Abortion: Acknowledging the Antithesis

We are at a crossroads. Our nation is at a particularly poignant point in her history, intellectually, legislatively, and morally speaking. I believe that the next few years will have an effect (positively or negatively) on generations to come that few time periods have had.

I happen to be reading a book right now that analyses the Presuppositional Apologetic of Cornelius Van Til, and I have found it to be incredibly helpful in understanding how to interact with unbelievers in the midst of our tumultuous political climate. One of Van Til's emphases (developed by Bahnsen) is the stark antithesis between the worldview of the believer and that of the unbeliever. Regardless of the apparent points of contact we may seem to have in common, we truly see (or ought to see) everything differently. Every single aspect of life, every fact, is colored by our greater worldview.

Most people agree that 2+2=4, but we have different reasons for that conviction. For the Christian, the fact that we are fallen creatures of the Creator God affects (or ought to) absolutely everything we think, do, and say, even performing basic mathematical computations. What we believe about God, the Universe, and ourselves impacts every other conviction we have about the world in which we live and how we operate in it. In other words, our worldview affects how we interpret data, determine beliefs, make choices, etc.

This inescapable presuppositional antithesis between believers and unbelievers often prevents us from having productive dialogue about secondary and tertiary matters. Take abortion as an example. Abortion is not the real issue of contention between believers and unbelievers. Abortion, while a great evil and a battle worth fighting, is ultimately a symptom of the dominant worldview of our modern culture.

Understanding that one's view of abortion reflects deeper convictions can save us much frustration and many needless keystrokes. As we encounter the logic of pro-choice Americans, we need to step back and understand the true motivations that lie behind their logic. That which is so obvious to us--that it is immoral and unwise for humans to destroy their unborn young--is not so obvious to those who do not share our basic understanding of life. Their view of abortion is perfectly consistent with their worldview. After all, those who do not believe that mankind has been made in the image of God have no reason to respect human life any more than animal life. It is perfectly logical to live as hedonistically as possible in this life if you do not believe in an afterlife. Why should someone who believes that we are nothing but accidents on a space rock care about a foetus in the womb?

It is easy to see why debates on this issue are so unproductive.

So, let's get practical. How do we talk to unbelievers about issues like abortion, economics, race, etc.? Does this worldview antithesis render impossible any meaningful dialogue? Should we just throw up our hands and give up? No, not at all. That would hardly be an apologetic method, would it? What we must do is consciously acknowledge and emphasize the antithesis. To put it another way, we need to have deeper conversations. We need to talk to unbelievers about meaning, reality, life. etc. We need to push beyond the surface issues and challenge them to offer an intellectual foundation for morality, epistemology, etc. Ultimately, our goal is to leave them wondering whether or not their worldview can answer any of the fundamental questions of life. As Van Til would say, we should encourage everyone, believers and unbelievers alike, to become epistemologically self-conscious--to know what they believe and why they believe it--and to live in a manner consistent with their worldview.

Of course, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are hardly optimal places to hold these meaningful conversations. This kind of deeper questioning will normally require face-to-face communication (you know, the kind of thing our grandparents did). Even so, bearing this presuppositional anthesis in mind will help us to be more effective, and less frustrated, communicators for Christ as we interact with unbelievers in person and online.

"Father, Forgive Them"

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Forgiveness is hard. Forgiveness is really, really hard. It’s difficult to forgive others who have genuinely harmed or offended us. It’s easy to say , “I forgive you,” but it’s extremely difficult to feel it–to make peace in our hearts with the injustices that others have perpetrated against us. It just doesn’t feel right. Sin should be punished! Wrongs should be righted! Right?! It’s difficult to forgive others when they ask for it. It’s even more difficult to forgive them when they haven’t asked for it–when they don’t even recognize what they’ve done to hurt us. As our Savior hung upon His Cross, He asked the Father to forgive those nearby–those who were unwittingly contributing to the greatest injustice in the history of the world. These thieves, soldiers, and standers-by had no idea what was happening. They had no idea that the jealousy of the Jews had placed Christ on that Cross...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations. As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae. Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict. What does it mean? Who may partake? What do we call it? These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts. Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention. PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it. I underst...

"The More Things Change..." or "Joe Biden Doing Joe Biden Things"

1 Samuel 2 relates the story of Eli, the well-meaning high priest whose only flaw (apparently) was his refusal to discipline his sons. These sons, described as worthless men , utilized their position to abuse the people and indulge their lusts with impunity. Eli's dereliction of duty brought his otherwise noble career in service to God's house to an ignominious end. There are, of course, important differences between Eli and Joe Biden. Joe Biden is not a religious leader (though he is a practicing Roman Catholic ), nor would I consider his record to be otherwise spotless. However, similarly to Eli, Biden's pardoning of his own worthless son, Hunter, will prove to be his legacy. His long (and I mean loooong) career in politics will likely be overshadowed, even in the eyes of those who previously respected him, by this one shameless act. By pardoning his son despite promising not to, Biden has yet again demonstrate...

Always Reforming

Search This Blog