My Roman Catholic friend, a physician who has also taken orders in his church, spoke very passionately about his own “conversion” to a pro-life position during medical school. His profound “aha” moment came when two babies who had survived a saline abortion were rushed to the neo-natal unit for emergent care. Suddenly he realized the evil hypocrisy of a perspective that argues effectively that a child is only worth saving when it can’t be killed. He also eloquently made the case for abstinence only sex education to the consternation of most of the rest of the panel.

Below is a reconstruction of my comments, since they were mostly extemporaneous:

I. Authority

Today I represent First Presbyterian Church of Augusta, which is a member of the Presbyterian Church in America. For us the final authority for all matters of faith and life is the Bible, which is the word of God. In it we have a record of God’s mind and heart of grace. The Bible further reveals that all of history is outlined by creation, fall and redemption. That means that we affirm that human beings and all the world were created originally good but have fallen and become victims of sin. However, the good news of the gospel is that Jesus Christ is the redeemer who is able to save anyone from his or her sin and promises to put back together a broken world.

II. Key Biblical Principles

Given that the Bible is our foundational authority, it only makes sense that we would look to it for principled instruction on matters touching reproductive health. In short, the Bible records God’s singular high regard for all of life. Allow me to give you a few examples from representative portions of the Scriptures:

1. Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:18-25: Moses teaches that man and woman both were created in the image of God and therefore bear inherent dignity regardless of abilities. Whom he called “very good” we must regard with equal worth. Later Eve will testify that every child comes only by “the help of the Lord.”

2. Psalm 139:13-18: Herein the psalmist captures in stunningly beautiful and intimate language the individual crafting work of God in the formation of each human life.

3. Mark 10:13-16: Jesus fervently expressed his love for children when he welcomed babies into his arms, despite his disciples’ protests.

4. Luke and Acts: These books are sometimes referred to as the Gospel of Women because of Luke’s frequent descriptions of Jesus’ care for disenfranchised women by healing, advocacy or inclusion in his band of disciples.

5. Exodus 21:23-25: One of the most important texts for us is this one from the Mosaic law which prescribed a particular justice for a woman and her baby if attacked by a vicious man. Some (like the Rabbi on the panel) have inferred from the text that the baby’s premature birth is an abortion. Therefore, they conclude that the Bible presents a double standard for mother and baby because retribution (lex talionis) is only required if the mother is injured, not the baby. However, the text is intentionally vague. If Moses had intended to describe a spontaneous abortion he had words at his disposal for such (shachol and nephel). In fact he uses one just a couple of chapters later (Ex. 23:26; cf. Ps. 58:8). Instead he used the generic word yeled which merely denotes a birth. Rather than spelling out the eight possible scenarios (e.g. mother hurt, child ok; mother ok, child killed; mother killed, child hurt, etc.), God just says that if either is hurt or killed like retribution is necessary (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life”).

Together those passages teach us that because every life is a gift from God and inherently bears his dignity regardless of limitations, we must be pro-life for all life.

III. Practical Outworkings of Pro-Life Convictions

But talk is cheap, so let me outline briefly a few ways we attempt as a church to advocate for all of life. We are far from perfect so our efforts are flawed with many inadequacies but we are trying at least to do something. To start we have structured ourselves to provide intensely personal life-on-life help to the smallest, weakest and most forgotten of our community. Here are a few examples of what my people do as an expression of their faith-commitment to be pro-life for all of life:

1. Care for children: The structure and programming of our church is prejudicially bent toward extending holistic and community-wide nurture to the children of our church. But we also feel a burden for children outside of our church who are in need of the culture of grace God has given to us at FPC. Our people have adopted minority children, special needs children, international children, and international children with special needs. We provide support for families of children with special needs. And recently our families helped dignify a child with a severe chromosomal defect by praying for him by name, celebrating his life in the womb through worship and providing a memorial service for him upon his death.

2. Care for women: Like Jesus, we desire to be committed to women especially in need. In cases where women’s lives have been compromised by an unwed pregnancy or rape or poverty our people have mobilized with networks of men, women, healthcare professionals, jobs, support for job training, legal advocacy, and showers for supplies. Some of our physicians are offering healthcare to the prostitutes and dancers downtown and coordinating to provide a way out of those degrading lifestyles. Teen mothers have been taken into our homes, provided with transportation, and assisted with GEDs. Members of FPC led the way in establishing the Crisis Pregnancy Center downtown across from Planned Parenthood to provide compassionate counseling to women in need. And given that poor education is often named as a factor for unwed pregnancies, our people have led the way with establishing excellent educational and tutoring ministries through Heritage Academy, Released Time Christian Education and Westminster Schools with more mentoring ministries to come.

3. Dignity accorded to women: Contrary to accusations, we believe the women of our congregation must be honored in the name of Christ and as ones specially crafted by God in the beginning. We have staff dedicated to the development of support networks for women in all stages of life: single, married, motherhood and widowed. Our women are some of the most influential professional leaders in the CSRA and many key leadership roles in our church are occupied by women.

4. Care for the elderly and infirm: We give prominence and honor to our elderly and provide social networking ministries that encourage them to stay active and keep using their gifts. A number of our healthcare professionals act as de-facto “parish health providers” by caring for minor needs in the homes of the elderly. And household or financial needs are addressed by teams within our parishes.

5. Care for mentally ill or indigent: Our people have organized themselves into armies of dozens at times to care for one bi-polar person. One of our ministries, Christ Community Health Services treats thousands of uninsured patients every year with expert compassionate care for body and soul. We have mainstreamed special needs children in our educational ministries. And a number of our people provide the primary leadership for the sheltered workshops in town for handicapped adults.

This is not to mention the numerous counseling sessions we conduct with the sexually and physically abused, women who have had abortions, and those with chemical, sexual, or homosexual addictions.

 IV. The gospel is good news

Everything we do is to declare that the gospel is good news for everyone and every category of persons, especially the “least” of these, “Christ’s brethren.” To specifically address the main focus of this forum today, we oppose abortion because it is bad news for people made in the image of God. The gospel is good news for any child because it tells her that she is inherently dignified by God and loved by Jesus. Abortion is bad news because it says the child is a nuisance or not worth living because of her limitations. To justify a mother’s right to choose the death of her child based on her whims is to provide a relativity to all of life that leaves all those not able to defend themselves in jeopardy. It was this realization— that if a mother could choose the fate of her child because she had more power, then a more powerful adult could choose to end anyone else’s life—that led Elizabeth Foxe-Genovese, the founder of Emory’s Women Studies program, not only from pro-choice to a pro-life perspective, but also from Marxist atheism to Christianity.

And abortion is bad news for women because abortion is harmful to their physical and emotional health. Until recently about a dozen deaths per year were attributed by the CDC to complications from legal abortions. However, in the last five years studies have been tracking the mortality rates of aborting women internationally. The latest statistics for American women having abortions show that there is a 154 percent higher risk of suicide and an 82 percent higher risk of death from accidental injuries.

As a pastor, I can tell you that abortion is bad news for fathers too. Unless he has developed a seared conscience, abortion has never “solved the problem” for a father. It will haunt his conscience for the rest of his life.

At the last day Jesus will ask what we did for the “least of these.” Some will claim to have done miracles in his name but Jesus will deny knowing them, because his sheep are those who out of love for him and his redemptive work, pursue and care for the most wounded of sheep. Jesus said he came to bring abundant life to the world.  That is why we are pro-life.”

While the gasps, guffaws and patronizing remarks from the other panelists are always annoying, the interaction with the students (who on the whole seem much more rational and compassionate than most of the religious presenters) is always very rewarding. This year the moderator had this to say after the forum: “Dr. Robertson, your church seems to be the only one offering resources for women in desperate situations. Since we have no such services to offer at the Medical School, would it be ok if I referred my patients to your church when they are in need?” It was only because I serve the noble people of First Presbyterian Church of Augusta that I could say with confidence, “Send every one of them to us and we will do our best to help them.”

My Favorite People: Thanks for praying but thank you even more for being you.

Given that my comments from the pulpit were extemporaneous I thought it might be helpful to write the gist of them here.  I gave three suggestions for our response to this issue of the parade and others like it.

1.  Lead with the Gospel:  The most important point to make is that we must always view our fallen world and fellow sinners in it through the lens of the Cross.  Doing so will make it impossible to see anybody else’s sin without first remembering your own.  That is the point that Paul was making with the Corinthians who had become so proud and judgmental:  “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?”  You can hear some Corinthians saying, “Now Paul is preaching.  Let them have it!”  But Paul presses on:  “Do not be deceived:  Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters not adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. . .”  At this point, perhaps a number—though certainly not all—were  shouting, “Amen!  Call ‘em out, Paul!”  But he didn’t stop:  “Nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”  Now you can imagine the church is more quiet because these are the sins Paul has already confronted among the leaders at Corinth.  To a hushed congregation, the reader of the epistle then speaks these words, “And that is what some of you were.”  In that congregation—as there are in ours—there were representatives of each class of sin named.  Then comes the good news, “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Co. 6:9-11).  Before singling out any category of sin for unusual and self-righteous condemnation, remember that the unrepentant homosexual will not experience any greater heat in hell than the one unrepentant of his greed.  When you meet or interact with or read about a homosexual, do not think first of his sexuality—think first, “Here is a fellow sinner who needs my same Savior.  If Jesus could save me, he could save anyone!”

2.  Leave it Alone:  Leave the Gay Pride Parade event alone.  Don’t attend it, don’t bring it up as a topic for debate and don’t write the paper about it.  Those who organize such events tend to like negative publicity as much as positive, so if it is ignored the event accomplishes less.  However, we do not ignore such events out of animus but rather out of love.  As one who has pastorally cared for a number of homosexuals through the years (both those who struggle with it as a sin and those who were offended to have their preferences called “sin”), I can say that my experience has confirmed what I have read: that someone with same-sex attraction is one who has experienced profound rejection of some kind in the past.  That rejection may be imagined but it is usually real and heartbreaking.  The result is that one can be locked into a kind of perpetual state of adolescent self-pity.[1]  Such self-pity does not always result in same-sex attraction; it can result in any number of indulgences or pursuits of acceptance.  That is not a revolutionary insight, but rather a recollection of Adam and Eve’s disposition.  It was their self-pitiful delusion that God was denying them something good that propelled them to rebel against him.  Therefore, the “Gay-Homosexual” is one who flaunts his sexuality and provokes public reaction as a self-fulfilling prophecy of his rejection.[2]  Out of love for the homosexual or any other person who is a provocateur with his sin, we refuse to get pulled into his or her unhealthy cycle of rejection/indulgence because it is destructive to him or her as an image bearer of God.

3.  Leave Room for Relationships:  That leads naturally to the third point which is that we do not want to take action or speak in a way that communicates that our Christ is not available to every sinner weary of his or her burden.  We must be careful never to speak of any category of sin as if we can imagine no grace for it.  Nor must we speak of any kind of sinner as if such is nowhere near where we live and work.  I have listened with a broken heart to a number of homosexuals who have said, “I never thought I could go to anyone in my faith community with my struggles because of the way they told gay jokes or spoke about ‘those homos out there.’”  Broadcast with your language and action that you are a representative of Christ who says, “The one who comes to me I will never cast out” and “Come to me . . . and you will find rest for your souls.”  While we must never tell the homosexual that his or her attractions are good and normal, neither must we ever give the impression that they are unforgivable.  It would be as unloving to condone a homosexual’s sin as it would to condone the greedy or rebellious or adulterer or drug addict.  Sin wars against the image God has beautifully endowed us with.  While his grace may never in this life fully liberate us from the struggle with a besetting sin, it declares that we are free from its condemnation and guarantees a future in heaven without it.  The Christ who befriended Mary Magdalene is the Christ we desire to share with everyone and anyone who will allow us to befriend them.

[1] The clearest presentation of this theory is by Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg’s The Battle for Normality:  A Guide for (Self-) Therapy for Homosexuality (San Francisco:  Ignatius Press, 1997).

[2] I get this distinction between the “gay” and the “non-gay homosexual” from Dr. Joseph Nicolossi who works with recovering homosexuals.  Dr. Nicolosi’s contention is that the gay homosexual is one who publicly flaunts and provokes with his lifestyle while the non-gay homosexual is one who has heterosexual values and yet struggles with his sexual identity or has finally conceded to it.  This latter group, he says, represents the largest percentage of the homosexual population in America.  Allen Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind, was such a person.  While he was a strong proponent of heterosexual marriage and Judeo-Christian ethics, he was privately one who had finally wearied of his homosexual struggles and conceded that he had no choice but to live in that identity.

One of the many challenges President Obama promised to tackle upon his election was health care reform.  While his administration did not craft its own bill, President Obama charged Congress to:

• Insure all or most Americans
• Give equal coverage to all—no denying for pre-existing conditions or penalizing later for illnesses.
• Offer government subsidies to those whose employers don’t pay their insurance
• Keep down costs

From January to June 2008 three House committees and two Senate committees created three separate bills.  Two Senators wrote two different bills and three committee chairmen in the House created one.  There were basically two questions in the debate posed by the majority party:  1) whether to require all Americans to have health insurance (like car insurance) and, 2) whether to subsidize insurance to keep the cost down (the “public option”).  The American Medical Association, the insurance lobby and labor unions generally supported requiring everyone to have insurance.  And generally physicians and labor unions have supported subsidies for the poor.  Drawing charges of “socialism,” the public option became so contentious that 51 Democrats from conservative states calling themselves Blue Dogs announced they would not support a public plan based on any extension of Medicare.  More moderate Democrats proposed only paying subsidies in the future if insurance companies did not act in good faith.  The projected cost of the reforms would be $1 trillion.

On July 14 the House unveiled the 852-page Affordable Health Choices Act.  It would expand Medicaid eligibility, increased Medicaid payments to physicians, and close a gap in Medicaid prescription coverage.  Other permutations of plans inspired by Ted Kennedy and drafted by Max Baucus (D-MT) were floated through June and July.  Before recess, the bill primary made it through two House committees but the Congressmen were not prepared for the hostile public reactions they would meet with in town halls across the country.

Protests and demonstrations shocked the President and his supporters.  President Obama explained that the outbursts that sometimes resulted in violence and injuries were “staged protests and scare-tactic statements that the House bill supported ‘death squads’ that would urge senior citizens to forego life-extending treatment in order to keep down costs.”  So he took to the offensive with his own town hall meetings and an address to a joint session of Congress on September 9.  There the President took off his gloves and announced, “The time for games has passed.  Now is the time for action.”  However, the most dramatic moment of that session occurred when Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled out, “You lie!” in response to Mr. Obama’s assurance that the plan would not insure illegal immigrants.

By October 13, the Senate Finance Committee had brought out the Baucus plan securing the swing vote of Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine. The bill was a compromise plan that would have created insurance exchanges supplemented by the federal government to make coverage affordable.  While it promised to cover 29 million more people it would leave 25 million uncovered, including about 8 million illegal immigrants.

The House completed revisions to its bill on October 29.  The Affordable Health Care for America Act would provide coverage for 36 million people.  Though it promises to reduce the national deficit by $104 billion dollars through savings in Medicaid and the addition of new fees, its projected cost over the next ten years would be $1 trillion.  After compromises on federally funded abortions to satisfy conservative Democrats, the Act passed in the House in a late Saturday night vote (220-215) on November 7. 

The Senate version of the bill made it to the floor on November 21 as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  By establishing a new public insurance plan to compete with private insurers, it promises coverage to 31 million people.  Its 10-year incremental cost of $818 billion is supposed to be offset by payroll taxes on high-income workers and a new excise tax on “Cadillac” (high cost) health care plans.  By December the Senate bill was stalled by arguments over public funding of abortion and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean’s public criticism of the bill as favoring insurance companies. 

After Senator Brown’s election, both Senate and House Democratic leaders have expressed doubts that such wide-sweeping reform as was being proposed would be possible.  Nevertheless the President in his State of the Union address promised it would be pursued.

My concern is not to address the political intrigue or maneuverings but rather to begin a dialogue about the biblical principles and mandates touching the debate on health care.  The responsibility of the pulpit is to exposit the Scriptures and exemplify application that can be imitated by the people in every area of life.  Radiating from the pulpit ministry is the organized church’s responsibility to minister the gospel in evangelism, fellowship, education and mercy (Acts 2:42-45).  Therefore in regard to health care the Church’s responsibility is first to teach the biblical principles.  Out of that teaching the Church must encourage its members to apply those principles within its fellowship and education.  An example of such application would be the Lutheran, Catholic and Christian Church practice of providing parish nurses to treat minor health needs and provide preventive health education of their members.  The Church can provide opportunities to put those biblical principles into practice through evangelism as we do through Medical Campus Outreach, the Christian Medical and Dental Association and “Saline Solution” conferences.  And those biblical principles must be put into practice in corporate and individual acts of mercy as we are doing through Christ Community Health Services, relief efforts in Haiti, and financial aid to those with large medical bills.

So let’s start the conversation so we can act. . .

Despite the challenge, the President read a letter written by Sen. Kennedy who had died on August 25 which insisted on the ethical nature of the debate:  “Health care is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”

By October 13, the Senate Finance Committee had brought out the Baucus plan securing the swing vote of Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine.  She made her own statement regarding the ultimacy of the issue, “Is this bill all that I would want?  No. . . Is it all it can be?  No.  But when history calls, history calls.  And I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to take every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental problems of our time.”

[1] E. J. Brown, “How to Bake a Health Care Cake,” Advance 25 (December 21, 2009):  11-21.

I recently preached on Psalm 92 in our series on the Psalter.  Given that nearly half of the congregation was not there, I wanted to make the sermon available both by manuscript and audio on my blog.  My prayer is that more in our congregation would see the eternal benefits of morning and evening worship.  I also thought it would be interesting for you to see the kind of manuscript I prepare for sermons every week.

(The audio player may take a few seconds to load)