Written by Amy K. Hall |
Saturday, August 6, 2022
This is what pro-lifers do. They usually do not make religious arguments when making their case publicly. Instead, they reason from widely-accepted moral/philosophical principles (e.g., murder should be illegal and every human being should have equal protection under the law) and scientific principles (e.g., a human being is the same kind of being from conception to death). Because both Christians and non-Christians share the ability to recognize basic moral truths (regardless of how those truths are actually grounded), and because the case against abortion can be made by arguing from these basic moral truths to pro-life conclusions, you will rarely (if ever) hear pro-life advocates appeal to their specific theological doctrines or cite the Bible to argue publicly against abortion. They have no interest in imposing their religion on others. They merely want the laws of our land to protect the lives of innocent unborn human beings just as they protect the innocent born ones.

The accusation that Christians have been “imposing their religion” on everyone through the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade has been widespread. Leaving aside the relevant point that the Supreme Court has not imposed a view of abortion on society but has merely returned abortion legislation to the states (since there is no actual right to abortion in the Constitution), is there any merit to the idea that the pro-life argument is religious? Well, yes and no. I do think the pro-life view is ultimately grounded in the Christian view of human beings, but not in the way most people think (and not in a way that would justify calling the argument “religious,” but we’ll get to that in a moment).
The pro-life argument, in its foundational form, is simple:

It’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

The first thing to do when someone accuses you of making a religious argument against abortion is to clearly state the premises and conclusion of the argument and then ask, Which premise of this argument is religious?
I suspect most people’s answer will be #2,* but that is incorrect. The second premise depends on scientific reasons, not religious ones. It’s a biological fact that human beings are the same kind of organism from the moment they begin to exist, throughout every normal stage of development. Any embryology textbook will explain this. There’s no scientific reason to think we start out as some other kind of being and then become human at a later date.
The scientific truth is that the unborn is a living, growing, developing, very young human being. Abortion intentionally kills that human being. So no, the second premise is not where uniquely religious truth is hiding. (Incidentally, only those who argue for the mystical view that the unborn is later infused with a soul, or value, or whatever are making a “religious” claim about the unborn when it comes to this premise. Pro-lifers do not argue this way.)
Why Human Beings Have Equal Value and Equal Rights
That leaves the first premise: It’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Here is where Christianity (and Judaism before it) is informing the view that human beings are intrinsically valuable (having equal rights because all equally share a valuable human nature made in the image of God), not merely instrumentally valuable (with unequal rights earned as a result of individual characteristics), and that it’s wrong to end the lives of those who are inconvenient, or damaged, or unwanted. That religious idea utterly revolutionized the world over the last 2,000 years as Christianity spread—ending slavery in the West, fighting racism, making infanticide unthinkable, and more.
At each point in history when these evils were first opposed by those who believed in the Christian idea of intrinsic, equal human value, the Christians were ridiculed, but since the Christian view of human beings is actually true and beautiful, it has, by the mercy of God, prevailed. Thankfully, today in the West, Christians are no longer ridiculed for being against infanticide. Instead, most people are horrified by the very idea of it. But please hear me when I say you should not imagine you would have been against infanticide then if you are for abortion now. The same reasoning—a lack of belief in intrinsic human value, a belief that one’s convenience, economic situation, desires, etc. justify disposing of your children—has undergirded support for both practices.
So yes, it is very Christian to think human beings are valuable and should not be disposed of—no matter their characteristics, no matter the care they require from others, no matter whether or not they’re wanted by the world—and it is indeed lurking behind the first premise of the pro-life argument. After all, even our own founding documents here in America recognize the fact that our unalienable natural rights come from our Creator, who endowed them.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Amy K. Hall |
Thursday, July 28, 2022
He’s saying his authority is backing them in their judgment, something that God promised in the Mosaic Law. So does this apply to us today? Yes! When church discipline is done, Jesus still backs the authority of those he has put in place to judge, and no one in that position should forget who they’re representing and the gravity of their judgments.

Since we have spoken in the past here at Stand to Reason about the fact that not every promise made in the Bible applies to us today, I received a question about whether the promise Jesus made to his disciples in Matthew 18:19–20 is a promise we can claim. Here are Jesus’ words:
Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.
Since this seems to be a confusing passage for many (and it’s also an important one since—see below—it’s likely an example of Jesus claiming to be divine), I thought it would be worth sharing my response here.
The Context for Matthew 18:19–20
As always, when we’re trying to understand the meaning of a verse, we need to start with the context around that verse, and what we find here is that these verses are in a passage about church discipline. Here they are in context:
If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Amy K. Hall |
Friday, April 1, 2022
Christians must love the Bible. It is absolutely crucial that we, as believers in a transcendent God and standard, fully submit ourselves to the revelation he’s given us. Again, this is extremely countercultural in a society that values creating our own identities and “truths,” but the difference between our worldview and the culture’s goes right down to this root: Is there a God we ought to submit our lives to in order to flourish, or does our flourishing depend on our creating ourselves according to our own desires? 

I’ve been reading Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview by Gene Edward Veith, and it details the worldview of fascism, an ideology respected—and even popular—among Western intellectuals in the 20th century before Nazism revealed the horrors it can unleash.
The book was written 30 years ago (thankfully, untainted by today’s political controversies and biases), so it’s shocking to discover that not only is it relevant to our situation today, but also the ideas central to the fascist worldview have filtered down from the 20th-century intellectuals and gained a great deal of ground in mainstream, popular thought—just not under the proper name of “fascism.”
Veith sums up the central idea of the fascist worldview this way:
Fascism can be understood most clearly in terms of its archenemy, the Jew. Just as the Nazis sought to exterminate the Jews, fascism sought to eliminate the Judeo-Christian tradition from Western culture.
Ernst Nolte has defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence.” Whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition focuses on a transcendent God and a transcendent moral law, fascist spirituality is centered upon what is tangible. Nature and the community assume the mystical role they held in the ancient mythological religions. Religious zeal is displaced away from the transcendent onto the immanent: the land, the people, the blood, the will.
Fascists seek an organic, neomythological unity of nature, the community, and the self. The concepts of a God who is above nature and a moral law that is above society are rejected. Such transcendent beliefs are alienating, cutting off human beings from their natural existence and from each other.
Specifically, such transcendent beliefs were condemned as being “Jewish.” Fascist anti-Semitism was not merely racial—despite the biological race theory that dominated National Socialism. The rationale for anti-Semitism was also the ideas of the Jews. According to fascist theorists, the Jewish influence—that is, the idea of a transcendent religion and a transcendent moral law—was responsible for the ills of Western culture.
Because fascists rejected the transcendent, they were hostile towards Bible-centered Christianity (and the Judaism that birthed it). They also rejected the idea of knowable, objective truth and viewed the academy as a way to indoctrinate people into the “correct” (that is, their preferred) ideas. Here, Veith explains Heidegger’s argument against academic freedom:
Academic freedom as the disinterested pursuit of truth shows “arbitrariness,” partaking of the old essentialist view that truth is objective and transcendent. The essentialist scholar is detached and disengaged, showing “lack of concern,” missing the sense in which truth is ultimately personal, a matter of the will, demanding personal responsibility and choice. In the new order, the scholar will be fully engaged in service to the community. Academic freedom is alienating, a function of the old commitment to moral and intellectual absolutes.
The concept that there are no absolute truths means that human beings can impose their truth upon an essentially meaningless world. There are no objective, essentialist criteria to stand in the way of united, purposeful scholars forging their new intellectual order and willing the essence of the German people. What this meant in practice can be seen in the Bavarian Minister of Culture’s directive to professors in Munich, that they were no longer to determine whether something “is true, but whether it is in keeping with the direction of the National Socialist revolution.”
Read More

Written by Amy K. Hall |
Sunday, March 13, 2022
The lack of belief in objective morality—something that can only be grounded in the character of an objective God—is a poison that will ultimately destroy the ability of ideologically diverse people to live together. If this is to turn around, it must do so one person at a time, at the worldview level.

In R.C. Sproul’s Surprised by Suffering, he comments on the implications for justice when a society rejects objective morality:
If there is no such thing as right and wrong, if there is no such thing as moral obligation, then there is no such thing as justness. If there is no such thing as justness, then ultimately there is no such thing as justice. Justice becomes a mere sentiment. It means the preferences of an individual or a group. If the majority in one society prefers that adultery be rewarded, then justice is served when an adulterer receives a prize for his adultery. If the majority in a different society prefers that adultery be punished, then justice is served if the adulterer is penalized. But in this schema, there is no such thing as ultimate justice because the will of an individual or of a group can never serve as an ultimate moral norm for justice. It can reveal only a preference.
And of course, this subjective view of “justice” as preference is exactly what many people assume these days when they accuse those who argue in terms of objective principles of making power plays—that is, they accuse them of hiding their true goal (i.e., maintaining the structures of power from which they benefit) behind nice-sounding words and “principles” that are merely being used to manipulate people into going along with their preferences.
Read More

Written by Amy K. Hall |
Wednesday, March 2, 2022
Many who don’t believe in the existence of God care a great deal about justice. It’s only with fear and trembling that I call them to consistency by pointing out how their concern for justice can’t be sustained by their relativism and/or atheism.

Those who recognize, through their experience of the world, that justice isn’t merely a matter of preference (see yesterday’s post) but, rather, is objectively real should ask themselves, what must be true for ultimate justice to exist? Here’s what R.C. Sproul says in Surprised by Suffering (summarizing Immanuel Kant’s argument):
[Kant] argued that for the moral sense of duty to be meaningful, there must be such a thing as justness. For justness, or right and wrong, to be meaningful, there must be justice. Thus, justice serves as a necessary condition for moral obligation to be meaningful…
If ultimate justice is to be had, the first requirement that must be met is this: we must survive the grave. If we do not survive the grave, and if justice is not served perfectly in this world, then justice is not ultimate and our sense of moral obligation is a meaningless striving after the wind. If ultimate justice is served, we must be there to experience it….
A second necessary condition for ultimate justice is the presence of an ultimate judge. But no ordinary judge will do. For ultimate justice to be ensured, the judge must have the proper characteristics.
First of all, the judge himself must be perfectly just. If there is a moral blemish in the judge’s character, then chances are his judgments will be tainted and our quest for perfect justice will fail…
For perfect justice to be ensured, the perfect judge must have perfect knowledge. In a word, the perfect judge must be omniscient lest some relevant detail escape his notice and distort his verdict…
Read More

Written by Amy K. Hall |
Saturday, February 26, 2022
If, as Christians, the fuel that fills us with “the fullness of God” and transforms us into humble, gentle, patient, tolerant people is our comprehension of the love of God (who saved us on the basis of nothing but his grace), and if to know that love, we must see that love, how then, after praying as Paul did, do we endeavor to see God’s love? By reading the entire Bible. Repeatedly. 

In last week’s post, I encouraged you to simply read the Bible repeatedly (as you’ve done with other lengthy book series you’ve enjoyed) in order to know it deeply and allow it to change you, so now I want to give you a more specific example of the benefits of this.
Consider the first half of Ephesians. In the past, I assumed Paul’s command in 4:1 to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called” referred generally to acting in a way that reflected well on God, but in context, he’s actually referring to something more specific—something you’ll see if we quickly walk through the text up to that point.
After describing how “in love [God] predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ…according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace” in Chapter 1, and then explaining even more carefully in Chapter 2 that this is all by his grace—that though we were “by nature children of wrath,” deserving only punishment, “because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, [God] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)”—and that, in this way (i.e., by God’s loving grace), even Gentiles can be reconciled to God together with Jews through the cross, “for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father,” he then, after marveling at God’s wisdom and the “unfathomable riches of Christ,” comes to this prayer:
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. (Eph. 3:14–19)
Read More

Written by Amy K. Hall |
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
Stop putting pressure on yourself to read your Bible while taking particular notes or studying particular commentaries each and every time. Learn the basics of how to understand the Bible, and then just start reading!

Do you know entire series of novels—hundreds or even thousands of pages—like the back of your hand? Do you know all the characters in The Chronicles of Narnia (1,632 pages), Harry Potter (4,167 pages), or The Lord of the Rings (1,536)? Could you recite the story, recall all the plot twists, and discuss the motivations of its heroes and villains in detail? Have you been shaped by the beauty you saw there, inspired by the characters, or simply enjoyed the time you’ve spent with it? Have you seen the things around you in light of that story, such that bits of it returned to your mind automatically when you faced similar situations? Have your actions in life been affected by it?
Why do you know that series so deeply? Because you intentionally studied it? You took classes on it? There were tests? No. Because you read it. Repeatedly. That’s how it became part of you.
That was the eye-opening insight I had several years ago about the Bible—my “aha” moment. If simply reading and listening to my beloved novels over and over (series that were at least as long as the Bible) with interest, love, and anticipation caused me to know them inside and out, then why would the Bible be any different? In fact, why wouldn’t simply reading the Bible (as I had these other books) have an even greater effect on my mind and soul as the inspired Word of God, something the Holy Spirit actively works through?
Read More

Written by Amy K. Hall |
Thursday, September 23, 2021
Jesus is worthy of unleashing final judgment not because he’s righteous (though his righteousness made it possible), but because he died for our sins, purchasing people for God with his blood. His loving, self-sacrificial grace on the cross demonstrates the pinnacle of God’s glories, and all of God’s eternal judgment against evil must be seen in light of what Jesus first did for us—his suffering and death for his enemies. 

I fairly regularly get asked this question in various forms: How will the people in Heaven view Hell? How can they enjoy the glories of God while others are suffering? My answer has two parts—a direct answer and a crucial context for that answer.
First, we get a sense of the direct answer in Revelation 19:1–6 as part of John’s vision of the end times:
After [the declaration of judgment against Babylon] I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying,
“Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God; because His judgments are true and righteous; for He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality, and He has avenged the blood of His bond-servants on her.” And a second time they said, “Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever.” And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who sits on the throne saying, “Amen. Hallelujah!” And a voice came from the throne, saying,
“Give praise to our God, all you His bond-servants, you who fear Him, the small and the great.” Then I heard something like the voice of a great multitude and like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying,
“Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns.”
Here is the direct answer: Those in Heaven praise God when they see his judgments against evil. We will praise him for fulfilling his role as the perfect judge. I’ve written before that “It’s Not Wrong to Long for Justice.” Justice is good. It’s desirable. It causes us to worship. And in the Revelation passage above, we see an example of that. In fact, if you read the psalms while looking for examples of God being praised for his judgments against evil, you might be surprised by how often you run into it. “Our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God” when he “inflicts his wrath” against it, according to Romans 3:5.
As I wrote,
Our love of justice is a reflection of our love for the perfections of God’s character. He is righteous. He is loving. He is good.
Read More