for infanticide – ‘after-birth abortion’ – might be perceived as clever, but it certainly isn’t ground-breaking.  And including typically-developing babies as candidates for murder appears shocking, but healthy babies are being birthed and then killed, if they happen to be girls, in some parts of the world today.

No, this isn’t new.

I don’t fault Dr. Giubilini and Dr. Minerva for being ambitious.  Both are young scholars with very little published to this point in their careers and it is hard to get noticed.

But this is a horrible way for them to begin their academic careers.  Let us pray for them – really pray – that God would call them away from such thinking and that they would use their talents for much more positive, life-giving and God-centered purposes.

Someday God’s wrath against the evil behind this article will be set aside because they cling to Jesus and his righteousness, or they will be held personally responsible for it and face God’s wrath themselves.  That choice is easy, but only if they are granted eyes to see it.

And wouldn’t the world be shocked if that were to happen!

Read Full Post »

“I’ve received triple back. . .” Joni Eareckson Tada

Posted in commentary, Quotes on February 26, 2012| Leave a Comment »

Joni’s radio broadcast this week included an interaction she had with mother who has a son with an injury very much like Joni’s injury.

It was helpful in several ways – how to listen well to someone in pain, when to respond and when to be silent, and where Joni’s hope is.

There’s a time to listen and a time to just keep it to yourself. After all, her grief of loss is fresh and she’s a mother who can’t be expected to want anything less for her son than a body that works. I can understand that. And so, as she continued to talk about her hopes for healing, I continued to treasure in my heart quietly all those triple-fold blessings — no, not double — much more than that — triple. . .

He’s given me the chance everyday when I wake up to lean on Him out of desperate need. And I know I would not be doing that had I been healed.

You can listen to or read the entire thing here.

Read Full Post »

7 Lessons from the Community of Disability – Greg Lucas

Posted in commentary on February 19, 2012| Leave a Comment »

In case you missed it (because he doesn’t write nearly enough!), Greg shared some of his God-granted wisdom at his blog this week:

7 Lessons from the Community of Disability

 

Read Full Post »

I think the lesson is this: be quick to pray, be gracious in accepting prayer, don’t forget that God is sovereign over all things

Posted in commentary on February 7, 2012| 7 Comments »

Though rare, it happens – people see Paul and ask if they can pray for him.

At places like WalMart (where it has happened) I usually accept their offer after quietly and quickly assessing their motives and authenticity. People in Minnesota are so private that I recognize the courage it takes to cross both a religious and cultural barrier to approach a stranger with that question.  And people are usually appropriate.

But I got the offer at Bethlehem on Sunday and came very close to responding rashly.  I’m pretty sure the Holy Spirit was helping me be gracious in the moment when I could feel my pride being challenged.

Here’s the story.  We got to church a few minutes late.  I plopped Paul down in the seats just outside the sanctuary while we got our bearings on who was going where.  A gentleman noticed Paul and asked me what ‘disease’ he had.  I quickly told him that Paul is blind and autistic (I only use the long list when we have more time!) and he asked if he could pray for healing, because God heals people from blindness and he’s seen it.

People pray for Paul all the time at church, but generally don’t make such bold pronouncements about healing.  I accepted his offer and he proceeded to ask for Paul to be healed of his blindness and his autism right there, through the power of the Holy Spirit and in Jesus’ name.  It was very sweet, this stranger praying so fervently for my son.

But my own spirit was not seeing the sweetness and I was getting irritated.  Didn’t he think God created some like Paul just the way he is? Didn’t he think I had faith? Didn’t he think I prayed for my son?

He finished and said that he believed God could heal my son and was genuinely disappointed that nothing had happened.  I responded that I knew God could heal him, but sometimes God is most evident in the sustaining grace and peace he grants when he doesn’t choose to heal in this age.

And that was it.  I entered the sanctuary and didn’t see him again.

Dianne helped me see what he did in its proper context: this man saw a need and his immediate reaction was to pray.  He wasn’t challenging my faith or accusing me of anything, he just wanted to pray.  He believed God could move.

And God answers prayers!  Yet, God sometimes brings greater glory to himself, and greater help to his church, when he doesn’t do exactly what we ask of him.  The one who knows the end from the beginning is in a much better place to determine how to answer the prayers of his saints.  And he is always good, always just, always right, and always capable to do what he has promised.

Of course, there’s a time and place to say ‘no, I don’t want you to pray for my child’ because it is evident it is more about the person who has offered prayer than about humbly going before God.  The histrionics demonstrated on television by ‘healers’ have no place around my son or anybody else.

I’ve decided that I’m glad this man prayed, even if my heart wasn’t exactly right, because I should be just as quick to pray.

And I hope he heard me and that I helped him to see that God’s sustaining grace is also a wonderful thing and not at all a lesser gift than healing in this present age.  Maybe, in fact, it is a greater gift because we have less temptation to forget how weak we are and utterly dependent on his persistent, daily help.

Read Full Post »

Let them see disability everywhere

Posted in commentary, Quotes on February 5, 2012| 1 Comment »

Russell Moore has a tremendous response to the outrage this week over Susan G. Koman Foundation for the Cure and Planned Parenthood in his Christianity Today article, The Pink Ribbon and the Dollar Sign.

I was particularly grateful that he included disability:

But what we have is greater than that. We have a word that tells a pregnant young woman that we believe her Down Syndrome baby is a gift, not a health care burden. And we can offer the kind of gospel that cleanses the conscience and offers what outlasts money and power: life and that to the uttermost.

We look at the issue of disability, disease and suffering almost every day here, and I am grateful for others who have that same emphasis.

But the larger change in the church and eventually the culture comes when disability is part of the common story, when people see it everywhere and not just as a special emphasis.

Especially when, as Dr. Moore did, they rightfully refer to all people as gifts and not burdens.

Read Full Post »

God’s gift of protecting little lives

Posted in commentary on January 23, 2012| 1 Comment »

As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. 2 Thessalonians 3:13 ESV

In just the past 10 days, two different men let me know of two different babies who will be given the chance to be born.  In both cases, the parents had discovered their unborn babies have significant physical issues.

Please, do what these men did – when someone is struggling, tell them the truth of God’s extraordinary power and grace and mercy, that he will give them strength, that the peace of God does surpass understanding and does guard our hearts in Christ Jesus!

And there will be great sorrow.  We all know that.  This will, in all likelihood, be the most difficult thing these parents will ever do.  Yet, we know what the final outcome is:

So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 ESV

The two men who shared these stories are friends of mine, and I am grateful to God beyond words for their desire to serve these families with the truth.  I don’t know the fathers of the babies, but I hope someday I’ll have the chance to meet them and thank them for trusting Jesus with their future children, when the world says it is foolish and avoidable.

Now, may God grant us the gift of saving some more.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »