In response to Wielenberg's first argument, it seems perfectly reasonable for the Theist to assert two propositions.  The first being that it is impossible for God’s character to be different than it is, and the second being that it is impossible to actually change the nature of moral perfection, as the evil contestant does in Wielenberg’s story.  The second claim rests on the first.  God’s character simply is the definition of moral perfection, and if His character cannot change, than neither can moral perfection.  But to the first proposition Wielenberg might ask why God’s character cannot change.  The response is simple, because if it did, then He would cease to be morally perfect, and thus cease to be God.  At this point, Wielenberg might accuse the Theist of a contradiction.  If God’s character cannot change without ceasing to be morally perfect, then isn’t there some outside standard to which we are holding God’s character?  To this the Theist may reply that God’s character is indeed the only standard of perfection, and that all things are either good or bad based on their relation to Him alone, but that His character, being what it is, cannot be otherwise.  It is simply a brute fact of the universe.  For God is the ground of all being, the source and foundation for all reality.  He simply is.  And he could not be otherwise.  If Wielenberg still wishes to object to this claim, then the Theist can quickly remind him that this is precisely what he wishes his reader to believe about the brute moral facts of the universe.  Indeed, this is the thesis of his book!  Moral facts such as “it is wrong to torture babies for fun” are, according to Wielenberg, real moral entities that exist and simply cannot be otherwise.  But as far I can tell, there is no reason to believe that brute moral facts cannot change and not believe that God’s character cannot change.  Thus, for Wielenberg to reject the Dependency Thesis for this reason would also be for him to reject his own moral theory.

    For the second argument, I believe that two possible responses are open to the Theist.  First, it can be argued that since a thing’s nature is given to it by God, it is still possible for something to be either good or evil by virtue of its nature, even though God indirectly made it so.  Taking the example of falling in love, a Theist might say that falling in love is most certainly an instance of intrinsic good, its very nature is simply and completely good, but that because its nature was given to it by God, it is ultimately God that has, in a sense, “declared” it to be what it is.  It sounds to me as though Wielenberg’s argument is actually saying, “nothing can be good in virtue of its nature because God gave it its nature.”  But of course that doesn’t follow.  What Wielenberg is really attacking is the notion that falling in love is not good for its own sake, but that it is good because God told us so.  What he overlooks is the simple solution that God “told us so” by giving it a nature that was either good or evil. 
   
    However, there is another response that seems perfectly reasonable to me, namely that the Theist simply accepts that nothing actually is intrinsically good or evil apart from God.  Why is suffering evil?  Because God doesn’t want his creatures to suffer.  Why is falling in love good?  Because God wants us to be happy, and in part because it facilitates the creation of families, children, and society.  Wielenberg is relying on the unshakable intuition that pain is evil in and of itself.  It is better to keep this obvious truth than to accept a theory that rejects it.  But isn’t it just as likely that the unshakable intuition in question is merely that pain is evil, leaving entirely open the question of why or how it is evil?  This seems more plausible to me.

   In Chapter Two of Value And Virtue In A Godless Universe, Erik Wielenberg introduces two theses that he believes implicitly support Divine Command Theory.  The first is the Control Thesis which states that “every logically consistent ethical claim, E, is such that God could make E true.”   The second is the Dependency Thesis which states that “every true ethical claim is true in virtue of some act of will on the part of God.”  Essentially, the great difference between these two is that in the former God creates ethics (by divine fiat we might say), while in the later ethics is based upon and originates from God’s nature or character.  From this, Wielenberg distinguishes between two forms of Divine Command Theory.  The first or “strong” form accepts both the Control and Dependency Thesis, while the “weak” form accepts only the Dependency Thesis.

    It is important to consider Wielenberg’s objection to the strong form of Divine Command Theory first (which is essentially an objection to the Control Thesis), since it will play a role in his objection to the weak form.  He objects to the strong form by way of an illustration.   He asks us to imagine a competition in which the prize is omnipotence.  One contestant is a very good person, while the other is very evil.  Suppose, he says, that the evil person wins the contest and gains omnipotence.  According to the Control Thesis, the evil contestant can now make it such that all of the evil acts he intends to perform (mass slaughter of innocents, torture, etc.) are actually very good.  Moreover, he can make it such he is now a morally perfect being, not by changing himself, but by changing the nature of moral perfection.  Thus, in the end, evil becomes good and the killing and torture of innocent people is morally commendable.  Wielenberg relies primarily on intuition to argue that “there is simply no amount of power that would enable a being to make that true.”   He further argues that “This story seems to get things backwards by making morality subject to power.”  Fair enough.  Our moral intuitions certainly do seem to suggest to us that no amount of power could make such atrocities good.  We want to argue, especially as Christians, that morality is somehow objective and fixed, and that it could not be otherwise.  At least on the surface, Wielenberg’s argument seems to offer convincing reasons to reject the Control Thesis on just such grounds.  And so, for the sake of argument, we will grant him his conclusion.

    Now Wielenberg turns his philosophical gun on the weak form of Divine Command Theory, specifically on the Dependency Thesis, which he states as follows, “It is still divine willing that determines which ethical claims are true, but the scope of divine willing is limited by the divine character.”   In other words, God still retains the prerogative to say what things humans can and cannot do in certain times and places, but contra the Control Thesis He cannot command simply anything, but can only command those things which are in accordance with His own character, which sets the standard of moral goodness.  Wielenberg proposes three objections to this thesis.  First, he suggests that “implicit in the proposal is the notion that God has the power to make any logically consistent ethical claim true.”  In the weak claim, God’s character prevents Him from making evil things good, but Wielenberg seems to be suggesting that the Control Thesis still manages to slip in the back door, and that we are left with the same problem, just moved back a step.  If it were the case that God’s character turned out to be like the evil contestant in Wielenberg’s imaginary story, then even on the Dependency Thesis alone it would still be conceivable that God could make the slaughter of innocents a morally good thing.  But Wielenberg has already refuted such a notion. 

    Wielenberg’s second objection to the Dependency Thesis is even stronger.  He argues that an implication of the Dependency Thesis is that nothing is intrinsically good or evil.  He says, “If an act of will on the part of God bestows value on something distinct from God, that value cannot be intrinsic.”   By intrinsic value he means that a thing is valuable only in virtue of its nature.  As an example of an intrinsic evil, he suggests pain.  Pain is just bad, in and of itself, without reference to anything else.  Conversely, falling in love is intrinsically good; it is simply good for its own sake.  Following Chisholm, who argues that any theory of epistemology that doesn’t allow for obvious instances of knowledge should be rejected, Wielenberg suggests that any theory of morality that rejects something as obvious as the fact that some things are intrinsically good or evil should also be rejected. 

    What might the Christian say in response to these arguments?  Tune in tomorrow!

There's a story in Judges about a man who sends his concubine out to be abused by the men of the town in order to save his own skin.  When he finds her dead in the morning, he sends parts of her body to all the tribes of Israel as a shocking, visual wake-up call revealing the depths of the country's moral depravity.

 

I imagine that the people of Israel who heard of this felt a nausea, horror, and sense of impending judgment similar to what I felt reading this today:

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts [an art student at Yale] will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body . . . "I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

There's a detailed description of the exhibit in the article, but there's no way I'm going to post it here.  All I can say is that our country is hurtling down a dark, ugly road if we're producing people like this woman.  How did the creation and destruction of human life become a clever way of "sparking conversation"?  We had better wake up.

Yale now insists that the whole project is a fake, but Shvarts is sticking to her story, saying her purpose was to point out that the "central ambiguity [of not knowing whether or not she was actually pregnant] defies a clear definition of the act [of miscarriage].  The reality of miscarriage is very much a linguistic and political reality, an act of reading constructed by an act of naming--an authorial act."  Second, she meant to "assert that often, normative understandings of biological function are a mythology imposed on form, It is this mythology that creates the sexist, racist, ableist, nationalist and homophobic perspective, distinguishing what body parts are 'meant' to do from their physical capability."  It was her goal to use her body outside the "narrative of reproduction" in order to shock people into acknowledging that it is the "prerogative of every individual" to explore other uses for his or her body.  (This, of course, would be absolutely true in a postmodern, Darwinist, Creatorless world.)

Connected with the obvious atrociousness of Shvarts sick use of human life is her view of art:

"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."

Art is a medium for politics and ideologies?  Whatever happened to goodness, truth, and beauty?  To uplifting the viewer?  Where did this new grotesque and ugly standard of art come from?  Why is this the only standard she knows of?  It's not hard to figure out that just like in the days of Judges, a country that loses sight of the living, holy, good God will soon be stripped of all beauty, and everything--good or evil--rather than being things to delight in or abhor, will be reduced to mere "statements."

 

Because of God, there is real beauty and it's tragic that so many people in our culture have never tasted it.  It's easy to forget when we're feasting on the glory of God that most people have no idea a banquet like this even exists.  Let this remind us of our responsibility to tell them.

 

(HT:  Steve Wagner)

One of the emails I received today linked to a men’s devotional series called “Live by His Power,” which is published by Christianity Today. The very brief “devotional” for today recites the story of a pastor counseling a young man regarding sexual temptation:

I counseled Justin, a gifted young man fighting a losing battle with pornography and chronic masturbation.

"The next time you rent a porno movie," I advised, "pray, 'God, I know this isn't right, but I have terrible unmet needs for love and intimacy that I can't address any other way.'"

"You call yourself a pastor?" Justin exclaimed. "How could you tell me to keep on doing this!" He rose from his chair and headed for the door.

"God already knows the needs in your heart," I said. "He knows the content of every pornographic movie you've rented and witnessed your every act of self-gratification. Why not stop pretending and acknowledge the God who's already there when you struggle with this stuff?"

Justin left my office very upset with me. But several months later, he returned. "You were right," he admitted. "God is there with me. Recognizing that has spoiled lust for me and made me listen to the real yearnings for love in my heart."

This story was quoted from a book, so I don’t know if there was more to it. I sure hope the pastor worked with Justin to help him repent of his sexual sins instead of simply pointing out the God knows the desires of his heart. Regardless, I think this brief story highlights some of the problems with the way in which we often address sexual sins with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

1)      “Chronic masturbation”- “Chronic” has strong psychological connotations. There’s a sense in which something chronic is out of our control. Too often we treat pornography and masturbation this way- we know they are not healthy, but we sometimes treat them like psychological conditions or diseases rather than sin. While there are often emotional and behavioral problems related to these actions (e.g. misplaced intimacy, addiction) that should be addressed, we must not lose sight of the simple yet devastatingly sinful nature of these problems.

2)      “I have terrible unmet needs for love and intimacy that I can't address any other way.” At best, this is a poorly worded statement. We have unmet desires of all sorts in this life, but I’m not sure we have unmet sexual “needs.” The claim that these are needs too often becomes an excuse for engaging in sinful activities (e.g. viewing pornography, masturbation). We recognize that we must eat to survive and nourish our bodies. Many see certain sexual sins in the same way- such as masturbation is necessary to relieve stress or tension. A man once told me he masturbated before dates so he wouldn’t be as tempted to go too far with his girlfriend. Because he viewed his sexual desires as “needs,” he exchanged a terrible sin (pre-marital sex) with a “lesser” sin. But it was still sin, and the Bible makes it clear that following Christ means we must repent of all sin.

3)      "God already knows the needs in your heart.” This is true. God knows our needs and provides for them. He also knows our desires, and some of them are repugnant to His holiness. The desire to feed our lusts inappropriately is one of those desires. Not only does God know these, so does everyone else. We treat them as if they are secret unique sins, but just about every one in some way struggles sexually. Because we don’t often acknowledge that, we find comfort in sharing our struggles through sympathizing with others. I’ve been in a few “accountability” groups were guys would go around in a circle and list some of their sexual sins from the past week. Then everyone would pray and leave. There’s nothing wrong with sympathy. It can often be helpful. But finding sympathy alone will not lead to repentance. God does know my desires, as well as every other totally depraved man, and that’s why some of them need to be drastically changed under the guidance of His word. God doesn’t just know and understand them, He wants to sanctify them.

4)      “God who's already there when you struggle with this stuff.” God not only knows, He’s not only present, but He has also spoken on these struggles. God is there, and He has not been silent. Whether we view Him as a caring friend or a condemning judge, we must not stop at simply acknowledging His presence. We must also seek to understand what He has said- what He has commanded and what He has forbidden. What did Jesus mean when He said “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart”? (Matt 5:28) Lusting after a single woman may be acceptable if we limit adultery to a crime against someone’s marriage. But if adultery is also a crime against God, then the marital status of the woman is irrelevant. Such excuses for sin will be destroyed when we regularly and humbly meditate on the Bible. The Holy Spirit works through God’s word to instruct and change us- to make us look more like Him. So while it’s okay to point out that God is with us, we must not fail to point also to His word as it is His means for sanctification in our lives.

For a more thorough biblical treatment of sexual sin, I highly recommend David Powlison's excellent chapter, "Making All Things New: Restoring Pure Joy to the Sexually Broken,"  in Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, which is available for free in .pdf on Desiring God's website.

Here is the conclusion of my interview with Stephen Wagner concerning his book, Common Ground Without Compromise: 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion. Though the book is available on Amazon, we encourage you to support Steve's work at Stand to Reason by ordering through their website. Part 1 can be read here.

How has the media affected our perception of abortion in America?

The media has led us to believe that most people are pro-choice.  In my experience, most people are much more nuanced than that.  Many see themselves as not fitting into either the pro-choice or pro-life camps.  If forced by an opinion poll, they’ll choose, but if given the chance to explain, they are conflicted.  Others just haven’t thought much about abortion and many are just confused.

In addition, the media gives us the sense that we’re always discussing abortion.  That’s the most detrimental thing, because I think it turns people off to creating real, productive dialogue.  One might say, “If everyone’s always discussing it, why do I need to weigh in?  Aren’t people tired of the topic?”  Some people are tired of the topic.  But not because we’ve really done it justice. 

I think the media treatment of abortion has also led people to believe that the abortion debate is dominated by angry activists.  Although these activists may be the most vocal and the most concerned, the most productive abortion debate happens around dinner tables, on college campuses, and at the coffee house.  Abortion isn’t just a theoretical issue people debate.  It’s about real decisions people are making today.  And those decisions are either well-informed or poorly-informed.  If we create a better dialogue as a culture, I think the benefit is women and men making better decisions about abortion.

Order from STR Amazon

One of your final chapters offers questions for pro-choice advocates to ask pro-lifers. You claim "they encourage us to examine our inner attitudes and external personas." (p100) What is it about the typical pro-life attitude that needs to be confronted? Pro-life activists frequently make claims they can’t defend and lack tact in their discussion of pro-choice concerns.  Chapter 11 focuses on common pro-choice concerns and asks, aren’t these concerns “human” concerns?  Can’t we agree with the pro-choice advocate on her concern for the poor and the difficult circumstances of unplanned pregnancy?

Pro-choice advocates may see much of the book as coming from a pro-life perspective (it’s inevitable, since I am pro-life).  I attempted in this chapter to adopt the pro-choice perspective and look critically at pro-life arguments and tactics through pro-choice eyes.  I do this as a matter of course in my conversations, so it was a natural component to include in a book about trying to agree with the other side.

At Stand to Reason's website you've provided study guides for both pro-choice and pro-life advocates to help them clarify the arguments for their position. Doesn't helping pro-choice advocates improve their arguments work against the pro-life cause?

The study guides encourage both sides first to clarify their own arguments and then to look at the best arguments on the other side.  This is the healthiest way to engage in dialogue about our beliefs with ourselves and with others.  So, I see both study guides as a service to both pro-choice and pro-life advocates to help them think more clearly.  I don’t see how helping pro-choice advocates think more clearly can possibly harm the pro-life cause.  It’s just goodwill to encourage them to look at their own position first.  Perhaps the fact that I’m tired of hearing arguments like “you’re a man, so shut up” also motivates me but I genuinely want to help the pro-choice advocate think more deeply about their position.    

I’m not afraid of pro-choice arguments.  The truth about abortion and the unborn will win the day, if it’s looked at carefully.  So, I say, evaluate the strongest reasons on both sides of the debate.  There’s no danger in that.  Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates should do this.  Far from harming the pro-life cause, these guides get people thinking critically about their beliefs. 

I suppose it’s possible that some pro-choice advocates will become more convinced of their beliefs, because they find in the guide intellectually sophisticated ways of expressing those beliefs.  But if they’re truly open to reconsidering their pro-choice position, they’ll honestly look also at the best arguments for the pro-life position, as I’ve suggested in the guide.  Then it’s the pro-life community’s responsibility to make sure our arguments are truly persuasive.  And if our best arguments don’t persuade, they might not be very good after all.  Yet, our arguments are very good and persuasive…to the open heart. 

Underneath it all, there’s more here than the arguments.  When pro-choice advocates reject our best arguments, I suspect it’s the emotional and spiritual aspects of the person that are making it difficult for them to change their minds.  Seeking common ground in the conversation gives more opportunity for those emotional and spiritual elements to breathe and gives each of us space to attend to them.

Order from STR Amazon

Stephen Wagner speaks to and trains a variety of audiences on pro-life and bioethics issues as part of the ministry of Stand to Reason. His new book, Common Ground Without Compromise: 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion, challenges advocates on both sides of the abortion issue to have more respectful and fruitful conversations. Though the book is available on Amazon, we encourage you to support Steve's work at Stand to Reason by ordering through their website. The conclusion of the interview will be posted on Thursday.

As the title indicates, the point of your book is to build common ground between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. Many people on both sides of the issue simply want to persuade their opponents- why should they be interested in finding common ground?

I don’t see a person who disagrees with me primarily as a sort of potential convert.  I see her as a human being.  Human beings deserve to be treated with respect; they deserve to be heard.  It’s troubling that some Christians take the Great Commission as a directive to think of non-Christians as “gospel fodder,” people who are only valuable if converted.  Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason coined that term and I’ve found it helpful in my thinking about the abortion debate.  I am a pro-life advocate, but I don’t see the pro-choice advocate simply as a future notch in my pro-life belt. 

Now, is it important to persuade people of the pro-life position?  I believe the pro-life position is true, and surely it’s vital to help people come to see it as true.  But if I don’t come with an attitude of listening and appreciating this human being as a fellow truth seeker, I’ll miss the forest for the trees…or the human for the ideas.  Since persuasion is important, though, common ground is all the more important.  It’s diplomatic common sense.  Take the pro-life volunteers I trained for a recent outreach in Arizona.  As we shared stories of our interactions, many of the volunteers shared about how common ground helped them move the dialogue forward to discuss disagreements in a productive way.  In the book I picture common ground as the fuel in a car.  You’ll need it at the beginning of a conversation.  And you’ll need to refuel with common ground along the way in order to keep the conversation moving.

Early on in the book you state, "I believe that you and I are both seeking truth, so we have at least one item of common ground." (p17) I suspect that some pro-lifers won't like this because that they believe pro-choicers are more interested in convenience than truth. Why should we believe people we disagree with are interested in seeking truth? Do you honestly believe every person you talk with is seeking truth?

Anyone who’s spent even a few hours talking to college students, or people of any age for that matter, knows that many people value convenience or pleasure or entertainment more than the search for truth.  That’s uncontroversial and I’d be a fool to claim otherwise.  I think it’s also uncontroversial, though, that every human seeks truth on some level.  You can be just as certain that the college student who seems to only care about sex or entertainment also cares deep in his soul about knowing what’s true.  No one wakes up in the morning and says, “I’d really like to find someone who will deceive me today.”  People care about not being deceived, and conversely, they care about knowing the truth.  Our job, as those who believe there’s truth about abortion, is to help people bring their innate love for truth to the surface, so they can fix their conscious gaze on it and evaluate their beliefs.

You spend most of your time in the book exploring 25 questions you believe will help build common ground. Why are questions so important in this endeavor?

It’s interesting that you would use a question to ask why questions are so important! 

Questions are the only way that dialogue happens.  It’s the way we signal to others that we want to hear their opinion.  It’s also one way to signal that we are positioning ourselves as partners rather than enemies (although this also requires asking the question with a certain kind of attitude).  I framed the content of the book in a series of questions because I wanted to help the reader see in a tangible way how to start a conversation and how to keep it productive.  Asking people what they think and why is much more likely to help them change their minds than telling them they are wrong.

The first question you pose in an effort to build common ground is "What do you think about late-term abortion?" You cite a 2003 Gallup poll that suggests "68% of Americans oppose abortion in the second trimester and 84% oppose it in the third trimester." (p39) Why do you think these polls statistics are so high?

Your question is a great one…to ask anyone we’re in dialogue with.  “If you are against late-term abortion, or think it should be illegal…why?”  I think responses to that question are varied.  Many people just think the unborn is a baby at this point.  Some people think the fetus in the second or third trimester looks like older human beings.  Essentially, “It looks like me, so I’m repulsed by killing it.”  Others cite the fact that the fetus likely has higher cortical activity in the late second and third trimester.  So, this question gets us quickly back to the main issue in the abortion debate: Is the unborn a human being who has the same rights as the rest of us?  Many say “yes” in the last half of the pregnancy.

You note that we often hear this common sentiment presented in the media: "The majority of Americans are 'pro-choice' and oppose restrictions on abortion." (p62) Do you believe there is a 'pro-choice' bias in the media?

I’m not sure I’d put it that way.  I think the media’s treatment of the abortion issue shows a “pro-shallow” bias and a “pro-controversy” bias.  People in the media usually have only seconds to communicate ideas and must use sound bites.  Plus, on television, a simplistic representation of extremes plays better than complex dialogue.   So, it’s easy to report poll results, but thorough analysis takes too long.  Neil Postman was right when he criticized the television medium as being intrinsically an entertainment medium that makes it difficult to get accurate facts.  People in the media could minimize this liability, though, by only publicizing polls that ask specific questions about specific abortions at specific times in pregnancy.  Only then can we really understand what people think.

But the fault is not all the media’s.  Pollsters typically serve up polls that ask very vague questions about whether people are for or against abortion, pro-life or pro-choice, for or against Roe v. Wade.  As I explain in the book, the polls rarely define what all of these terms and court decisions mean, so the poll results actually portray an inaccurate picture of public opinion.  But when the media publicizes this inaccurate picture, it becomes a part of our collective consciousness about public opinion on abortion.  We come to believe that what the media reported is “just the way it is.” 

The most serious problem with polls and the media, though, is not the polls or the media.  It’s us, the viewers.  If many of us believe these shallow and inaccurate public opinion polls, it’s our own fault.  We should be more careful.

Compromise is often labeled “the language of the devil.” In practice, we usually picture something as dramatic as an adulteress relationship as the epitome of compromise. But most compromises are less obvious and just as dangerous. How many of the decisions we make on a daily basis involve even a hint of pride or selfishness? If we were to make every decision with intent on reflecting Christ’s holiness, how different would our lives be from what they are now? The call from the scriptures is to become like Christ, and integrity in every aspect of our lives is an important aspect of that.

John MacArthur’s The Power of Integrity provides an exploration of integrity and what it looks like for the people of God to embody it. The first three chapters of the book deal with the definition and foundations of integrity. MacArthur argues that integrity of character is dependent upon union with Christ and integrity of doctrine, and that our “resources in this process are always God’s Word and prayer. Through them you gain the mind of Christ (Col. 3:16).” (p21)

The second part of the book (chapters 4-6) look to various examples of integrity demonstrated in the Bible and in the lives of Christians. MacArthur explores the actions of Daniel and his friends while captive in Babylon, missionary Hudson Taylor, preacher Charles Spurgeon, and the Apostle Paul. All of these provide a clearer picture of how God’s people can practically live out the integrity they are called to.

In the final chapters, MacArthur lays out the practice of integrity in the life of the believer. Instead of being passive or pietistic, we are to work with “fear and trembling” while utterly depending on God’s work in our lives. We are to seek personal holiness through the various relationships in our lives and that leads to practical holiness that’s displayed in love toward our Christian brethren as well as our enemies. At the end of the book is a helpful study guide for personal or group study and application.

In general, there’s nothing new or original about this book. And there shouldn’t be. The call to live a life of holiness as Christ is holy is ancient and yet we still fail at it. MacArthur merely takes these teachings and focuses our attention on them in a manner that is biblical and effectively practical. Among the many reasons for us to pursue integrity, one is that we live before a watching world. John MacArthur challenges us to look different from the world by living lives devoted to God without compromise. As the church continues to blend in with the watching world, books such as The Power of Integrity are necessary reminders of our responsibility to be work out our sanctification in this life.

I'm at the Family Research Council's Washington Briefing: Values Voter Summit today and tomorrow.  Melinda (my boss) was invited to blog on the conference and was nice enough to bring me with her.  All of the Republican candidates for president will be speaking among other guests (including Jim Wallis), so it should be interesting.  (Unfortunately, all of the Democratic candidates declined to speak.)  You can read our posts on the experience over on the Stand to Reason Blog.

Some excerpts from Ryan T. Anderson's review of Frank Beckwith's new book, Defending Life:  A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice for National Review:

He begins by marshaling medical embryology to show that "from a strictly scientific point of view . . . an individual human life begins at conception." Whereas sperm and egg each contain half of the genetic code (23 chromosomes) and are parts of larger organisms (the parents), the one-celled zygote "is a new, although tiny, individual with a human genetic code with its own genomic sequence (with 46 chromosomes), which is neither her mother's nor her father's. From this point until death no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity an individual human being." Beckwith responds to common objections, noting that high rates of natural embryo loss no more disprove the humanity of embryos than high rates of infant mortality do that of infants; that early-embryo twinning does no more to undermine the unity of the embryo prior to twinning than cutting a flatworm in half (forming two flatworms) does to its unity prior to separation; and that while a human embryo doesn’t look like an adult, it "does look exactly like a human ought to look at this stage of her development."

If embryos and fetuses are human beings (which the science compels reasonable people to acknowledge), do they have a right to life? Some, like David Boonin of the University of Colorado, think not. . . Advocates of this view typically point to self-awareness or other immediately exercisable mental capacities as features that make a human being valuable.

Beckwith rejects these arguments because they rest on a faulty understanding of the human person, undermine human equality, and produce morally repugnant conclusions. . . .

"The human being is a particular type of substance -- a rational moral agent -- that remains identical to itself as long as it exists, even if it is not . . . currently able to immediately exercise these activities." We are valuable in virtue of the sort of thing (the substance) we are -- human beings, with basic root capacities for personal acts. Since a substance cannot come in degrees, we are all equally human beings and thus equally valuable.

 

(HT:  Between Two Worlds)

There is an absence of holiness today. I doubt this is controversial- one simply has to turn on the news to find the evidence. However, I’m far more concerned about the absence of holiness among those of us who call ourselves Christians. This is also evidenced by the news, as well as on the Internet in social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook.

We are not saved by our works, and, thankfully, those who are saved cannot be condemned by their sins. But salvation is not an excuse for sin. We are not to continue in sin that grace may abound- this would be an insult to Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. On the contrary, we are to walk in newness of life. “Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.” (Romans 6:8)

Living with Christ means freedom. Some Christians take this freedom the wrong way- as though it means freedom to do whatever they want. They take this to mean freedom from legalism, freedom from authorities who seem to think we have to be Puritans in order to be a Christian. This is how the world thinks of freedom- especially our postmodern one which despises all authorities but the self. John Mark Reynolds recently addressed this from the "Christian liberty" angle.

The Christian life is not about being spiritual, it is about being holy. We are called to be holy as Christ is holy. Freedom in Christ is not freedom to do what one wants, but freedom from enslavement to sin- freedom to finally reflect Christ’s holiness as we were created to. This means we must flee from sin, we must die to it, we must mortify it.

And yet, so many Christians appear to live in sin. On Facebook and MySpace it doesn’t take long to find profiles of people who label themselves as Christian, and yet they post pictures of themselves obviously drunk, or practicing sexual immorality, or being immodest in their appearance or speech. Students at Biola University are required to sign a contract in which they agree to refrain from drinking alcohol while enrolled. But some of these students are so careless with their integrity (or lack of) that they have posted pictures online of themselves drinking.

The Bible is clear:

Being drunk is a sin. (Gal. 5:21, Eph. 5:18)

Sexual immorality is a sin. (1 Cor. 6:18, 2 Cor. 12:21, Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:3)

Unwholesome speech is a sin. (Eph. 4:29, James 3:9-12)

Breaking your word is a sin. (Prov. 6:16-19, Rom. 1:29, Eph. 4:25)

I don’t profess to live perfectly. I must admit that I’ve committed most of these sins. But I’m not suggesting myself as a model of holiness. Christ is the model of holiness we are to seek. And if we’re going to call ourselves followers of Christ, we best start living like we are. Following Christ does not mean being spiritual, it means we reflect His holiness in all our thoughts, words, and deeds, and that includes what we do and say on the Internet.