Skip to main content

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. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary