In the 1960’s things changed for many religious people.  Situational Ethics was first popularized by an Episcopal priest named Joseph Fletcher, who wrote two books titled The Classic Treatment and Situation Ethics.  In the books he contended that the principle of Love (agape) was supreme, and sometimes situations necessitated a breaking of God’s law for the higher good of expressing love for another.  The concept was accepted by a large number despite its arbitrary, individualistic and subjective nature.  Its influence is the primary reason why the hue and cry of religious people today, rather than obedience to God, has become, “You have no right to judge me!”

It is also the reason why religious people have become so accepting of sinful action in our society.  Many believe that, depending upon the situation, lying, stealing, divorce, abortion, etc., may be excused by God.  At its core, the view makes man the final arbiter of what is right and wrong in any particular circumstance, rather than God.  As experience has shown, this is a slippery slope.

American Slavery

The institution of slavery is a horrific blight in America’s past.  It was allowed to flourish because of the attitudes popularly held by the white population of America from its inception as a nation.  The southern states needed cheap labor for the cultivation and harvesting of crops such as tobacco and cotton.  The African slave trade provided the labor force.  It was economically convenient, but would have been untenable if the populace had regarded black people as human.  The common view was (at the very least) that the black man was less human than the white man – less capable of self-government, of education, of civilization.  The prominent view had no basis in reality, but it was widely held.

In reading a recent biography of Andrew Jackson, this truth was clearly demonstrated to the mind of this writer.  Jackson as President (1829-37) was a champion of “the people.”  He fought for the rights of the common man, and ferreted out corruption in government that would harm American citizens.  Although he commonly wrote and spoke of the rights of “every man” to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it was obvious that his view of “every man” was not inclusive of either native Americans or blacks.  He was a slave holder, and during his Presidency he supported measures that robbed native Americans of their homelands and sovereignty. In all of this he considered himself to be a benevolent protector of these “lesser peoples.”  In correspondence with native American leaders he often referred to himself as their “great white father.”

The vestiges of these attitudes remain in the racial inequalities and racist views of many today.  In fact, one of the saddest realities of our culture is the racial segregation that is characteristic of our worship assemblies and churches.  Brethren, this ought not to be. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

The view that such a system of slavery would never be tolerated again is simple minded.  What would it take?  Simply that those who still hold that the black man is inferior to the white man be given sufficient voice to convince the majority that it is true.  This is why it is so important to educate people to the reality that skin color and cultural differences do not have a bearing upon the humanity or worth of any individual or group.

The Holocaust

More recently (within the lifetime of some of our readers) another example of such evil emerged.  As the Nazi party gained ascendancy in Germany in the 1930’s, Nazi propagandists began to claim a scientific basis for their proclamations of Aryan superiority.  The Nazis began a eugenics program.  Eugenics advocates the use of tactics designed to “improve” the genetic pool of a population.  Methods used by the Nazi party included the forced sterilization of 400,000 people, and the killing of 70,000 more under a “euthanasia” program called Action T4.

The Nazi party targeted individuals who were examples of “life unworthy of life” (Lebensunwertes Leben). These individuals included criminals, dissidents, those with mental or physical handicaps, and homosexuals.  The program also called for the extermination of “sub-humans” (Untermensch), a designation that especially included Jews.  This policy culminated in the Holocaust, where it is estimated that 6 million Jews (73% of all Jews in occupied Europe at the time), and a total of 11 million people overall were killed in concentration camps.

The Nazi regime used architecture, cinema, sports, and youth organizations to sway the populace to its view of Aryan superiority.  The efforts were very successful in leading the German people either to stand idly by or participate in one of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind.  To this day Holocaust survivors and their families plead with the world to “never forget”, and the German government prohibits the existence of Nazi organizations or the free expression of Nazi doctrines.  This is done because of the legitimate fear that allowing the Nazi voice to go unchecked could lead to such vile actions once again.

Abortion

While those who compare abortion to the Holocaust are immediately accused of contributing to uncivil discourse and division, there is a legitimate parallel with regard to the use of human reasoning to justify the practice.  The German phrases (Lebensunwertes Leven) “life unworthy of life” and (Unttermensch) “sub-humans” serve as perfect descriptions of the attitude pro abortion advocates have regarding a human fetus in the womb.  Depending upon the situation (the health of the mother being in some way threatened), the woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy.  It is important to note that when the Supreme Court ruled on the landmark Roe v. Wade case in 1973, it explicitly rejected the concept of personhood for the unborn child.  The majority opinion contended that a fetus is not “a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”  Therefore, it did not have the right to life.

This ruling has remained the standard for roughly 37 years, and the impetus for the termination of an estimated 55 million pregnancies.  We, of course, contend this to be the killing of 55 million unborn children.  However, since the law arbitrarily determines that the unborn fetus is “sub-human”, or “not a person”, the practice continues unabated.  It is a practice that has been generally accepted as morally defensible, as the woman has a right to determine what will or will not be done to her own body.

The most morally reprehensible aspect of this situation is man’s view that he has the right to define personhood.  Our own President, Barak Obama, argued for this right on the floor of the Illinois senate in his role as a state senator in 2001.  In question was a proposed law that would require doctors to try to save a fetus delivered during a late term abortion, if it showed signs of life.  Obama argued against the law, stating:

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

Pro-life advocates argued during the 2008 election Obama was advocating infanticide.  Obama said they were lying.  How did he justify the claim?  By affirming that by law an aborted fetus was not a child, even if it was alive post partum.  Such language is identical to the Nazi propaganda of the 1930’s.  Who is human?  Who is a person?  Who is an infant?  Who is a child?  It is the one to which the state grants such a designation.  In order to justify the practice of abortion, we must deny that a human fetus has the inherent right of personhood.  Obama and others would (depending upon the situation) extend that denial to a point outside of the womb.

Infanticide

Is it surprising that some ethicists are now denying that inherent right of personhood to all newborn children?  In a recent article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, two so called ethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, advocated what they refer to as “after-birth abortions.”  Consider the arguments they make:

“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

By now the language is familiar.  A new-born baby may be a human being, but if we are allowed to define what a “person” is, those who fall outside of that definition can be “ethically” denied the right to life.  The authors contend that if a child is born with Down’s Syndrome or some other defect, it can constitute an “unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”  Since 36% percent of Down’s cases could not be determined with prenatal testing, they assert that the parents should be allowed to “abort” the child after it is born.  They prefer using the term “after-birth abortion” over “infanticide” to, in their words, “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus.”

One chilling aspect of such reasoning is that there is no moral repugnance in killing the newborn for any reason.  In fact, these ethicists contended that a practice of “after-birth abortion” should be viewed in exactly the same way that society already views abortion – that there is no moral difference between the two.

Some may argue that these two individuals are fringe lunatics, and that such reasoning will never be accepted by society as a whole.  In fact, the Journal was forced to defend the decision to publish their work.  Consider the defense made of the action by Julian Savulescu, the Journal’s editor:

As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.

The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.

Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.

The position advocated by these two is one that has long been argued.  It is even practiced in the Netherlands.  Perhaps the most cogent point made by the editor is the fact that these men are arguing logically based upon a premise that is accepted by many.  In other words, they are taking it to a logical conclusion.  What we see intimated in Obama’s arguments back in 2001 is being touted as the logical consequence in the present.  The only thing necessary to bring about the practice of infanticide in this country is time and a willingness to accept the consequences of concepts that have already been adopted.

Conclusion

Webster’s dictionary defines an ethicist as “one who specializes in or is very concerned about ethics.”  The term ethics is defined as “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.”  It comes down to this – an ethicist tries to figure out what is right, and what is wrong.  What we should do, and what we should not do.  As we have amply demonstrated, if such ethics are determined by human definition, we have an arbitrary and changeable standard that can lead to actions that future (and past) generations would regard as atrocities.

Each generation and society arrogantly claims that it has the ethical answers.  This was true in the antebellum American south.  It was true in Nazi Germany.  It is true today, as our society lawfully executes an average of 1.2 million unborn children each year.  And it will be true in the not too distant future as our society agrees to the killing of newborn babies while authoritatively proclaiming them to be Lebensunwertes Leven, “Life unworthy of life.”  Do you consider these the words of a provocateur?  We shall see.

“There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death”
(Proverbs 14:12)

The Bible condemns the hands that shed innocent blood — those who commit murder — who offered the children to idols, and in our age, those who abort the most innocent of all, the unborn (Prov. 6:12-19). Since the slaughter of the unborn was legalized in 1973, almost 40 million innocent babies have had their lives snuffed out.

The Preciousness of Children

Genesis 1:26 tells us that man is created in the image of God, not physically, for God has no tangible form, but spiritually, possessing the intellectual faculty, sense of conscience and eternality that allow him to choose right or wrong. For this reason, murder was outlawed from the days of Cain, through the Law of Moses and into the law of Christ. Killing in time of war and for capital punishment under strict limitations was excluded from the prohibition, but did not confuse the principle any: innocent life was worthy of every protection.

In an apparent departure from this rule, God instructed Abraham to slay his only begotten son, but he stayed the father’s hand when certain that he was so loyal he would obey even this strange command. The sanctity of life was not only preserved, but also magnified.

We can hear the preciousness of life in the cries of Hannah, who sought a son with the depths of her soul poured out in answered prayer. We can hear the hope of the child even in the laugh of Sarah who was told she would bear a son in her old age and then did.

Children are a heritage of the Lord (Psalm 127:3) and a blessing (Psalm 128:3). Contrary to the abortion lobby’s warped logic, children are the contents of women’s wombs — even those mothers who do not want their wombs to be occupied. These are not alien life forms, lifeless tissue masses or malignant tumors; they are human beings in the earliest stages of development, just as we once were.

Life Begins at Conception

The process of conception is not really all that complicated. The male fertilizes an egg within the female and two equally necessary substances are combined to form one new unit, which is human life and nothing else.

The Bible recognizes human life in the mother’s womb. Psalm 139:13-16 reads:

For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.

I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.

My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;

Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

David writes by inspiration of a time in which he certainly could remember nothing by himself, a time in which he dwelt microscopically and then grew in his mother’s womb. It was a time in which no human could see him, in which medical science would only perceive him by the swelling of his mother’s belly and a few other medical clues, yet God had perfect knowledge and even foreknowledge about him.

Imagine that one moment, God is beholding a future king and deliverer for his people and the next a pair of forceps is removing David and a needle is injecting him with a solution that will kill him in a matter of moments. This is just what abortion does to every soul that God alone beholds before a mother, doctor and maybe a father play god.

Testimony of Dr. Luke

One of our New Testament writers was himself a physician, the beloved Luke who wrote a gospel record and an account of some of the apostles’ work. In referring to the unborn John and Jesus, Luke uses the same term “brephos” as he does to refer to them after their births. He does not diminish their humanity by calling them fetuses and suggesting that life has not begun yet while inside the womb.

As an eagle’s egg contains a federally protected endangered species, so a mother’s womb contains a maternally protected, federally neglected human being with all the rights the Constitution affords to anyone else: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Disregard For Human Life

The Old Testament exposes an idolatrous practice that fits the description of shedding innocent blood, in which mothers were persuaded, often by force, to sacrifice their children to the god, Molech, in flames of fire.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia reveals this:

“The image of Moloch was a human figure with a bull’s head and outreached arms, ready to receive the children destined for sacrifice. The image of metal was heated red-hot by a fire kindled within, and the children laid on its arms rolled off into the fiery pit below. In order to drown the cries of the victims, flutes were played and drums were beaten; and mothers stood by without tears or sobs, to give the impression of the voluntary character of their offering” (Volume III, Page 2075).

God condemned this practice vociferously, destroying the Canaanites for it and then the Israelites when they adopted it.

Herod was guilty of slaughtering innocents when he had every young Hebrew male under the age of two killed in an attempt to prevent Jesus from ascending to his throne. Abortion is just the latest slaughter of the innocents to appeal to manÕs selfish sense of convenience.

Science Says Life Begins At Conception

Although medical science cannot be used as an absolute standard of truth, the testimony of people often disinterested in Bible morality, serves to show that opposing abortion is more than the appeal of Bible thumpers. Consider the testimony of the following scientists, given before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on April 23-24, 1981 concerning the beginning of life and the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand (http://roevwade.org/upl39.html):

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

The “Father of Modern Genetics,” Dr. Jerome Lejeune, told the lawmakers: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.”

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty … is not a human being.”

Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: “To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”

Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization,” notes, “Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind … To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion.”

Professor Eugene Diamond testified: “Either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty.”

Death Toll

Since 1973, almost 40 million babies have been killed by abortion; if it were a tobacco company, they would be sued for billions of dollars. The number of abortions has peaked at about one and half million per year, more than were killed in our nation’s deadliest wars.

The misconception is that abortions are most often performed on inner city, minority children and that a large number of abortions are performed to save the mother’s life or because of rape or incest. In fact, only a tragic one percent occurs because of rape, incest or endangerment to the mother’s life. The majority (81%) is performed as a form of birth control for unmarried women whose fornication has caught up with them, at least physically. With the failure rate of prophylactics and a morally libertine culture, this is easy to comprehend. A number of abortions are also performed on married women who do not want a child in general or this child in particular because of birth defects or gender. Only a small number are performed on women who are killing their children because they cannot afford to raise them alive; the majority is for white, middle class women and girls.

A Woman’s Right To Choose What?

Pro-abortion forces claim they want to defend a woman’s right to choose, but to choose what? They want to be free to employ the hands of a doctor to shed innocent blood. Abortion causes pain to the unborn, which can be proven through sonograms. The practice of partial birth abortion is incredibly painful for a little baby, whose slightest tear on the outside would cause new parents to fly into a panic. Neither women nor men have any right through God to choose to slay an innocent person; legalized murder does not make it right (Gal. 5:21).

Any woman is a creature of God and her body belongs to him first (1 Cor. 6:18-20). Abortion is often a mean to cover up the embarrassing sin of fornication, which could have been prevented, had those involved practiced flight rather than flirtation. It is the epitome of selfishness and unwillingness to confront one’s errors with penitence, shame and submissiveness (James 4:7-10). The devil loves to ice the cake of sin with a cover-up; those contemplating an abortion should resist him and come clean. He would love to add murder to the sin of fornication, but God counsels birth and even the possibility of adoption when necessary.

The guilt of abortion is great and deserved. “Immediately after an abortion, many women report a feeling of relief … which is all abortionists want you to hear. What you won’t hear of is the guilt and depression that frequently follows. A national poll found that at least 56% of women experience a sense of guilt over their decision, though the pollster himself acknowledged that many women will not even admit having had an abortion. In fact, a five-year study shows that 25% of women who have had abortions sought out psychiatric care, versus just 3% of women who have not had abortions. Further, numerous studies reveal that women who have had an abortion experience a high incidence of depression, stress, low self-esteem, suicidal feelings and substance abuse” (http://roevwade.org/upl13.html).

Abortion is wrong because it is murder, a crime of convenience and a slaughter of the innocents. Abortion is America’s greatest shame since slavery, blight upon us in God’s sight. May the people of God avoid the behavior that warrants abortion for others. But if any finds herself in that predicament, may father and mother take responsibility for their mistakes and the one most likely to be punished for it first, the baby.

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in a Texas case entitled Roe, et al. v. Wade, “The Court’s opinion decides that a State may impose virtually no restriction on the performance of abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy.” (Justice William Rehnquist, dissenting). This case set the nation on a course of legalized abortion in unimaginable numbers. Over the first fifteen years after the Court’s decision, an average of 1,500,000 babies annually were aborted under the protection of Roe v. Wade. Doctors, hospitals and clinics all were faced with the ethical and moral question of whether or not to allow the legal procedure to be done or not.

The decision to abort reached into families, of the mother carrying the baby, of the man who fathered the child, and of the couple themselves. Emotional scars and division were the result of many decisions to simply remove the child from the consideration of a future life of parenting.

The decision to abort or to carry a child to term is a decision that must, of necessity, be a decision of faith. What do we, as individuals, believe about the right of the child conceived and growing in the womb of the mother considering an abortion? What do we, as a society, believe ought to be done to protect the life of that child? The answer must come from God. Is that baby a human life with the innate right to live? If it is a baby, then it has every right of any life. If it is simply a mass of unviable tissue, then the mother indeed has the ultimate control over her own body and can, with the approval of society and God, suck that mass into a sink and never have to worry about it any more.

Two passages of scripture are sufficient to determine God’s answer. One is an historical reference to a meeting between two pregnant women. These women were related to each other. One was named Elizabeth who would bear a son named John and the other woman was named Mary who would give birth to a son named Jesus. Of this Jesus, in Luke 12:22, it is said that shepherds could “find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.” That word babe is significant to this discussion as, prior to the birth of this babe, when his mother went to visit her relative, Elizabeth, in Luke 1:41, the Bible says, “And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb.” The same word, in English and in the original Greek, is used to describe a babe in the womb and a babe out of the womb. Neither of the “babes” were unviable masses of tissue, but, rather, babies, created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).

The other passage is found in the Book of Psalms. The 139th Psalm, in its entirety, seals the question of life of the unborn. Verse 13; “For you have formed my inward parts; You have covered me in my mother’s womb.” Verse 15; “My frame was not hidden from You , when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.” Verse 16; “Your eyes saw my substance being yet unformed&ldots;” Regardless of the opinion of some Court or some Doctor, or even some immoral woman and her partner in sin, God sees the mass of tissue in the womb as life, as a frame, as skillfully wrought, as dear and precious substance with life and a future and a destiny in eternity. Those who see that life as anything else are viewed, in Psalm 139:19-22, as bloodthirsty, wicked enemies of God, worthy of “perfect hatred” and rise up, in their unrighteousness and war against God.

Abortion is an abomination against God. It is the sin of murder. It destroys life. In genesis 9:6, God said to Noah a truth that remains, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.” All of those people who are involved in the process of abortion are guilty of sin before God and will pay the wages of their sin, in the only appropriate way, with the loss of their eternal souls, condemned to a Devil’s Hell throughout all eternity, “into the fire that shall never be quenched – where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:43b-44).

Paul then turns his attention to the “preaching of the cross” (v. 18). In so doing, he makes several interesting contrasts. In the last half of 1 Corinthians one, Paul contrasts the wisdom of this world and the wisdom of God. Paul said God used what appeared foolish to the world, what appeared weak, that which was considered base, despised, and things that are not “to bring to nought things that are.” Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 1:18-21 really brings out the contrast. There, we read, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” Paul makes it clear that God chose what the world calls foolish to save lost souls. And truly, those who are lost consider the things of God foolish. In fact, “the fool hath said in his heart there is no God” (Ps. 14:1). Therefore, it pleased God to use what men consider foolish (preaching the gospel) to save those who believe (1 Cor. 1:21). Understanding passages like this makes me appreciate passages like Romans 1:16 all the more. Remember that Paul said he was “not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.” Though it was considered foolishness by men, he told the Romans it was “the power of God unto salvation” to save those who believe. Knowing the saving power of God is revealed in the gospel, it is imperative that men and women do all they can to spread the gospel (2 Tim. 2:2). Only through teaching and spreading the gospel will men be presented with the opportunity to hear and obey the saving gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-2).

Yet, in spite of the above, we see men and women who consider the gospel, and gospel preaching foolishness. This is especially true when we consider the moral issues that are addressed in the gospel of Christ. Yes, friends, the gospel deals with moral as well as doctrinal issues! In fact, we cannot talk about morality without talking about God, for morality cannot be possible without God! This is evident from just a casual look at society today. So much of our society wishes to be considered “moral,” but at the same time wants to deny the existence of an Omnipotent, Benevolent, Just Creator. Friends, we cannot have it both ways! Without God, there is no morality, and man is free to do as he wills. (Which many would prefer!) Yet, when we consider that sense of “ought” that every man has, and that sense of a definite “right” and a definite “wrong,” then we must have One who stands as the lawgiver and the lawmaker, determining what is moral and what is immoral. Of course, that One is God Almighty. Therefore, it is imperative that those who are preachers of the gospel, as well as all Christians, must make sure and stand for those things which are moral and upright in our society. It is not enough to allow “someone else” to do our job!

It is difficult, at times, to stand for that which is moral and upright. The world laughs at our efforts, and considers it foolish to discuss such things as morality (After all, many consider morality to be a “personal” decision!). But, if we stop teaching and preaching and showing people that God expects us to live pure lives, then who will do it? Unfortunately, we see more and more of those claiming to be Christians who do not want to hear about morality, living in a pure manner, and letting our “light” shine in a dark and sinful world (Matt. 5:16). Why is this? Well, there are several reasons: 1) Seeing that these people have been called out of the world, they may still have some growing to do (Heb. 5:12-14; 2 Pet. 3:18; 1 Cor. 3:1-3). 2) It may be that these people are more concerned about the things in this life rather than spiritual matters (Matt. 13:22; 2 Tim. 4:10). 3) It may be that they are conforming to this world, and continuing to allow worldly friends and contacts to sway them rather than conforming to God’s Word (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Cor. 15:33). 4) Some may allow their love of money, or their need for power to sway them to laugh and consider “foolish” the preaching on such subjects as morality (1 Tim. 6:10). Regardless of the influence behind it, many today in the world, but also many in the Lord’s church, consider preaching on morality foolish. In the remainder of this article, we wish to discuss what God has said concerning several moral issues, and some complaints registered by men. As we do this, this author wishes to encourage all to hold fast and to “fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life” (1 Tim. 6:12).

The Sin Of HomosexualityBecause of the newspaper, television, radio, and other media, homosexuality is gradually gaining acceptance. Many call it nothing more than an “alternate lifestyle.” Some say God made them that way. Others will be honest, saying it is a choice they made, but will still deny that there is anything immoral about homosexuality. All along, there are those who will deny that God condemned it, or that Christ condemned the sin of homosexuality in any way. Those who preach against homosexuality are considered foolish, to be sure! What has God said about homosexuality? God has said: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Lev. 18:22). “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 20:13). Don’t forget that Sodom and Gomorrah were reduced to ashes and smoke because of their sins, one in particular being homosexuality (Gen. 19)! In the New Testament, we read, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (Rom. 1:16-17). “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). At a glance we learn that homosexuality is an abomination, it is vile, it is against nature, it is unseemly, it is error, it is an act equated with some of the lowest of sins, and one practicing such things will not go to Heaven. Some may have a problem with my being “blunt,” but it needs to be understood that the subject of homosexuality and its sinfulness is not merely a matter of opinion, but a matter of Heaven or Hell!! Because this is true, it is imperative that we speak as plainly as possible so that people will understand how terrible this sin is. It is imperative that homosexuals be encouraged to get out of that sin before it is too late!Some today try to justify homosexuality by saying that Christ never talked about it. Thus, according to them, it might have been a sin in the Old Testament, but it is not a sin today. Well, let’s just see about that. In Matthew 19, Jesus discussed the marriage relationship among other things. There, Jesus told the Pharisees, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4-6). Now, when Jesus talked of the marriage relationship, He showed it to be between one male and one female, never two males or two females! Notice, Jesus said that God made them male and female at the beginning! As the old saying goes, “In the beginning, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” Notice also that the man leaves his father (male) and mother (female) to cleave to his wife (female) and then those two (man and woman) are to be one flesh! This subject is really not that difficult to understand when we simply let the Bible speak. Jesus condemned homosexuality by showing what was acceptable with God.Some claim that being a homosexual is not a matter of choice, but a natural thing, “a genetic thing.” They will often say, “I didn’t choose this, did you choose to be heterosexual?” My response is, that at some point you had to have chosen to be a homosexual. Just because we are accustomed to certain things, or have established certain habits, does not mean that they still are not choices! The second thing I would say is that no, I didn’t have to “choose” to be heterosexual, you see that is a “natural” thing according to God. It is “against nature” or unnatural to be a homosexual. Thus, homosexuality is a choice that needs to be reversed! It is obviously possible to reverse this decision concerning homosexuality, for some in Corinth “were” homosexuals, among other things, but came out of that to be “washed,” “sanctified,” and “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 6:11). Regardless of what men may think about it, and regardless of its “acceptance” in society, God says the homosexual activities are immoral and sinful in the sight of God. Those today who refuse to talk about homosexuality and call it sin, do not love men’s souls as they claim!

The Sin Of Immodest DressImmodesty is something that is rampant in our society. It is getting so that even the winter months do not curtail immodest dress. And those who at one time at least made an effort to dress decently and modestly for worship services are not doing so anymore. More and more are dressing as the world dresses, and as such, do not see anything wrong with wearing indecent clothing. We often see young women in the worship services who spend all their time fidgeting, fighting, and stretching their short dresses so it will cover their bare legs and thighs. Some today seem to have a problem getting enough material to cover the top half of their body, as well! This is not limited to the worship services, though. Some women seem to always be fighting, stretching, and fuming over their short dresses every time they sit down! Please do not misunderstand, this is not simply an indictment against the ladies, men also are known for their immodest dress, and it certainly is not condoned by God. God does not have “double-standards” as the world does. Both men and women can be guilty of dressing immodestly.Brethren, there needs to be more and more preaching on modest dress, and what it means to be “shame-faced” as the Bible talks about. Paul wrote to Timothy and encouraged him to preach on these matters. He said, “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works” (1 Tim. 2:9-10). Paul made it clear that for a woman to have “too much” or “too little” on was wrong. Of course, as we see society today, they lean more toward the “too little” than the “too much.” Though this is a problem in places when we see women who are in the worship services either to see what “so-and-so” has on today, or to be adored herself! People ought to be able to see us as godly people, people who let our lights shine (Matt. 5:16). Therefore, it requires that we (men AND women) dress in an appropriate manner. Solomon showed us that it is possible for one to wear the “attire of an harlot” (Prov. 7:10). You reckon that if one was wearing the attire of a harlot that people would think she was a Christian? Peter discussed the importance of dressing in a modest manner as well in 1 Peter 3:1-6.As was said earlier, this rule applies to both the man and woman. Why must both sexes dress in a modest manner? First of all, because it is commanded, and second of all because it helps to not place a stumbling block in the way of others. Consider Matthew 5:27-28: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Ladies, would you like to be the one that influences another to commit adultery “in his heart”? It is possible! And yes, once again, it works both ways — men can have an influence on women and cause them to think impure thoughts. Someone may say, “Well, if someone lusts after me, then that is their fault, they have a dirty mind.” To an extent, this is true, we certainly cannot control the thoughts of others. But, if our dress can have an effect on the opposite sex, (and it can) and we dress as the world dresses with no thought for modesty or godliness, then we can have a bad influence upon others and have sinned ourselves (Matt. 18:6).

The Sin Of DancingDancing is also something that is immoral, for it leads to many other sins. One we have already discussed, and that is the placing of impure thoughts and motives in the mind of the opposite sex. Some downplay this, but all of us need to realize that what we think about will eventually come out — good or bad! This is why Jesus said what He did in Matthew 15:17-20, and why Paul encouraged us to think on things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous, and praiseworthy (Phil. 4:8). What we think about will eventually come out!So many today wish to portray dancing as “wholesome” fun. Many today consider you foolish if you talk about dancing and what it can lead to. Dancing is portrayed as a way for people (especially the young) to gain “style,” “grace,” and other social skills. This sin and it’s end is then promoted not only by parents at times, but also by the schools which sponsor Proms, Homecoming dances, Sweethearts’ dances and the like. What seems “innocent” on the surface is really something that effects your eternal soul! Some may not see the problems related to dancing and ask, “what is the problem?” Think about it, when you have two people of the opposite sex swaying in a rhythmic motion and holding one another close, does it take a genius to figure out that eventually they will do what they are acting out? One man called dancing “vertical fornication” and I think he got it right.Brethren, do we know what the word “lasciviousness” means? I wonder sometimes. Nevertheless, the word “lasciviousness” means “wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent body movements, unchaste handling of males and females” (Thayer’s, p. 79-80). Now, I know that there are other things that could apply, but clearly, we can see that the definition for lasciviousness applies to dancing. No, it is not “good” or “harmless fun.” It is a dangerous thing that can lead men farther and farther away from God if we are not careful. The Bible discusses lasciviousness in such passages as: Galatians 5:19-21, calling it a work of the flesh; in Ephesians 4:18-19 and 2 Corinthians 12:20-21 as well. In no Scripture is lasciviousness shown in a good light!

Before one thinks I am simply foolish and the things we are discussing are “out-dated” or not relevant, let me ask this: In what other situation would we allow people of the opposite sex to handle one another as they do in most dances? Take the music out of it, and who would defend the “rights” of our teens, or adult men and women holding one another in the manner common in most dances? Husbands, what would you think of a strange man swaying back and forth with your wives in any other situation? Yet, this goes on in dances, does it not? What makes it right or acceptable? Is it the music? Is it the dance floor? What is it? Brethren, it is high time we realized that dancing and such things as this are sins, and are not to be “glossed over.” Just because a thing may be considered “socially acceptable” does not make it right in the sight of God!

The Sin Of Fornication/AdulteryBelieve it or not, we’ve come to the place in our society where a point like this is needed! People need to be reminded that in order to live a pure and moral life in the sight of God, we need to make sure and not commit such sins as fornication or adultery. As Satan continues to lead men away from that which is pure and right, it is going to become more and more necessary to preach on such basic truths as these. Many today consider this “foolishness” for they say “Everyone does it!” A man may convince a woman to “live with him” for a while as a “test marriage.” (Have you heard of this?) What this man really wants is to engage in acts reserved for marriage (Heb. 13:4) without actually being married! Others see this as a thing of beauty, for these people are supposedly “in love,” and people excuse fornication and adultery if people are truly “in love” or “committed” as the popular saying goes!To answer one argument, no, “everyone” does not commit fornication or adultery! I am glad to know many young people, as well as some older single people who have control of their passions and will not allow Satan to get a toe-hold in their lives! It is possible to live a life for Christ and do so without engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage. What is fornication, and why the distinction between fornication and adultery? Well, fornication is defined as any illicit sexual act. Therefore, such things as homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, and adultery fall under this definition. Adultery is more specific, and has to do with illicit sexual relations specifically between a man and a woman. While adultery is fornication, fornication is not necessarily adultery (as explained above).God intended for one man and one woman to live together as husband and wife (Gen. 2:18-25; Matt. 19:4-6; 1 Cor. 7:1-4). Therefore, all others who might engage in sexual activity have sinned, and are considered by God to be fornicators and adulterers (Heb. 13:4). The sexual act, in its proper place, is a beautiful thing. The problem is that many have taken it out of its proper place. For example, anyone who gardens knows the value of good topsoil. If you can get some good topsoil, get a good soaking rain on it, those vegetables will really take off in that garden! But, what if we decide to take that topsoil, which is so good, and bring it into the house on the freshly-cleaned carpet?? What then? Some husbands may end up sleeping in the garden if they bring that dirt in the house!! Why is this? What was wrong with that good soil? Nothing, when it is in its proper place (the garden), but take it out of that place, and it becomes dirty, filthy, and a big mess. Thus it is with the sexual act. In it’s proper place (the marriage relationship) it is right, proper, and good. However, out of this relationship, it is ugly, dirty, immoral, and sinful!

Before we leave this point, it is also necessary to understand that God considers some to be fornicators and adulterers if they are married to one that they do not have the Scriptural right to marry. The Bible teaches that there are only two reasons for one to remarry. One reason is the death of the spouse (Rom. 7:1-3). The other reason is seen in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. There we see that one may remarry if his/her mate has been unfaithful to him/her. Then, only the innocent spouse may remarry. Friend, if you find yourself in a situation where you are unscripturally married to someone, you will face God’s wrath unless you repent and get out of that relationship. This is a serious matter, to be sure. The apostles understood how serious it was (Matt. 19:10), and we need to understand it as well.

The Sin Of Aborting ChildrenAbortion is simply the unlawful killing of another human being. Abortion is considered a “moral” choice for a pregnant woman. Abortion is something that is encouraged at times. I have a neighbor who found out her granddaughter was pregnant, and was willing to pay for the abortion procedure herself!! Can you imagine that? Truly, a people “without natural affection” (Rom. 1:31) is appearing in America. Abortion procedures are becoming more defined and more specific. Not that many months ago, our local newspaper reported that a man had figured out a way to kill a baby at 2-3 weeks after conception! One man justified the technique by saying, “People are more comfortable with this type of abortion — it is not the picture of a little baby sucking its thumb.” It is a baby, nonetheless, regardless of whether or not it ever sucked its thumb!! I have had experiences with this, myself. My wife and I are the parents of a nine-month-old baby boy. While my wife was in the early months of her pregnancy, we were given the option of abortion (termed “termination” by this doctor). We denied it outright, but in the days and weeks following, I wondered how many countless couples sat in our places before us and seriously considered killing their child, or even went through with it.People consider this foolishness, but it is a serious matter. God says, that He hates “hands that shed innocent blood” (Prov. 6:17). Who is more innocent than an unborn child?? Unlike many modern doctors and others, God says that a child not yet born is still a child! Genesis 25:21-24 calls Jacob and Esau “children,” “nations,” “people,” and “twins” though they were not yet born. In the book of Exodus, God demanded punishment in the case of a man causing a woman to miscarry and lose her child, though no harm came to her personally. He said the punishment would be “life for life” (Ex. 21:22-23). Psalm 139:14-16 records David’s words: “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” Finally, we note that Dr. Luke (Col. 4:14) called John a “babe” though yet unborn (Lk. 1:41-44). Consider this question: What if Eve, and Mary, the mother of Christ were pro-abortion??If God calls the unborn “babies,” “children,” etc., then woe is me if I call them “dead matter,” “tissue,” or anything else that would take away from their value and worth as human beings! Now, can a woman be forgiven by God for aborting her child? Can a doctor be forgiven by God for killing babies? Yes, they can. But, the best thing to do is never get in this situation in the first place! (This is why our point about “fornication and adultery” preceded this one!) Yes, brethren, there needs to be more preaching on such timely subjects as this, regardless of whether or not men think it “foolish” to do so.

The Sin Of GamblingGambling is something that is overlooked by many today. Yes, gambling is a sin, and must be avoided by men. So many times, we see gambling (in the form of casino gambling, raffles, bingos, lotteries, employee “pools” on the ball games, etc.) being defended by men as a means of raising money, and simply having fun. While these things may be fun at the beginning, the end of these things is not fun at all! People try to justify such things as lotteries (especially state-wide or nation-wide lotteries) as ways in which the state can raise more funds. Having been born and growing up in a state which legalized lotteries, I can tell you the people of the state are still waiting on the money that was supposed to “roll in”! In the first year the lottery was legalized, there was a big scandal over funds, secret sexual affairs, and other things. After that first year, the people overseeing the lottery left in disgrace, but the lottery was there to stay, and it is still going strong! Catholic churches are known for their bingo games and other things such as that. This is nothing more than gambling, pure and simple, regardless of who condones it! Raffles for cars or school raffles, etc. are the same. It is nothing but a means by which to play on the covetousness of men and to take their money!The pull men feel to get “something for nothing” (or next to nothing) is strong. You see, gambling plays on men’s greed. The Bible says “the love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Tim. 6:10). The love of money motivates men to sin in all kinds of ways — including gambling! Gambling, simply put, is stealing by consent. Some may consent to the consequences of gambling (losing their money and/or possessions), but just because one consents doesn’t make it right! If it does, then would “consent” make it acceptable in God’s sight for a man and women to commit adultery? They both stand or fall together! If we can see that adultery “by consent” is still adultery and sinful, then we ought to be able to see that gambling (stealing by consent) is still stealing! Men may call this foolish, or being “nit-picky” or whatever, but God calls it sin!The Bible says that one may receive money or goods through working for it (Matt. 20:1-16; Eph. 4:28). Man may also receive goods and money through a gift or an inheritance (Eph. 4:28; Lk. 15:11-30). However, any other way is unauthorized, and as such is forbidden by God!! We are not to gamble, or to take part in games which play on a man’s covetousness, or greed! Covetousness is sin (Col. 3:5)!

The Sin Of DrinkingSo many today do not see a problem with drinking alcoholic drinks. The Bible says that it is wrong for a man to partake in such things. It affects our minds, and our judgments. It causes us to do things we would not normally do, and can ultimately lead to our death or the death of another (Prov. 23:29-35). It definitely leads to our spiritual death! Some justify drinking by saying God condemned drunkenness, but not one drink, or “social” drinking. Like the subjects above, it is considered a foolish thing for men to talk about drinking alcohol and such. Nevertheless, this subject demands our study!In dealing with the one who says God condemns drunkenness, not a social drink, consider Proverbs 23 again. First of all, drunkenness is condemned (Prov. 20:1, 23:29-30; 1 Pet 4:3; etc.). At the same time, it needs to be made clear that in order to stop drunkenness, one must stop the first drink! In Proverbs 23:31-32, we read, “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright (“goeth down smoothly,” ASV). At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.” Understand, brethren, there would be no “at the last” if there were no “at the first”! Solomon is warning against drinking at all by showing the end result. Certainly, we don’t stop drunkenness by drinking, we stop it by not drinking! That is his point. If you drink alcohol, you will eventually get to the state described in this text. And, no one, repeat NO ONE who justifies their “social drinking” can say that they have never “slipped up” and ended up truly drunk as is described in Proverbs 23.Let’s look to the New Testament for a moment. Peter says, “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you” (1 Pet. 4:1-4). Notice please that Peter said these people had committed some pretty terrible sins at one point. Among those were: living after the lusts of men, doing the will of the Gentiles, walking in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, abominable idolatries, and excess of riot. Among all these sins were three we will consider: 1) Excess of wine — this is the “falling down drunk.” This is the man in the gutter, the one people who drink swear that they will never become. 2) Revellings — this is the man who is drunk enough that his inhibitions are gone. He is “the life of the party” as it were. 3) Banquetings — This word means “drinking parties” and is literally translated “a drinking.” You cannot have a “drinking” without a “drink” can you? If the warnings from the book of Proverbs were not enough, then listen to Peter. Yes, the Bible condemns “social drinking” and even the taking of one drink! Peter lists it in the category with living after the lusts of men, doing the will of the Gentiles, walking in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, abominable idolatries, and excess of riot. If we drink alcohol, we are sinning.

ConclusionThese things ought to really make us stop and think. Are we living for God as we ought? Do we appreciate what God has said about these moral issues that come up from day to day? Yes, the Bible is a relevant book, and yes, God’s word has meaning for us today. Woe to anyone who thinks otherwise! Regardless of how “foolish” men think it is, it is our responsibility to preach and promote God’s word to a lost and dying world. Remember, God chose the preaching of the gospel to win lost souls to Him. The world considers it foolishness and a waste of time, but we who are saved know better! We know it is the power of God to salvation (1 Cor. 1:21; Rom. 1:16)!! Let us not take God’s word for granted, but appreciate its beauty and its power and defend it, preach, and live it so that one day we can be welcomed into Heaven, the home of the soul (Matt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:1-3; Rev. 22:14; Phil. 4:13-14)!