OUR DUTY
In discussing this issue, one of the concerns raised is the need to preserve the individual’s right to choose. The question is, the right to choose what? (1) Don’t we have a duty to determine what it is that a man or woman is choosing before we declare that choice morally acceptable? Aren’t some choices wrong and contrary to Scripture? Thus, don’t we, as the standard bearer, have a duty to speak to that truth, that there is right and wrong, and sin and a Savior? It is false to assert that in speaking what is true, we will in any way repress or remove the individual’s free will. We, as a church, do not make law. We are to raise up the Banner of Truth. We cannot seek to justify what is wrong under the guise of preserving freedom of choice.
When an individual claims that he or she “personally opposes abortion,” but, “if a person chooses to have an abortion, that is their choice,” what is that individual really saying? Again, imagine an individual making that same statement regarding adultery or spousal abuse. “I personally oppose adultery, but, if you want to have an affair, that is your choice;” or, “I personally oppose beating my wife, but, if you want to beat up yours, that is your decision.” (2) We would not dare exalt those decisions, praising them as exercises in “freedom of conscience.” And yet, in holding that to have an abortion is just as morally justified as to not have one, we are excusing the wrongful death of the most innocent among us as merely an exercise of free will.
We are the standard-bearer. We must speak what is true, both individually and collectively, regardless of who supports or opposes it.
Our duty is to intercede. Do we not plead with individuals to use their free will in ways that lead them away from sin? Away from adultery? Away from stealing? Away from lying? Why, then, would we not do all we could to persuade them to honor the sanctity of human life? Why would we not do all we could to persuade an individual to “choose life” and blessing, rather than death and cursing? Our duty is to reconcile, to intercede, to plead as though GOD Himself were pleading through us.
“Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” - II Corinthians 5:18-21.
When we tell an individual that abortion is simply a matter of personal preference, we are not reconciling them to the LORD; we are leading them away from the light and neglecting our duty to reconcile others to the truth.
“... I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul. Therefore you, O son of man, say to the house of Israel: ‘Thus you say, “If our transgressions and our sins lie upon us, and we pine away in them, how can we then live?” Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’” Ezekiel 33: 7-11.
As the Church, we have believed our duty as watchmen applies to every aspect of who we are, from the clothes we wear and the food we eat and to the jobs we take and the pleasures that delight us. Why would we think it does not apply to abortion?
(1) Scott Klusendorf, Life Training Institute.
(2) Id.
Freedom of Choice,
Rightly Understood
Do we possess the freedom of choice? Absolutely.
However, do we, have a duty to speak out against those choices that are morally wrong and contrary to Scripture?
Do we not speak out against adultery? Lying? Stealing? Homicide? Rape? Physical abuse?
We can hardly speak on the wrongness of those and remain silent on the issue of abortion. It is time for us to acknowledge that in speaking what is true about the sanctity of human life, we do not remove freedom of choice. Just as our stance on adultery, stealing, and lying do not remove an individual’s free will to engage in those acts, neither does speaking the truth about the abortive act.
In our failure to speak what is true regarding the sanctity of human life, we commit a profound injustice against ourselves, our families, our communities. Consider the profound difference here: “Abortion is wrong. I will speak every truth I can to persuade you that abortion is wrong,” and “‘Abortion is a tragic dilemma of human fallenness’ and whether you choose to have an abortion, thus ending the life of your child, or, whether you choose against abortion, thus protecting the life of your child, both decisions are morally acceptable.” Both of these statements preserve the individual’s freedom of choice, do they not? By making either statement, am I forcing the individual to make any one choice? Not at all. What is the difference then? The direction in which the individual is led. With the first statement, she is led to the Light. With the second statement, she is led away from it.