I suppose it's no big surprise that abortion has taken the fore in the ongoing health care debate. It's been a hot button issue since Roe v. Wade. Since that time, Christians have been relatively outspoken about the ills of abortion, and have even become embroiled in the politics of it all. While the effectiveness of this can be debated, I do think it worth our while to consider our role.
For one, we would do well to examine the historic stance of the Church on this issue. Abortion is certainly nothing new, and the Roman culture surrounding the early church is no exception. In fact, even infanticide was a common practice, but you don't see Peter and Paul petitioning the Roman courts to outlaw it. Instead, Christian families were adopting these unwanted children (typically girls). They provided a loving outlet for those families who could not, or would not, care for their own children (See Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity). We would do well to do the same. It rings of hypocrisy when we lament mothers who don't want their children, when we don't provide them an outlet for their care.
Remember, "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world" (James 1:27). May we show ourselves to be such people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting, correct me if wrong, but the church prior to 300AD didn't do much suggesting/authorizing any gov't to change or stop anything in the areas of morals. I know John the Baptist rebuked Herod for adultery. Paul and the apostles taught Jesus alone as Lord and of course faithfulness to Christianity. But other than that, we see in the early church and history the church living under intense persecution, obviously they disagreed with the abortion practice, but they probably knew better than to petition an emperor to change his wicked ways. They got more accomplished by being the church than crying out. I guess the tricky thing is comparing ourselves/gov't to the early church/roman gov't. What do you think Paul would have us do? Can you write a sequel?
ReplyDeletea quick response, in order to buy me time until i (perhaps:o) "write a sequel," would be, experience alone should have taught us that it accomplishes little to no good to embroil ourselves with a political agenda, ie, the "Religious Right." I would argue (as would others; see "A Lover's Quarrel with the Evangelical Church") that it has (and will) actually cause more harm than good.
ReplyDeletefor one, Christ's agent of change has always been, and will continue to be, the Church, not Caesar. Politicians and high profile Christian figures alike are sinners, and "prone to wander." also, it should be a very apt parallel between 1st cent. and 21st, since there is "nothing new under the sun." furthermore, and finally, we are always to follow Christ's example, and His was, emphatically, to insist upon the Kingdom not of this world, rather than an earthly one.
for what it's worth,