Jesus came full of GRACE and TRUTH. (John 1:14) Notice He came full of grace and truth; not truth and grace. First grace … then truth. The Holy Spirit anoints the truth … not our anger, a combative spirit, or negative frustrations. Jesus is our model. The truth is that no one will hear the truth without first experiencing grace.
- Colossians 4:5–6 (NIV84) 5 Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
- We are to be “salt and light.” Notice the order in Matthew 5:13, first salt and then light. Go to my teaching on our website (eacrossroads.com) “The Covenant of Salt.”
Knowing how to make a case for life:
By Scott Klusendorf
This is transcribed from a Breakpoint Podcast on January 14, 2019. It’s an interview with Scott Klusendorf and John Stonestreet.
Scott Klusendorf: “Most Christians are not clear what the Christian case is against abortion and how to explain it.”
- Our case is: “It is wrong to kill innocent human beings and abortion does just that. Therefore it’s wrong. “
“Notice right away we have made a statement of truth. We are not saying what we feel and we are not conveying a subjective opinion, we are making an objective case. We defend that case by saying that the science of embryology says, “That from the earliest stages of development the embryo (you) are a distinct living and whole human being.”
You weren’t part of another human being; you were already a whole living member of the human family. You and your mother were separate human beings, both capable of growth and life. You were simply at different stages of development.
There is no essential difference between you the embryo, and you the adult that would justify killing you back in your mother’s womb. The difference is of size, level of development, environment and the degree of dependency. Though there are differences, they are not morally relevant and such that they say they justify killing you then, but not now. THAT’S OUR CASE.
Usually the response is, “You believe what you believe because of your religion.”
How do we answer? Refer people back to the case and do not let them change the subject. The subject is the “case.” When they bring up religious argument you respond, “Can I make an observation? I expressed reasons for my view and I notice you didn’t refute them; you just made an excuse that I believe what I believe because of my religion.” Arguments are either true or false, valid or invalid. Calling an argument religious avoids the argument.
- We need to become very adept at keeping the main thing the main thing. Our critics love to change the subject. And the religious argument is not a refutation of what we state, it’s an attempt to dodge what we stated.
“Abortion is a woman’s right to choose!“
First thing we are to say to this is, “Choose what?” By their choice they want to intentionally kill an innocent human being and that’s why I began with stating our case, “Abortion is the intentional killing of a human being.” If they want the choice to do that, then they need to defend the choice to do that.
The other thing is that when people bring up choice I respond, “I am vigorously pro- choice. On women choosing their own health care providers, their own views, the man they marry, the career they wish to pursue, etc. But the choice to intentionally kill a human being because he/she is in the way of something we want is a choice that a civil society should not allow.”
So whenever someone brings up “choice” I do two things:
- State that I too am pro-choice depending on the choice
- It’s not ok to choose to intentionally kill an innocent defenseless human being.
In his book, “The Case for Life”, Scott Klusendorf states the following:
“Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, elective abortion require no more justification than pulling a tooth.”
This video of an obstetrics doctor is well worth listening to (it’s only 4 minutes long):
More to follow,