| December 26, 1999 |
Vol. II, No. 35
|
One can’t help but wonder if the advocates of “abortion rights” realize how eerie the parallels are between their arguments and those made a hundred and fifty years ago by the advocates of “slavery rights.”
(1) Those who supported the right to own slaves said emphatically that they were not pro-slavery, they were pro-choice. They admitted that slavery was not a good thing and agreed that the country ought to work toward eliminating the need for it. Nevertheless, they believed that -- in situations where slavery might be “necessary” -- people ought to be allowed to make their own personal choice. They said that those conscientiously opposed to slavery should simply refrain from practicing it themselves, and leave other people free to make a different choice.
(2) Those who supported the right to own slaves said they believed this was not a matter for the federal government to decide. Much was said about federal violations of individual “privacy,” the “intrusion” of the government into personal matters, &c. It was argued that bureaucrats in Washington should not interfere with intensely personal decisions such as whether to own slaves. Such private matters just weren’t any of the federal government’s business.
(3) Those who supported the right to own slaves questioned whether those against slavery would be willing to help feed, clothe, and employ the many slaves who would be in need if they were free. They said that as undesirable as slavery might be in theory, it was preferable to the miserable life many blacks would have to lead if they were pushed out on their own into a world where nobody wanted them.
(4) Those who supported the right to own slaves argued that those who believed slavery was immoral should not be allowed to “impose” their personal morals on the entire nation. It was maintained that, if slavery was a moral issue, the government should not try to legislate morals.
(5) Those who supported the right to own slaves did so in many cases because, at heart, they did not really consider blacks to be persons. They believed it was not meaningful to discuss the “rights” of beings who were not “human” in the full sense of the term.
Can anybody not see the parallels between these fallacious arguments and those used today to support abortion rights? Not surprisingly, of course, abortion rights advocates reject the analogy between abortion and slavery. New York Times columnist Tom Wicker, for example, once wrote, “To choose to own a slave... indisputably damages the legal... rights of others. For a woman to choose an abortion does not indisputably damage other people’s rights -- unless, of course, one believes that life indisputably begins at conception.”
Such a comment not only begs the question, it overlooks a critical point. The fact that blacks are persons may be indisputable NOW. But it so happens that our national policy on slavery was set long ago, at a time when the personhood of blacks was as widely debated as the personhood of a fetus is today. We consider Abraham Lincoln a hero for emancipating the slaves long BEFORE a national consensus was reached on the personhood of blacks. The courage to do what was objectively right was the essence of Lincoln’s great character. He did not govern by opinion poll or limit himself to the truths that were “indisputable” in his day.
How unlike Lincoln are many of our leaders today! In bondage as they are to the “indisputable” truths of public opinion, we wonder what modern abortionists would have done in Lincoln’s day. Before using the federal government to free the slaves, would they have WAITED a hundred and fifty years until EVERYBODY agreed that the personhood of blacks was “indisputable”? We should be glad that a century and a half ago there were those courageous enough to defend what was right with respect to black people, long before the thing that was right was universally acknowledged. And what is more, we should hope that the NEXT century and a half will vindicate the judgment of those who today risk public disfavor by calling on the government to protect the rights of unborn children. Sad to say, the “right to life” principle may be an idea whose time has not yet come. But that doesn’t change the right and wrong of the matter by one iota.
--Gary Henry via “Brass Tacks”
[Editor’s note: The following “article” is an excerpt from a speech by W.L. Oliphant in the Oliphant-Rice Debate from 1935. We are indebted to Tant Williams of South Houston, Texas, for calling our attention to it.]
There were three classes who came to John for baptism. (1) Those who knew and were willing to confess that they were sinners. These, John baptized without question, since his baptism was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:5; Matt. 3:6). (2) Some came for baptism who claimed they were children of Abraham, that is, were already saved. These, John refused to baptize. “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Matt. 3:7-9). John, knowing that his baptism was for the remission of sins, would not baptize those who thought they were already saved. To have baptized them would have been to have denied the divine purpose of baptism -- the very thing my opponent is doing in this discussion!
(3) The third class coming to John for baptism consisted of but one person; that is, Jesus. “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and cometh thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him” (Matt. 3:13-15). Because John’s baptism was for remission of sins and because he knew that Jesus had no sins, he refused to baptize Jesus. “I have need to be baptized of thee,” John insisted. But Jesus said, “Suffer it to be so now.” The term “suffer” suggests permitting that which, under the rules, would not be allowed. The idea is that of making an exception to general practice. In our every-day language, Jesus said to John: “I understand that your baptism is for remission of sins, and that, I, having no sin, do not need it, but we must make this one exception, since it is becoming that I do that which I command others to do.” Then John “suffered him”; that is, made the one exception.
This is the only instance in all the Bible of anyone’s being baptized for any purpose other than the remission of sins; and it was done, according to our Lord, himself, as an exception to the divine rule. I challenge my opponent to find another person in all the New Testament who received baptism which was not for the remission of sins.
To accept John’s baptism was to justify God. “And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John” (Luke 7:29).
“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field... but his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat...” When his servants asked, “Do you want us to go and gather them up?” the land owner replied, “No, lest you... also uproot the wheat... Let both grow together until the harvest.” The land owner would send his reapers at the time of harvest to separate the wheat from the tares, burn the tares, and gather the wheat into the barn (Matt. 13:24-30).
In verses 36-43, Jesus explains, “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,” that is, Jesus Himself. “The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom,” that is, Christians, “but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.” Then He explains the primary application of the parable: “Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
It might be well for us to note the danger of trying to extend the parable or its application to teach things Jesus was not teaching. Not every detail in the story or parable has a parallel in the application. The fact that men were sleeping when the enemy sowed the tares in the story has no significance in the application. It is a part of the story but no spiritual lesson is involved in that detail. In the story, the land owner cautioned his servants against trying to gather out the tares during the growing process, lest they uproot the wheat. While we might legitimately learn a lesson from the land owner’s advice, Jesus did not make any specific application of that part of the story -- but we do learn that it will be Jesus Himself, the Son of Man, who will do the actual weeding out of those who are counterfeit Christians, and that His angels will be involved in that work at the end of the world.
It behooves us to remember that we are neither qualified nor authorized to pass judgment on the eternal destinies of one another, but neither should we neglect our responsibility to discern right from wrong as God has made them known to us by His inspired word. Remember, He told us to beware of false prophets, and that we would know them by their fruits, Matt. 7:15-16. He told us not to give what is holy to “dogs” nor cast “pearls before swine” (Matt. 7:6). Through the apostle John, He told us to “test the spirits, whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). We must do these things with the full realization that only Jesus can search men’s hearts. He will judge each of us in the final judgment.
--CRJ