tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post116914605777554169..comments2024-01-01T08:18:36.278-05:00Comments on Real Physics: Right to LifeLawrence Gagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-21947294395735486782008-02-08T11:52:00.000-05:002008-02-08T11:52:00.000-05:00Thanks for your note, Andrew. That article was ov...Thanks for your note, Andrew. That article was over a year ago. Did you submit this letter to Touchstone? If so, when?<BR/><BR/>I don't know: that last paragraph you quote sounds rather "pro-choice" to me, as in, "As long as it's not expressly prohibited by Scripture we cannot condemn the choice." Sounds like a rather legalistic stance besides.<BR/><BR/>LGLawrence Gagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-28510471773878991722008-02-05T13:40:00.000-05:002008-02-05T13:40:00.000-05:00Lawrence,I thought I would post here my comments t...Lawrence,<BR/><BR/>I thought I would post here my comments to Touchstone about the Hays article you mention above. <BR/><BR/>Dear Touchstone,<BR/><BR/>We are about to enter a national election with a Christian church-going Democrat who is pro-choice and a non-church-going Republican candidate who is pro-life. Thus, there is likely to be continued scrutiny of the abortion question for Christian voters. Vote for a Christian or vote pro-life? <BR/><BR/>A friend referred me to the article in the January/February, 2007 issue of Touchstone entitled<BR/><BR/>"The Silent Witness Speaks: Abortion & Richard Hays's Moral Ambiguity"<BR/><BR/>by W. Ross Blackburn<BR/><BR/>http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-01-038-f<BR/>I am sad to say that Blackburn grossly misrepresents Hays's firm opposition to abortion. I am flabbergasted that Touchstone would not be more careful about publishing such an article. I have attached Hays's chapter 18 on "Abortion" in The Moral Vision of the New Testament so you can read it for yourself. In his chapter, Hays carefully shows the New Testament evidence against abortion. Blackburn again and again quotes Hays out of context and misrepresents him. I was wondering if you could put a response on that webpage with the Blackburn article or a link to Hays's chapter if Harper would agree to post it online like it has his chapter on homosexuality. That just seems to me to be the responsible thing to do since Blackburn so grossly misrepresents Hays. Again, I just think it is sad that Touchstone is teaching its readers to dislike Hays when he is one of the most respected New Testament scholars in the world and agrees with Touchstone on every theological issue. For example, Hays is well-known for his chapter opposing homosexuality in the same book. I think it would be fine for Blackburn to have said, "I wish Hays would have gone farther here. I think he doesn't give enough weight to this argument." Or, "I disagree with Hays's Anabaptist hesitation about getting involved in politics." But to call the article "Richard Hays's Moral Ambiguity" is a poor display of moral judgment by the author and publisher. <BR/><BR/>Here are a few selected quotes from Hays if you don't have a chance to read the whole chapter.<BR/><BR/>"As God's creatures, we are stewards who bear life in trust. To terminate a pregnancy is not only to commit an act of violence but also to assume responsibility for destroying the work of God." (Page 450)<BR/><BR/>"Although the New Testament does not mention abortion, the Christian tradition from a very early date bears strong and consistent witness against it. Among the factors regularly claimed by early Christians as marking their distinction from the pagan world was their rejection of abortion and infanticide . . . The recent shift in some branches of liberal Protestantism to advocacy for abortion rights is a major departure from the church's historic teaching." (Page 453).<BR/><BR/>"My own judgment in this case is that the New Testament summons the community to eschew abortion and thus to undertake the burden of assisting the parents to raise the handicapped child. In the actual situation, however, Bill and Jennifer never brought the decision before the church, believing - perhaps rightly - that their local church was not in fact the sort of community that could meaningfully take responsibility for such a matter. Left alone with the decision, they decided to have the abortion. While I believe that the witness of the New Testament should have tipped the balance the other way on this decision, I respect the difficulty of their situation and the moral gravity of their action. In a case where the New Testament offers no clear instruction, it is perhaps inevitable that Christians will in good conscience reach different conclusions. Bill and Jennifer did what they believed was right, seeing abortion as a tragic but necessary choice. If such a choice is necessary, the tragedy is primarily the tragedy of a church that has abdicated its calling to 'bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ' (Gal 6.2, AA). The New Testament envisions a more excellent way." (Page 457).<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Andy Rowell<BR/><BR/><I>Andy Rowell<BR/>Th.D. Student<BR/>Duke Divinity School<BR/><A HREF="http://www.andyrowell.net/" REL="nofollow">Blog: Church Leadership Conversations</A> </I>Andy Rowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15317283478472718864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-1169955344741538712007-01-27T22:35:00.000-05:002007-01-27T22:35:00.000-05:00God bless you MJ!God bless you MJ!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com