Truth Magazine

By C. Titus Edwards

There are many people in the church who believe that it is right for a church to support a “Christian college.” In this article we want to consider whether or not it is right for a church to do so.

Let us establish some principles which will help us to understand whether or not churches supporting colleges is wrong.

1. The church is spiritual in nature (Jn. 18:36).

2. The work of the church is spiritual consisting of preaching the gospel (1 Tim. 3:15), relieving needy saints (Acts 4:32-35), and building itself up (Eph. 4:11-16). Money from the treasury may be used to do this work.

3. God made the church in such a way as to be sufficient to accomplish its work (Eph. 3:10-I1). The church is fully capable of preaching the gospel, relieving needy saints, and edifying itself through the framework of the local congregation.

4. To use the Lord’s money for anything else but its prescribed work is to go beyond the doctrine of Christ (1 Cor. 16; Phil. 4:15-16; 2 Jn. 9; Mt. 7:23).

When one understands these principles, the question boils down to a matter of authority. Where is the authority for a church to donate money to a college (or any other human institution) to do its work? None has yet been found! Therefore, to do so is to work lawlessness and go beyond the doctrine of Christ!

Some have tried to justify churches supporting colleges by saying that it is only a method of training preachers, teachers; and elders. Admittedly, training the young (and others) to be more productive in the Lord’s work i& part of edification and authorized by God. But supporting a college to do part of that work is not the church using a method. The church is simply providing the money,.so that a human institution may decide what methods are used. “Method” refers to a form of action. A college is not a method (how), it is an organization (who) that will have to use methods to get the job done. If the church is sufficient, why cannot it arrange and oversee the methods (work) itself? God told the church to edify itself! To support a college to do, that work is to put a human institution between the church and the work it is to do, which is unnecessary and unauthorized. (I am assuming that all of us know the difference between donating money to an organization and buying a service or. product from an organization.)

Let us also understand that even “Christian colleges” are secular educational institutions. Most give courses in many phases of life, not just the Bible. Most of these are liberal arts colleges offering liberal arts degrees. They provide much of the same things that other colleges would (athletics, plays, etc.). The church’s work does not extend into these other areas. It is not for the church to provide secular education. Remember; the church’s work is spiritual! If some brethren still maintain that if a church supports a school it is simply using a method, then they have the church working to provide secular education, athletics, and all that goes with it!

Some .protest that these schools are doing a good work. Even if that be the case, that does not, mean they are authorized by God for the church to support. Hospitals do good works. Should churches be supporting them? The church is not under a blanket authorization to do good works. It was given specific works to be done. The individual Christian is to be ready to do good works, but there is a difference in what a Christian can do, as an individual, and what the church can do (Mt. 18:15-17; 1 Tim. 5:16).

Let is be clearly understood that I have nothing against the right of a school with a Bible department to exist. I am glad that such do exist. I appreciate the good work that they do and that young people can receive Bible instruction while furthering their education. It is commendable that these schools try to maintain a good moral environment that cannot be found among other schools. Christians, as individuals, may join together in any legitimate business endeavor. The problem is not in their right to exist, whether Christians can operate them, or even whether individuals can support them, but whether a church can contribute money to them.

Let each congregation recognize its God given work and be zealous to accomplish it. Let us make sure that we are properly edifying ourselves and training the young and others so there will be qualified and able men and women to work in the Lord’s vineyard. Also let each congregation recognize its limitations of doing the Lord’s work in the Lord’s way and be fully determined to abide in the doctrine of Christ.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 25, p. 402
June 21, 1979

By Jack Kirby

Christians agree that drunkenness is sinful. Paul lists it as one of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:21). Here it is clearly indicated that the impenitent drunkard “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” The same apostle also declares that a local congregation is not to extend to nor maintain its fellowship with a drunkard. “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such an one no not to eat” (1 Cor. 5:11). Therefore if, in facing the problem of the drinking of alcoholic beverages, the extent of it was drunkenness, then the solution is plainly set before us. There is more to the matter, however, than just drunkenness.

In the United States today, over sixty-five million persons above the age of twenty years use alcoholic beverages. Seven million of these are “problem drinkers” and three million are addicted to alcohol. One million are chronic alcoholics. Easily grasped is the idea that drinking is a problem which faces everyone of us – even those who are “tee-totalers.” Another aspect of the problem arises when we realize that the annual cost of America’s liquor bill is nearly $10,000,000,000. That is more money than all the people and institutions in our country spend in a year’s pursuit of educational and benevolent purposes.

Perhaps someone reading this has wrestled or is wrestling with this problem in a very personal way. The habit of drink has fastened itself upon you and you struggle to control the situation. Let it be understood now that the purpose in these remarks is not to cry “shame on you.” We face a problem here that involves all of us directly or indirectly, and therefore, I have no choice but to deal with that problem carefully and directly.

In some ways, it is hard to receive a fair hearing on the matter of drink. This is true because of the extreme thinking that prevails about the problem. Some feel that to discuss- drinking is infringing upon their personal liberties. Thus, because of these pre-conceived prejudices, and the obvious fact that the liquor industry-is “big business,” it becomes difficult to lead a group of people into such a frame of mind that the problem can be approached in a realistic fashion.

Drinking Is A Very Real Problem

Is it possible that any of us live so far removed from the world about us that we see no real danger? Do we feel that some excitable preachers are crying “Wolf!” when there is no wolf?

We cannot blink our eyes at the well-documented fact that drinking and, as a result, drunkenness is on the increase in this nation. The Yale School of Alcohol Studies leaves no doubt at this point. Alcoholics are increasing at the rate of fifty thousand a year. Problem drinkers (those who need a “bracer” two or three times during the course of a day) are growing at the rate of two hundred thousand a year. Not even the most fanatical supporter of a man’s right to drink can ignore the simple fact that, out of the million people killed in highway accidents, one-quarter of these died where liquor was directly involved. This figure does not include the number who were injured or maimed; nor can we translate the heartache and the heartbreak into numerals. Between one-fourth and three-fourths of the divorces obtained in this country have listed drinking as either the primary cause or a contributing factor.

When we view television, we receive the distorted impression that drinking is always pleasant, beneficial and good. When we open many of our major magazines, we immediately become acquainted when “men of distinction” wearing roses in their lapels. The impression is left that success and efficiency in business, the professions, and in personal relationships goes hand-in-hand with drinking. You are bound to succeed, provided you drink the right thing at the right time! This is another false impression.

The nature of the problem is impressed upon us by a survey conducted among college students. Two facts stand out: (1) Of those who drink, four out of five men and two out of three women began to do so before they entered college. This indicated that drinking originated in high school age groups. (2) The incidence of drinking among these students increased with each year that they spent in college. Thus, the habit of drinking is one that begins with young people. Any way you look at it, drinking (not just drunkenness) is a problem. In fact, it appears to be several different kinds of problems rolled into one. This is another reason why it is hard to get a fair hearing on the subject of beverage alcohol today. Will anyone deny that drinking is not a health problem? Can we say that the problem has no economic aspects? Is it not also a matter that concerns our law enforcement agencies? Yet, many will deny that drinking is a moral, religious problem! That simply means that some are saying: “It is my business if, when, where, and how much I drink.” Exactly at this point issue must be taken.

Alcohol is a naracotic that removes inhibitions. By releasing these inhibitions drinking makes for social ease and pleasure. Alcohol impairs reason, will, self-control, judgment, physical skill and endurance. Drink is used primarily for psychological effects as a means of escaping unpleasant reality. Are we to believe tha” beverage which does these things is not a maker of problems in human life? Shall we accept the idea that a thing which produces these results in our lives is not the concern of a Christian and of the church? Let us consider, briefly, these ideas, and see a few of the religious implications that are involved in them.

The Releasing of Inhibitions

Just what does this mean? An inhibition is an internally imposed curb on action; that curb is usually conscience, or it may be fear or dread produced by past experience. Some inhibitions bring shyness, cowardice, or other “unsocial” reactions. True, these need to be removed, or,at least to be managed if not removed. Other inhibitions are called “social control” and grow out of our environment, training and ideals. Thus, they constitute our standard of judgment and of values. But drinking removes or lowers all inhibitions both good and bad! The same power that can conquer shyness can also numb the conscience and encourage the breaking down of morality. It is entirely vain to argue that this is not a matter of concern to the church and to every Christian. If this is not a religious problem, there are none!

Drinking impairs reason, will, self-control, judgment, physical skill and endurance. What remains of a man when these qualities have been removed? The extent of the removal of these qualities depends upon the amounts of liquor which are consumed. But even “light” or moderate drinking can cause a man to be unfit for exacting physical and mental work. It is well known that much of the absenteeism in industry is due to the consumption of alcohol. It has been demonstrated by actual tests that drinking a cocktail or two makes it necessary for the driver to have six more feet to stop a car than he would need before drinking or without drinking. Men may say, “It is my business when I drink,” but if the child whose life is saved by that six feet is yours or mine, it becomes our business!

Alcohol is used as a means of escape from unpleasant realities. But such an escape from reality is temporary and can be achieved again only by another drink or by more drinking. Christian principles, when believed and followed in our lives, will enable us to face the realities of living and solve them permanently by the doing of God’s will. Dodging the facts of life is not a solution to them; nor does dodging remove the realities that are with us.

The Case For Total Abstinence

Some questions have been discussed for centuries. There is often a revival of interest in them. They need to be studied anew and often. Such is the question denoted by the heading of this section. This question should be studied in a manner as free from prejudice as possible. One should give due emphasis to “intellectual honesty.” He should not be swayed by popular opinion. What does the Bible teach?

Did First Century Christians Have The Right To Drink Moderately?

Those who take a dim view of “total abstinence” have one thing in common-they all try to construct a case from the New Testament showing that moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages was permitted in the first century. Almost without exception they use 1 Tim.5:23; Titus 2:3; and John 2:1-12. These, and some other passages, use the word “wine” in such a way as to indicate that Christians, on occasion, did drink it. They assume this was intoxicating wine. On this basis they try to construct a case of the Christian’s moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages with divine approval. They fail in their assumption that all wine was of alcoholic content. Was it?

The word wine (Greek, oinos) was a general word used to translate more specific Hebrew words. Sometimes it did mean wine of the intoxicating variety, but not always. Isa. 65:8: “Wine is found in the cluster.” There the word refers to the juice of grapes while they are still on the vine! Josephus (Antiquities, Bk. 2, Ch. 5, Sec. 2) tells of three clusters of grapes hanging from a vine, “and that he squeezed them into a cup which the king held in his hand; and when he had strained the wine, he gave it to the king to drink.” These are but two of numerous recorded historical uses of the word “wine” when it could not possibly refer to an intoxicant.

Furthermore, the wine with alcoholic content was not strong except in cases of “mixed wine.” Yeast, found in the hulls of the grapes, causes the fermentation of grape juice. When the alcohol content gets to approximately 14%, the alcohol kills the yeast and the process of fermentation stops. Many times the process is stopped early so that the alcohol content is far less than the maximum 14%. Canon Farrar says, “The simple wines of antiquity were incomparably less deadly than the stupefying and ardent beverages of our western nations. The wines of antiquity were more like sirups; many of them were not intoxicant; many more intoxicant in a small degree; and all of them as a rule, taken only when largely diluted with water. They contained, even diluted, but 4 or 5 per cent of alcohol.”

Some writers assume that there was no way of preserving the juice of the grape without fermentation in the first century. However, various ancient writers give different methods for so doing. The new Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary says, “Means for preserving grape juice were well known: Cato, De Agri Cultura, CXX has this recipe: `If you wish to have must (grape-juice) all year, put grapejuice in an amphora and seal the cork with pitch; sink it in a fishpond. After 30 days take it out. It will be grape-juice for a whole year.”‘

Thus, it is an unwarranted assumption to declare that all wines in New Testament days were alcoholic.

The Problem Of Social Drinking

In our society today, social drinking constitutes a very real problem. Functions are attended where alcohol is served; business relationships often involve drinking; thus, many people have come to feel that drinking is a complement to good business and to social contacts. It is here that the importance of example and of Christian influence must necessarily enter the picture. Like it or not, accept it or not, face it or not, we are responsible for the influence we exert on others. Paul faced this question of influence in Rom. 14. The individual may say, “I can drink, and control my drinking.” This may be very true. How about someone else who is weak, or young in faith or young in years, who may conclude from your example that drinking is good and, while you can control yourself, he cannot and goes into drunkenness? Will the influence of social drinking actually lead men to obey Christ? Sincerely, do you feel that the influence and the example are good for the young people? What will be-what is-the influence of the social drinker in the church of our Lord? Are those who continually engage in social drinking viewed by the world and by the church as among the most devoted, consecrated members of the body of Christ? Will they-should they-be chosen to serve as elders, deacons, or teachers for the instruction of the young people? These are questions that each one must answer from the depths of his heart before God. And the question of the influence of social drinking upon the children in a family cannot be lightly considered. A parent may never develop into an excessive or dangerous drinker but how about the children? They may grow up thinking that to drink is the way of culture, the way of refinement, and a part of a normal happy life; but will those children in their lives be just moderate drinkers? Young people are more vulnerable to the temptations of drink by the very nature of their immature development than the average adult. What example shall we set before them about the use of beverage alcohol? The church must face the responsibility that is here, as well as in other areas of life, and warn against the dangers of drinking.

Let us realize that no heavy drinker or drunkard-no alcoholic-ever deliberately started drinking to become that. Are not those today enslaved by alcohol the very people who began with the intention of reaping only the “benefits” of this narcotic? Are not they the very people who reasoned what liquor used in moderation could do for them forgetting at the same time what drinking would also do to them? You may be a potential alcoholic, though you have never taken that first drink. You may be a moderate drinker today who could become an alcoholic tomorrow. You cannot know where the use of alcoholic beverages may ultimately lead you; therefore the danger is a stark, terrible reality. Yet every one of us – and the young people can here heed especially – must face the possibility of what drink can do as they ask the question, “Shall I drink?”

It has been our intention to point out that drunkenness is sinful. There are dangers connected with drinking. The influence of social drinking is not good. Drinking alcohol is dangerous to the body and society as well as being sinful. We pray that each of us when confronted by the problem of drinking will determine by the help of God to chart that course which will not bring reproach upon the body of Christ, ourselves, and our families.

QUESTIONS

1. What scriptural proof do we have that drunkenness is sinful?
2. What obligations does the local congregation have towards the impenitent drunkard or impenitent social drinker who might be in their midst?
3. Are we infringing upon another ‘s liberties when we discuss and condemn drinking?
4. Other than the fact that there is scriptural proof that drunkenness is sinful, what other areas prove that drinking is a real problem?
5. Which of our faculties does drinking impair?
6. Can we justify social drinking by stating that one is able to control his drinking?
7. Does the word “wine” always refer to an intoxicating beverage? Give evidences to prove your answer.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 24, pp. 395-397
June 14, 1979

By Jerry Parks

Did you know that the Bible says absolutely nothing about shoplifting? But the Bible has much to say about thieves, -stealing, dishonesty, greed, selfishness, extortion, deception, covetousness and crime; principles which need to be taken into consideration when discussing our modern day term “shoplifting”. It is a crime punishable by law as well as a sin in the sight of God. Such a person is a thief. He or she is stealing, dishonest, greedy, covetous and selfish. Such a person is engaging in deception and extortion. This being the case, it is easy to see how an article on the subject of’ shoplifting fits into the general theme of morality.

I doubt if many of us realize the seriousness of this problem. Shoplifting is a serious problem from many standpoints. It is a social problem, it is an economic problem, but far more important, it is a spiritual problem. The Bible condemns stealing in no uncertain terms and those who do so are going to be lost if they do not repent and turn in obedience to God’s will.

To show you the relevance and reality of this matter, let me quote a few statistics. U.S. News and World Report, Nov. 28, 1977 says the following:

“Merchants this yuletide are bracing for a wave of shoplifting and employee theft that could easily exceed 1 billion dollars.

About 500 million dollars will be lost to light-fingered shoppers and another 600 million to pilfering employees this year, according to Gordon Williams of the National Retail Merchants Association. The total will be swollen by another 400 million spent by merchants on loss prevention.”

Time Magazine, Dec. 12, 1977 is an article entitled “There are 18 shoplifting Days till Christmas” also reports some interesting statistics:

“Shoppers who neglect to pay for their merchandise are criminals for all seasons, and their numbers are increasing at an alarming rate. The FBI reports more than 600,000 shoplifting arrests across the nation last year, nearly three times as many as in 1970, and the U.S. Department of Commerce estimates merchants’ losses from thefts in 1976 at some $8 billion.

You may have noticed that these statistics I have quoted are not the most current. If the losses are estimated at $8 billion for 1976, think what they must be for this past year! Let me also hasten to point out that the problem is not simply restricted to the poor or lower class Americans. It is to be found in every class of our society.

Why Are So Many Involved In This Crime?

This is an interesting question and deserves our attention. I believe there are a number of reasons why people decide to shoplift. Many from a psychological point of view, I would be totally unqualified to deal with. I am afraid, however, that many are too quick to label everyone who engages in this criminal pastime as simply being “psychologically maladjusted”.

A lady wrote to Ann Landers once, complaining about her husband bringing things home from work that did not belong to him. Ann replied by saying that she should take him to a psychiatrist because he was “sick”. They used to call such a one a ferry thief. Certainly there are some who are psychologically maladjusted, and a psychiatrist probably could help; but let us not forget that most of those who engage in such action are simply thieves and need to be identified as such.

But why are so many involved in this crime? Permit me to list a few of the more obvious reasons:

1. The tendency to rationalize: Those whom I have talked to about why they shoplifted, generally say, “The prices are too high”, or “The stores are trying to rip us off so why not?” or “Everyone else is doing it.” In other words, they are simply rationalizing their conduct. They are trying to convince themselves and others that there is nothing wrong with such conduct. Of course no amount of rationalizing will make something right that is inherently wrong to begin with. Stealing in any way, shape or form is wrong. It is sinful, and no amount of rationalizing will make it right. It was condemned in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament. One of the ten commandments simply stated “Thou shalt not steal.” (Ex. 20:15). Jesus endorsed this commandment in Matt. 19:18, as did the apostle Paul in Rom. 13:9. Rationalizing will not remove or erase these verses from the Bible.

Such rationalizing begins early in life. Children will take money from Mother’s purse thinking, “She doesn’t need it,” or “She has so much she won’t miss this small amount.” Sometimes children will take something from a parent as a means of retaliation because the parent disciplined the child or told the child “no”. Sometimes parents will in a subtle way condone children taking things that do not belong to them. This is often done because parents have guilty feelings about not giving their children as much time and attention as they should. Stealing seems to have a great deal to do with the issue of entitlement- what a person feels is due him. Stealing or shoplifting, to such a one, is’ simply making up for something which is rightfully his, but which was denied because of life’s unfairness. These people say to themselves, “I have this coming to me.”

Usually, the person who steals thinks that, at some point in the past, something that belonged to him was taken away. Thus, the person who steals sees himself as the victim rather than the perpetrator of a theft. Often he feels victory rather than guilt when he has successfully stolen some article from a store.

Sometimes the motivation for such action is based on the fact that the victim is impersonal rather than personal. They wouldn’t think of robbing a man on the street, but if they take something from a big department store and get away with it, they feel they have simply beaten the “system”. All this is rationalizing, it is convoluted thinking and in no way justifies the act of stealing.

2. Covetousness: This word is defined as: “To wish for, especially eagerly; usually, to desire inordinately, or without due regard to the rights of others.” There can be no doubt about it, this describes a shoplifter in every detail. He has an inordinate desire for something and has no consideration for the rights of anybody else.

The Bible also condemns such an attitude. Jesus warned the multitude in Lk. 12:15, “Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.” Paul described the condition of the Gentiles without the gospel in Rom. 1:29, “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness.” A)1 one has to do is glance at a concordance to see the numerous warnings against the sin of covetousness. Shoplifting involves the sin of covetousness.

3. Sense of excitement: Some people will shoplift simply for “kicks”. They feel a sense of excitement from having “put one over” on their victim. Those with this attitude enjoy the risk. They are very much like the gambler who also plays the odds for the sake of the big win and are quite willing to take the risk. Usually, they are aware of the security systems, but feel they are far too smart or clever to be outdone by a store detective or a camera. Many feel that if they are caught, they can get out of it by simply saying “It was a mistake”. Shoplifters are usually quite daring. I heard of one lady who boasted that she had shoplifted a garbage can. An article in the Sept. 1977 issue of Nations Business described as experiment that was conducted in one grocery store trying to find out if people would report a shoplifter if they saw one in action. The store detective walked up to the poultry department and stuffed a turkey under his coat and walked out the door. One person who witnessed the crime, deciding not to be outdone, stuffed one under his coat and also walked out. Daring indeed!

3. Desperation: The reason we might logically attribute to one becoming a shoplifter is in reality very rare. Stealing or shoplifting has very little to do with poverty or the lack of basic necessities. So states Dr. James G. Blakemore, professor of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. This being the case, it becomes obvious that those who are saying that we can cure the ills of the world. by giving everyone more education and more money, simply do not-have the answer.

What Is The Solution?

We have already quoted from the U.S. News article stating that $400 million was spent last year on loss prevention. Certainly this will help deter some from shoplifting, but this alone is not the answer. There is an interesting article in the Dec. 1978 issue of Family Health dealing with “Mind Manipulation”. The stores under consideration are using soft background music, but it is mixed with the voice of a person softly whispering, “Be honest, do not steal”. The tape rolls on, “I am honest, I will not steal, if I do steal I will get caught and sent to jail.” The message remains basically the same, being repeated some 9000 times every hour. They say that prospective shoplifters walk out of the store scratching their heads wondering why they did not take what they intended. Hmmm! Is that the answer?

Let me suggest another alternative. Let’s take the gospel of Christ to men and women, boys and girls, and see if that doesn’t help. After all, it is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). The Hebrew writer said it is sharper than any two edged sword (and I might add, any mind manipulating tape recorder). Paul said, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:” (Phil. 2:5). Let’s teach people the principles of righteousness contained in the word of God. Let’s teach our young people that sin is real and that the consequences of sin are real. That whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap, (Gal. 6:7). Let’s teach people that truth is not something relative, but that God has an absolute standard of morality. It is reasonable, logical, ethical and equitable. Let’s teach people about the glories of heaven. Certainly that ought to motivate people to want to do right. Let’s teach people what it means to be a Christian. The life of a Christian is satisfying, but not self indulgent. What makes life great, is to have something great to live for, and then to try to influence others to do the same. The Christian will learn to accept the authority of God; to be ruled by God’s will, not self will or man’s will. This is the whole message of the Bible.

Shoplifting, like so many other subjects covered in this series, is simply a symptom. The real problem is basic disregard for right and wrong, and the word of God that shows us the distinction between the two.

Self examination is difficult to practice. Rationalizing our conduct is extremely easy. Do not be deceived to think that stealing can be condoned. We will be judged by God’s word, and the Word forbids such conduct. Parents, do not be deceived by thinking that your children would never do such a thing. Teach them that such is wrong, and why it is wrong.

QUESTIONS

1. Does an action have to be specifically condemned in order to be wrong?
2. Is shoplifting a serious problem in our society?
3. Is there any particular class of people who are prone to be shoplifters?
4. What is the difference between a shoplifter and a thief?
5. Name three reasons why people shoplift.
6. What passages would condemn shoplifting?
7. What solutions have been advanced by those concerned about the problem of shoplifting?
8. What alternative is there to these solutions?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 24, pp. 393-394
June 14, 1979

By Bob Buchanon

The weeping prophet Jeremiah asked, “Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?” (Lam. 1:12). The Lord’s people and the Lord’s cause was in a sad condition indeed when these touching words were uttered. Jerusalem was sacred to the devout Jew but when the prophet asked this question, many cared but little as to what had happened to their beloved city. The appeal of Jerusalem, not only to her neighbors, but even to the strangers passing by, is such that should excite the compassion even of .those unconnected with her. However, like our Lord’s parable of the good Samaritan, many “passed by on the other side.” The same attitude of indifference, apathy and lack of concern appears to be prevalent in our day relative to such moral issues as abortion.

On January 22, 1973, nine men robed in black ruled on abortion, striking down state laws against it. On that day the Supreme Court ruled that: During the first three months of pregnancy the decision to abort rests solely with the woman and her doctor; during the second three months, the State can regulate the abortion procedure to protect maternal health; during the third three months, when the fetus is viable, the State can regulate or ever prohibit abortion except when it is necessary for the mother’s mental or physical health.(1)

More and more as laws are changed, Christians will have to consider principles in God’s Word to determine right from wrong. This we have done in matters such as liquor, gambling, homosexuality, divorce and the use of drugs; we must now do it with abortion. Although abortion has become legal, it will never become moral. To kill before or after birth is murder.

Startling Statistics

A Roman Catholic Cardinal in pleading for the “Right to Life Amendment,” said: “Every nine days, there are as many deaths by abortion as there were in the entire ten years of the Viet Nam War.”(2)

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the former director of New York’s first abortion clinic, is convinced that he supervised the taking of 60,000 lives.(3)

It was stated of Chicago, “One out of every three children conceived will be aborted here this year . . . . An estimated 200 abortions will be performed each day in Chicago.”(4)

In 1974, about 900,000 abortions were performed in the United States. The rate in Russia is about 10 times higher or about ten million abortions per year.(5)

We could continue with statistics, but figures become obsolete about as fast as the ink dries on the paper. These should suffice, however, to show us the growing problem that we face. But how concerned are you? As one brother said: “Humans tend to turn their faces away from unpleasant scenes. It is easy to prefer to stay ignorant on such issues as this. But ignorance will not excuse us, brethren. The information is available. The very land itself cries out that something must be done.”(6)

The Question of Life

The whole abortion debate comes down to one question: When does the life of separate human being begin? This question strikes at the very heart of the issue.

It was George Orwell who pointed out that it is possible to distort language so that words take on the reverse of their actual meaning. As we examine this question, we must beware of pro-abortionist terminology. To the average person, “terminate” does not mean the same as to kill and “fetus” definitely no longer falls on the listening ear as “human” but rather as “non-human glob.”(7) The abortionists may refer to abortion as simply a process of limiting fertility. He may refer to it as killing the cells and tissues of conception.(8) He may even refer to the early stages of development as “potential life.”(9) We must show that this is not merely “potential life,” but it actually is life – human life.

“Termination of pregnancy,” “interruption of pregnancy,” “retroactive contraception” all verbal gymnastics behind which to hide the real message of what is happening. “Induced abortion” is more accurate. “Killing the life within the mother,” “killing the fetus,” or more to the point, “killing the unborn baby” directly face the issue, and are the most honest and preferable terms to use.(10) If you are convinced that this is a human life, call it such. We should speak of “he” or “she,” not “it,” and speak of the “unborn,” “pre-born,” or “developing child” or “baby.” It is easy to get the world to approve killing a “fetus,” but much less so to the killing of an “unborn baby.(11)

Development of the Baby

Basic to the consideration of whether this life within the mother is human or even when this life becomes human must be the presently known scientific facts of the development within the uterus. What are the facts concerning the development of the baby? What do we know?

In the October 1971 term of the Supreme Court, a distinguished group of 220 physicians, professors, and fellows of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology submitted at brief to the Court. In this brief they tried to show how modern science established that the unborn child from the moment of conception is a person and therefore, like the mother, a patient. John M. Langone has summarized this brief. I give here several quotes from this article that pertains to the development of the child from conception through three months:

From conception, when the sperm and egg unite, the child is a complex, dynamic, rapidly growing organism.

About seven to nine days after conception, when there are already several hundred cells of the new individual formed, contact with the uterus is made, and implantation and nourishment begin. Blood cells form at 17 days, and a heart as early as 18 days. The heart starts irregular pulsating at 24 days and about a week later smooths into rhythmic contractions.

At about 18 days, the development of the nervous system is under way, the baby’s eyes begin to form at 19 days, and by the 20th day the foundation of the child’s brain, spinal cord and entire nervous system is established.

By the 33rd day, the cerebral cortex (that part of the central nervous system that governs motor activity as well as intellect) may be seen.

By the beginning of the second month, the unborn child looks distinctly human, yet the mother is not aware that she is pregnant.

Brain waves have been noted at 43 days, the heart beats strongly, the stomach produces digestive juices, the liver manufactures blood cells and the kidneys are functioning.

After the eighth week, no further original organs will form – everything that is already present will be found in the full-term baby. From this point until adulthood, when full growth is acheived somewhere between 25 and 27 years, the changes in the body will be mainly in dimension.

In the third month, the child becomes very active and by the end of the month kicks his legs, turns his feet, moves his thumbs, bends his wrists, turns his head, frowns, squints and opens his mouth.(12)

In spite of these facts, some people act as though the unborn child is not a human being. They are willing to cut it apart and throw the pieces into the nearest garbage can.

Dr. R.F.R. Gardner, a consultant obstetrician and gynecologist, expressed his view that the unborn child was not a human being in these words: “When a spontaneous miscarriage occurs parents may grieve, but we do not feel that we have lost a child. From time to time obstetricians have the distress of delivering a stillborn baby. We may have felt this fetus kick under our examining hands, we may have listened to its heartbeat repeatedly over four months, yet when the tragedy occurs we do not feel, `Here is a child who died,’ but rather, `Here is a fetus which so nearly made it.’ Miscarriages are not buried, are not named ….”(13)

Looking At Scriptures

One can take a concordance and never find where abortion is mentioned specifically by name in either testament. Is it therefore approved by the silence of the Scriptures? Many things are determined to be right or wrong by comparing them with general principles of truth as set forth in God’s Word. I am convinced that there are numerous divine principles that speak to this issue. Let us notice some of them.

In Exodus 21:22-24, we read: “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. ” On these verses, some have argued, “If the baby is killed, only a fine is imposed; if the mother is killed, capital punishment is given. Therefore, unborn babies are not persons.” But there is an alternative. The words, “and yet no harm follows, ” may mean the child is miscarried, but does not die. The expression, “if any harm follows” means that if either the child, the mother, or both die, then the guilty party is to be capitally punished. “If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him . . . . A fine is imposed, because even if no injury had been done to the woman and the fruit of her womb, such a blow might have endangered life.”(14)

Job asked, “Why died I not from the womb? Why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?” (Job 3:11). He could not “give up” what he did not have. And yet he argues that had he so died he would have been “at rest with kings and counselors of the earth ” (vs. 13-14). If he had been “as an hidden untimely birth” (miscarriage), he would have been where “the weary be at rest” (vs. 16-17). In the tenth chapter, Job continued by wishing he had “given up the ghost, and no eye had seen (him) “. But again, one cannot give up what he does not have. He would have been carried from the womb to the grave (Job 10:18-19).

While Jacob and Esau were in Rebekah’s womb, they were living children. Genesis 25:22 says that “the children struggled together within her. ” Notice that they were called “children” while they were still in the mother’s womb. This clear language shows that the life in the body of a woman is a child; it is a human being. From the time of fertilization until death, one is always a human being.

Whether in the womb or in the crib, the child is dependent. Before delivery and after delivery, he is an innocent, dependent human being.(15)

The Bible does not distinguish between prenatal and postnatal life. God spoke to Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jer. 1:5). The Psalmist considered the Lord watched over his development in his mother’s womb (Psa. 139:13-16). Already there was a plan for his life.

Unborn John the Baptist leaped in his mother’s womb when the expecting mother of our Lord greeted Elizabeth (Lk. 1:41, 44). The term used to describe the baby in the womb (Greek, brephos) is used interchangeably for “babes” before and after birth (see Lk. 2:12, 16; 18:15; Acts 7:19). The word “denotes an unborn child, . . . a newborn child, or an infant still older.”(16) Elizabeth was inspired by the Spirit to correctly interpret this fetal movement.

God’s Word has always taught “Thou shalt not kill” (Rom. 13:9). The literal translation is “Thou shalt do no murder.” Murder is the deliberate taking of innocent human life without just cause. Abortion is planned intentional killing of a human life. So far as I can determine, abortion is nothing more that licensed murder!

Sexual Immorality

Since abortions are now available to all minor daughters without parental advice or consent (Supreme Court decision, July 1, 1976) much of the “fear of pregnancy” that used to prevent a significant amount of teenage sexual immorality has been removed. The result has been an alarming increase in teenage pregnancies. Many areas are already experiencing more abortions than live births. According to a recent report, 3 out of 10 babies born in the U.S. are illegitimate.(17)

What Can We Do?

The most constructive thing we can do is continue to instruct our young people in true moral values and Christian principles, including wholesome sex education. Many abortions are the result of conception due to fornication or adultery. Paul simply states, “Flee fornication” (1 Cor. 6:18). This will avoid many abortions.

Let us be ready, however, to lend a helping hand to scared girls who find themselves pregnant out of wedlock. Other alternatives besides abortion are open to them. Certainly, adoption should be preferred over abortion. I would be one of the first on the list willing to adopt the child.

Conclusion

Yes, abortion is the killing of human life. It is wrong; it is immoral. Those guilty of murder are included in the list of those who “shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone” (Rev. 21:8). Let us, as God’s children, rise up in holy indignation and drive this evil and sin from our midst. Let us take up the Sword of the Lord and dare to dream the impossible dream that some way, some how, some day we might win our noble fight to save the innocent babes whose lives are today in jeopardy.

QUESTIONS

1. List some words used by pro-abortionists which redefine the issues relative to abortion.
2. Describe the development of the baby in the mother’s womb, month by month. (If possible, have someone to prepare pictures from outside sources for in-class presentation.)
3. Give scriptural evidence that the unborn, developing baby has life.
4. Compare David’s murder of Uriah in his attempt to hide his adultery with Bathsheba with what happens when abortion is used to cover fornication (2 Sam. 11).
5. What effect does the United States Supreme Court’s decision that the “fetus” is not a person have on the moral issues of abortion?
6. How would you answer a woman who wanted an abortion who argued as follows: “It is my body and I will do what I want to with it”?
7. Is there any moral difference between abortion, euthanasia, or what the Nazis did to the Jews in World War II?

Endnotes:

1. U.S. News and World Report, March 4, 1974, p. 44.

2. CBS T.V. News, March 7, 1974.

3. Charles and Bonnie Remsberg, “Second Thoughts On Abortion From The Doctor Who Led The Crusade For It,” Good Housekeeping, March, 1976, p. 132.

4. The Daily News, Feb. 28, 1973.

5. “Abortion Routine For Women In Soviet Union,” The Houston Chronicle, October 21, 1976.

6. John Waddey, “Abortion In The Light Of God’s Law,” Living Soberly, Righteously And Godly (Lectureship of the East Tennessee School of Preaching and Mission, Knoxville, 1977), p. 28.

7. Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, Handbook On Abortion (Cincinnati, 1975), p. 197.

8. C. Everett Koop, The Right To Live; The Right To Die (Wheaton, 1976), p. 31.

9. Kenneth A. Lee, “Does The Fetus Have Any Rights?” Christianity Applied, November, 1974, p. 15.

10. Willke, op. cit., p. 198.

11. Ibid.

12. “Abortion: The Medical Evidence Against,” As quoted by Clifford Bajema, Abortion And The Meaning of Personhood (Baker, Grand Rapids), pp. 25-27.

13. R.F.R. Gardner, Abortion: The Personal Dilemma (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1972), p. 126.

14. C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary On The Old Testament, The Pentateuch, Vol. ll (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1971), pp. 134-135.

15. Bob Felker, “Abortion Is Murder,” Gospel Anchor, Vol. 3, p. 282. 16.

16.

17. The Montgomery Advertiser, September 24, 1978, as quoted by Ray Dutton, “The Abortion Crisis,” Christian Family, December 1978, p. 7.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 24, pp. 389-392
June 14, 1979