The Lausanne Movement on Human Sexuality and Marriage

 

The Lausanne Movement recently wrapped up its convention in Seoul. Five thousand Christians, from over 200 nations, gathered to worship, listen, and write a 97-point, 13,000-word document.

Included are detailed statements on human sexuality and marriage.

You can pull up the document here. See especially point four: "The Human Person: The Image of God Created and Restored."

When Does a Human Life Begin?

 

 

(Frost on car window)

"An amicus curiae (literally, "friend of the court"; plural: amici curiae) often referred to as amicus brief is defined as the legal brief where someone who is not a party to a case assists a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. The decision on whether to consider an amicus brief lies within the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and its origin of the term has been dated back to 1605-1615. The scope of amicus curiae is generally found in the cases where broad public interests are involved and concerns regarding civil rights are in question." (From Wikipedia)

One of the legal briefs accepted by the Supreme Court in the Dobbs case regarding abortion rights concerns the following.

(From the brief.) 

"Amici curiae are biologists who work at colleges, universities, and other institutions in 15 countries around the world.

The fertilization view is widely recognized—in the literature and by biologists—as the leading biological view on when a human’s life begins... An international survey of academic biologists’ views on when a human’s life begins reported 96% of 5,577 participants affirmed the fertilization view. 

Fertilization, generally, marks the beginning of a sexually reproducing organism’s life and, specifically, marks the beginning of a human’s life, as it is the point at which a human first comes into physical existence as an organism that is biologically classified as a member of the Homo sapiens species."

When someone asks me why I am against abortion, my response is: Because I am against killing an innocent, defenseless human being.

Pride: A Checklist

(Linda and me, with Payne Theological Seminary students)

God is opposed to the proud,

but gives grace to the humble.

James 4:6

Those are strong words! In areas of pride, God is against us. Pride in us hinders others from experiencing God's love, mercy, and grace.

C.S. Lewis once wrote that the true Christian's nostrils must be constantly attuned to the inner cesspool. That cesspool includes pride. 

Do I, do you, have ungodly pride in your heart? In my praying time yesterday I was bringing, before the Lord, some areas of pride that are within my heart, and asking God to remove them.

Michael Brown, in Revolution in the Church: Challenging the Religious System with a Call for Radical Change, provides a checklist of potential evidences of pride. If you have a pointy finger, aim it at yourself as you read these. If the shoe fits, confess and turn from the prideful attitude.

• You are accountable to no one. 
• You think you are “the one”—that your church, your ministry, your anointing or your teaching is the necessary ingredient for true revival or evangelism or growth. 
• Your opinion is always more important than the opinion of others. 
• You are able to find sin in the lives of others but not in your own. 
• You are quarrelsome. 
• You find it difficult to be a team player. 
• You are always right about everything. 
• You are slow to repent. 
• You find it difficult to say, “I’m sorry,” without defending yourself or blaming others. 
• You refuse to take help. 
• You are unteachable. 
• You are unable to recognize others’ accomplishments or rejoice in their successes. 
• You are unable to say, “I’m hurting; I’m in trouble.” 
• You never reverse your path when wrong, but make only minor adjustments. 
• You always think, “This message is for someone else, not me.” 
• You fail to realize when God is trying to get your attention, when He is correcting you, when He is judging you.

The Rhythm of My Spiritual Life Is a Wheel Rolling Forward

When I became a follower of Jesus fifty-two years ago (!!!) I was an undergraduate at Northern Illinois University. I began to attend a campus ministry. I was asked if I wanted to be in a Small Group for Bible study and prayer. I was told this experience would be one of the keys to my spiritual vitality and growth.

That proved true. I've been in a Small Group all fifty-three years of my Christian life. Linda and I have been in a Small Group Community all fifty-one years of our marriage.

The early Jesus-followers met in small groups of Jesus-followers; in homes, in upper rooms, wherever they could find a gathering place. Small Group Community was essential to the explosive spiritual and numerical growth of the early church. It's also essential to my spiritual life and growth.

The rhythm of my spiritual life looks like this:

I meet alone with God. I spend time with God in "the secret place." 

This is the Very Small Group (VSG) - God and I.

I meet bi-weekly in a Home Group to study scripture and pray together. 

This is the Small Group (SG) - 8-12 people.

I meet Sunday mornings to worship and listen to the preached Word on Sunday mornings and other times.

This is the Large Group (LG). 

Today it's Saturday morning, and I have spent time alone with God in the VSG.

A week ago was the SG - Linda and I were there.

On Sunday morning I'll be with my LG.

VSG-SG-LG; VSG-SG-LG...  over and over again and again.

It looks like this:

Note: this is a circle rolling forward on a path, led by God, progressing in the spiritual life and the movement of God and his kingdom. (It is not "the eternal recurrence of the same.")

***
My book on prayer focuses on the VSG - Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God.

Against Abortion: A Logical Argument



(Backgammon, in Jerusalem)

(I am re-posting this because the heat is rising and I want to keep this in play.)

Here is Baylor University philosopher and jurisprudential scholar Francis Beckwith’s logical (not religious) argument against abortion. (See Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice.)

Beckwith’s argument does not depend on religious beliefs. I think it’s a good argument to use in my logic classes because logical arguments are to be non-emotive. The abortion argument can get very emotional! 

In logic, the idea is - attack the argument, not the argument-maker. To do the latter is to commit the informal logical fallacy called ad hominem abusive. Attacking a person rather than the argument is ineffective in getting at truth.

FRANCIS BECKWITH’S LOGICAL ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION [1]

1. The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community.

2. It is prima facie[2] morally wrong to kill any member of that community.

3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.

4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.

By “full-fledged member of the human community” is meant that the conceptus [3] is as much a bearer of rights as any human being whose rights-bearing status is uncontroversial, like you or me. As Beckwith says, “the unborn entity is entitled to all the rights to which free and equal persons are entitled by virtue of being free and equal persons.” “Full-fledged member of the human community” cannot mean something like “viability,” since then we have two problems:

1) the arbitrariness of deciding who’s a full-fledged member and who’s not; and
2) the odd philosophical idea that there is suddenly a “moment” (call it time ‘t’) when the conceptus/fetus/inborn child becomes a person, which means at time ‘t-minus-1 second’ it was not. “Abortion advocates argue that the unborn entity is not a person and hence not a subject of moral rights until some decisive moment in fetal or postnatal development.” (Beckwith, 130) Such a position is incoherent and fraught with philosophical problems.

“Virtually no one disputes – including leading defenders of abortion-choice – that every mature human being was once an adolescent, a child, an infant, a baby, a newborn, a fetus, and an embryo.” (131) But the abortion advocate argues that it is morally permissible to end a human being’s life at the embryo stage of human life. How is this possible? Beckwith says they argue that not all human beings are equally intrinsically valuable because some do not have the present capacity to exhibit certain properties or functions that would make them intrinsically valuable. (130) The judgment is made that the fetal self is not “intrinsically valuable.”

Beckwith holds to a “substance view of persons.” This means that a human being “is intrinsically valuable because of the sort of thing it is and the human being remains that sort of thing as long as it exists”. That is, an individual “maintains absolute identity through time while it grows, develops, and undergoes numerous changes”. To use another example, the term “universe” refers to one entity that goes through various stages. The universe at t + 1 second, though much smaller and far more inchoate than the universe now, was still at that time as much “the universe” as it is now. So, the term “universe does not suffer from vagueness. It is in precisely that sense that “person” does not suffer from vagueness as well.

Various functions and capacities, whether fully realized or utilized do not constitute a person. Thus, a human being is never a potential person, but is always a person at different stages of development, whether potential properties and capacities are actualized or not.

To explain: a human being may never realize the ability to reason logically. It would then lack this ability. In contrast, a frog is not said to lack something if it can’t study logic, because by nature it is not the sort of being that can have the ability to do logic. But a human being who lacks the ability to think logically is still a human being because of her nature. A human being’s “lack” makes sense if and only if she is an actual human person. (E.g., a rock does not “lack” the ability to see.) Most pro-abortionists argue that personhood is not inherent or intrinsic, but based on certain capacities and functions, be it consciousness, sentience, self-awareness, the ability to reason, and so on.

WHAT ABOUT THE FOLLOWING POPULAR ARGUMENTS FOR ABORTION CHOICE? Beckwith says many of them commit the informal logical fallacies of “appeal to pity” and “begging the question.”

An argument from pity is an attempt to show the plausibility of one’s point of view by trying to move others emotionally, although the reasonableness of the position stands or falls on the basis of other important factors. Here are some arguments from pity:

Argument from the dangers of illegal abortions

If abortion is made illegal, then women will perform illegal abortions. If women perform illegal abortions, then women will be harmed. Therefore, if abortion is made illegal then women will be harmed.
This argument “begs the question.” Only by assuming that the unborn are not fully human does the argument work. “But if the unborn are fully human, this abortion-choice argument is tantamount to saying that because people die or are harmed while killing other people (i.e., unborn people), the state should make it safe for them to do so.” (94) Therefore, the argument begs the question.

Argument from financial burden

We can’t minimize the fact that there are tragic circumstances, like a poor woman with four small children who becomes pregnant by her alcoholic husband. “But once again we must ask whether the unborn entity is fully human, for hardship does not justify homicide.” (98) For example, if I knew that killing you would relieve me of future hardship, that’s not sufficient justification for me to kill you.

Argument from the unwanted child

This argument, again, begs the question. Because only if we assume that the unborn re not fully human does this argument work. It is extremely difficult to argue that the value of a human being depends on whether someone wants or cares for that human being.

Argument from the deformed and handicapped child

First, if this argument succeeds in showing that abortion is justified if a woman is pregnant with a deformed or handicapped fetus, it only establishes the right to abort in those kind of situations. But this argument again begs the question. “For if the unborn are fully human, then to promote the aborting of the handicapped unborn is tantamount to promoting the execution of handicapped people who are already born.” [4]Of course having a handicapped child can be a terrible burden. “But it is important to realize that if the unborn entity is fully human, homicide cannot be justified simply because it relieves one of a terrible burden.” (102)

Argument from interference in career

Again… this begs the question. “For what would we think of a parent who kills his two-year-old because the child interfered with the parent’s ability to advance in his occupation?” (104)

Argument from rape and incest

This is a horrible thing, of course. Note: this argument is not relevant to the case for abortion on demand. Note also this: “the unborn entity is not an aggressor when its presence does not endanger it’s mother’s life (as in the case of a tubal pregnancy). It is the rapist who is the aggressor. The unborn entity is just as much an innocent victim as its mother.” (105-106) Again… this argument begs the question by assuming that the unborn is not fully human.

Another popular argument is the Argument from Imposing Morality.

This argument says: It’s wrong for anyone to “force” his view of morality on someone else. Pro-lifers, by attempting to stop women from having abortions, are trying to force their morality on others.

But this argument cannot be right. Because it’s not always wrong for the community to institute laws that require people to behave in certain moral ways. E.g., it’s not wrong to institute a law against child molestation. If the unborn entity is fully human, forbidding abortions would be perfectly just. Any law prohibiting abortion would unjustly impose one’s morality on others only if the act of abortion is good, morally benign, or does not unjustly limit the free agency of another. The real issue is: what counts as a “person,” a full-fledged member of the human community.

[1] All quotes from Francis Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice

[2] Prima facie is a Latin expression meaning “on its first appearance”, or “by first instance”. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.

[3] The fertilized egg

[4] See Peter Singer, who admits that “pro-life groups are right about one thing: the location of the baby inside or outside the womb cannot make such a crucial moral difference… The solution, however, is not to accept the pro-life view that the fetus is a human being with the same moral status as yours or mine. The solution is the very opposite: to abandon the idea that all human life is of equal worth.” (In Beckwith, 101)

Healthy Guilt

 

                                                      (Across the street, from our house)

I have been a Jesus-follower since 1970. I was twenty-one years old. Which makes me now...???

At the heart of my conversion was a great sense of my sin, which was manifesting itself in many ways. I felt guilt.

My guilt was different from a guilt trip laid on me by some self-righteous person. This guilt was from God. That's how I saw it. God was convicting me. I had done wrong things. I had hurt people. I was entitled and narcissistic. And then, thankfully, I began to feel a sadness about myself that would not go away. I am so thankful for this revelation of my sin!

There is a healthy guilt that is different from self-hatred. Brennan Manning writes:

"Healthy guilt adds not a single paragraph to the script for self-hatred. To the contrary, the conviction of personal sinfulness leads to realistic confrontation, ruthless honesty, and self-knowledge; it stimulates compunction, contrition, the desire for reconciliation, and inner peace." (In Faith That Matters: 365 Devotions from Classic Christian Leaders, p. 305)

In 1 John, the apostle John is writing to believers, "to assure believers of the certainty of their faith and to refute heretical doctrines teaching that Jesus was not fully human and fully divine." (Keener, NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, p. 10936) 

In chapter 1 John says, 

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

Have I sinned since my conversion to Christ in 1970? Sadly, but of course. Yet when my sin has been accompanied by healthy remorse and guilt, it has often led to greater transformation of character. Of which there is surely more to come.

Metaethical Studies

 

(Our front yard, designed by Linda)

One thing I occasionally do when I browse the internet is check out university philosophy websites. Like here, e.g.

I look at their faculty pages, and graduate students. Like here. 

Most of the graduate students have brief statements about where they have studied, and what their current research is on. (My doctoral research at Northwestern U. was in philosophy of language, linguistic semantics, hermeneutical theories, and metaphor theory, and how metaphor refers.)

What stands out to me is that a significant number of U-Michigan grad students in philosophy are working in the areas of ethics, moral philosophy, and metaethics.

Metaethics has special interest to me, since being introduced to metaethical studies by Nietzsche, as an undergrad in the 70s. Today I bought and began to read Metaethics: A Short Companion, by J. P. Moreland and David Horner.

"Some of the most interesting questions and debates in ethics are metaethical ones, such as Is morality something grounded in the nature of things, or is it a human construction? Are moral values objective, or are they relative to different individuals or cultures? Does morality depend on God, and if so, how?" 

Technology and Spiritual Formation - Bibliography (in process)

(The Lutheran Home, in Monroe, MI)

I post this for any who think spiritual formation into Christlikeness is important, and wonder how technological advances will affect this.

This morning I am reading Eric Larson's book. (See below.)

Somewhere in me a book about this relationship is brewing.

Here are books I have read and studied to help me better understand the relationship between technology, culture, and Christian spiritual formation. 

A note: Linda and I watched "The Social Dilemma" on Netflix. Helpful. Well done. Concerning. Frightening.

Adam Alter, Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked.

Aiken, Mary, The Cyber Effect: An Expert in Cyberpsychology Explains How Technology is Shaping Our Children, Our Behavior, and Our Valuers, and What We Can Do About It. 

Mark Bauerlein, ed. The Digital Divide: Arguments for and Against Facebook, Google, Texting, and the Age of Social Networking

Bauerlein, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupifies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future

David Baggett and Jerry Walls, God and Cosmos: Moral Truth and Human Meaning

James Barrat, Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era

Albert Borgmann, Power Failure: Christianity in the Culture of Technology

Danah Boyd, It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens

John Brockman, ed. Possible Minds: Twenty-Five Ways of Looking at AI

John Brockman, ed. What to Think About Machines that Think

Harold I. Brown, Perception, Theory and Commitment: The New Philosophy of Science

Alan Burdick, Why Time Flies: A Mostly Scientific Investigation

Susan Cain, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking

Heidi Campbell, Networked Theology: Negotiating Faith in Digital Culture 

Nicholas Carr, The Glass Cage: How Our Computers are Changing Us

Carr, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains

John Cheney-Lippold, We Are Data: Algorithms and the Making of Our Digital Selves.

William Davies, The Happiness Industry

Craig Detweiler, iGods: How Technology Shapes Our Spiritual and Social Lives

Jacques Ellul, Presence in the Modern World: A New Translation

Ellul, The Technological Society

Amitai Etzioni, Happiness is the Wrong Metric: A Liberal Communitarian Response to Populism

Franklin Foer, World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech

Donna Freitas, The Happiness Effect: How Social Media is Driving a Generation to Appear Perfect at Any Cost

Howard Gardner and Katie Davis, The App Generation

Craig Gay, Modern Technology and the Human Future: A Christian Appraisal

Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukionoff, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. 

Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays 

James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky, Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality

Don Ihde, Philosophy and Technology: An Introduction

David Kaplan, ed. Readings in the Philosophy of Technology

Larson, Eric. The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think thre Way We Do.

Tim Lewens, The Meaning of Science: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science

Raymond Martin. The Rise and Fall of Soul and Self: An Intellectual History of Personal Identity

Adam McHugh, The Listening Life: Embracing Attentiveness in a World of Distraction

Carl Mitcham, Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology

Moreland, J.P., Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology. 

Richard Muller, Now: The Physics of Time

H. Richard Neibuhr, Christ and Culture.

Newport, Cal, Digital Minimalism: Choosing a Focused Life In a Noisy World. 

Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters

Pellegrino, Edmund. Human Dignity and Bioethics. 

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business 

Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

Powers, William, Hamlet's Blackberry: Building a Good Life in the Digital Age

Tony Reinke, 12 Ways Your Phone is Changing You

Schuurman, Derek. Shaping a Digital World: Faith, Culture and Computer Technology 

Jacob Shatzer, Transhumanism and the Image of God: Today's Technology and the Future of Christian Discipleship

Roger Scruton, On Human Nature

Christian Smith, What Is a Person? Rethinking Humanity, Social Life, and the Moral Good from the Person Up

Mari Swingle, i-Minds: How and Why Constant Connectivity Is Rewiring Our Brains and What to Do About It

Charles Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity

Taylor, The Secular Age

Sherry Turkle, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other

Turkle, Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age

Jean Twenge, iGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy - and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood - and What That Means for the Rest of Us

Twenge, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement

Jose van Dyck, The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media

***

My Books

 Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God

Leading the Presence-Driven Church

Encounters with the Holy Spirit (co-edited with Janice Trigg)

Deconstructing Progressive Christianity

31 Letters to the Church on Discipleship

31 Letters to the Church on Praying

Science Cannot Bridge the Gulf Between 'Is' and 'Ought'

                                                        (Monroe County Fairgrounds)

I'm enjoying reading The Morality Wars: The Ongoing Debate Over Human Goodness . It's a collection of metaethical essays by atheists, ambivalents, and theists.

I just read Stephen Weinberg's contribution. He's an atheist, and a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. I found it interesting that he holds to a variation of Stephen Jay Gould's "NOMA"; viz., that science and religion are "Non-Overrlapping Majisteria." I used to teach Gould's theory in my philosophy of religion classes.  (See here.)

I'm with Weinberg's thesis that science tells us nothing about morality. Weinberg accepts (contrary to Sam Harris) Hume's famous fact/value distinction, and that to think one can derive 'ought' (morality) from 'is' (science) is to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Weinberg writes:

"Science cannot give us any help in discovering the principles on which we ought to base our actions. It seems to me, as it did to David Hume, that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the “is” and the “ought.” Science does have a morality of its own—a commitment to honesty, an aversion to wishful thinking—but it cannot without circularity justify itself." (The Morality Wars (p. 74). Fortress Academic. Kindle Edition. )