In the cross God does two things, which would be otherwise impossible.
First, he pardons those who believe in Christ. Although they have sinned and deserve only condemnation, he pardons sinners. How can a just God pardon sinners? Only because all of our sin was transferred to Christ. This lays the ax to the roots of every religious person’s endeavors to make himself acceptable to God by trying harder, attending more, praying more intensely – as if by some mechanism we might be able to tip the scales in our favor.
God pardons sinners even though they have sinned and sinned and deserve only condemnation. And if he didn’t we would be forever excluded from his presence.
Second, he displays and satisfied his perfect, holy justice by executing the punishment our sins deserve. Without this God would not be true to himself.
Here’s the gospel in a phrase. Because Christ died for us, those who trust in him may know that their guilt has been pardoned once and for all.
What will we have to say before the bar of God’s judgment? Only one thing. Christ died in my place. That’s the gospel.
From Jesus Our Substitute by Alistair Begg, included in Jesus, Keep Me Near the Cross, edited by Nancy Guthrie, p. 25.
Posted in Quotes | Leave a Comment »
There has been a lot of news on the disability front recently, some of it encouraging.
None of it as encouraging as this, however:
The LORD is a stronghold for the oppressed,
a stronghold in times of trouble.
And those who know your name put their trust in you,
for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.
Sing praises to the LORD, who sits enthroned in Zion!
Tell among the peoples his deeds!
For he who avenges blood is mindful of them;
he does not forget the cry of the afflicted.
Psalm 9:9-12 ESV
Posted in Scripture | Leave a Comment »
Some argue that killing an unborn child or a new-born child does not actually do anyone any harm. Emphases in bold are mine:
If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred. Giubilini and Minerva, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” in The Journal of Medical Ethics, 2012.
Just for arguments sake, let’s set aside the fact that a child is destroyed.
Someone is still harmed.
Everyone else.
Because children are a reward, not a curse or a commodity:
Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD,
the fruit of the womb a reward.
(Psalm 127:3 ESV)
Posted in commentary, Quotes | 2 Comments »
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.
Posted in commentary, News | Leave a Comment »
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)
Posted in commentary | 5 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.
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.
Posted in commentary, Scripture | 6 Comments »
And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” (Revelation 21:5 ESV)
There is an unfortunate stream of thinking amongst some that this is related exclusively to a change in our physical existence. Some theologians react so strongly against that incomplete understanding that they deny that disability will end someday.
It certainly means an end to disability. But it also means so much more! Emphases in bold are mine:
When God makes all things new, he will make us spiritually and morally as pure as flawless crystal, he will give us a body like the body of his glory, he will renovate all creation to take all futility and evil and pain out of it, and finally he himself will come to us and let us see his face. And so forever and ever we will live with pure hearts and glorious bodies on a new earth in the presence and the glory of our heavenly Father.
John Piper, Behold, I Make All Things New, delivered April 26, 1992
Posted in Scripture, Sermons | Leave a Comment »
God can do anything! A 100-year-old missionary to Deaf people recalls her time in the Czech Republic
Please click through the link below to watch Lilian Beard talk about going to the Czech Republic at the age of 90, and the impact it had on Anna Smolkova.
Anna happens to be deaf, and God had a great plan for his church through Lilian Beard’s faithfulness and Anna Smolkova’s new life in Christ!
The Power of Silence (3 minutes)
She died in 2010, but I gathered from this article in the Houston Chronicle that she lead quite a life.
I want to finish like Lilian Beard!
Thank you to Tyler Kenney who pointed me to the IMB Deaf Peoples site.
Posted in News | 1 Comment »
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)
Posted in commentary, News | 5 Comments »
All conference audio and video for The Works of God: God’s Good Design in Disability are now available at Desiring God!
Share this blog
Subscribe
Resource Library
Archives
Categories
The Works of God 
Show up and prepare somebody else for this life (and maybe save a life while doing so)
March 8, 2012 by John Knight
Thank you to Justin Taylor for pointing to Mark Leach’s article, When Being Pro-Life Isn’t Enough to Stop Abortion.
I read Mark Leach’s article just a couple of days after talking with a young man I know who is about to have his first child. When I asked how his wife was doing, he said that they had just been talking about my family as they wondered about their own baby. They talked about the possibility of disability – and the fact that they want this child in their lives however he or she comes. That was a moment of sobering joy for me.
Knowing this young man the way I do, I have no doubt he would welcome his child if he had disabilities “as sorrowful yet always rejoicing” even if he didn’t know me or Paul. He is much more grounded in the sovereignty of God over all things than I was at his age. But I also believe that God uses my Paul to prepare others for the potential reality of disability in ways that are encouraging, even as we don’t even attempt to hide how difficult some aspects of our lives are.
I know church can be hard, but if at all possible, show up. Attempting to ‘do’ church with a child with disabilities is complicated, sometimes frustrating, and even overwhelming. Yet the very presence of our families makes a difference! When Paul was really little and we returned to church, I watched one family from afar who have a child with Down syndrome. I never even approached them. Paul doesn’t have Down syndrome, but just knowing there was another dad walking around with a disabled child was a comfort. It was only recently that I had the chance to tell that dad the impact he had.
Our children matter, and people can see that when we show up with all our complications and embarrassing behaviors and strange noises. And by doing so we help plant different seeds in people’s minds.
We must plant those seeds, we simply must, as Mark Leach pointed out in his article:
They wanted their children, but they were afraid. Nobody I know will say that the burden isn’t real; that would be both false and foolish. And the fears are real as well. The happier statistics Mr. Leach quotes elsewhere in his article pale in comparison to those darker images virtually everyone has about disability.
But that dark hole of assumptions is missing a key ingredient – an actual living human being who we can touch and observe and engage, and real siblings who have to live a different kind of life, but not necessarily a bad life, and the realization that society really isn’t interested in that child, but that God is intensely interested and ready to “supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19).
So, if you can, show up and demonstrate how big God is and pray for God to do something we might never know about. May God use us to drive down that statistic of wanted-but-aborted children, even one at a time.
Share this:
Posted in commentary, Quotes | 3 Comments »