Consider God’s Math
By Art Helms The Covenant News ~ July 24, 2008
When writing the 1973 majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” The Court then admitted: “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case [i.e. “Roe” who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed by the [14th] Amendment.”
For those of us who believe that Roe v. Wade is repugnant to the Constitution, it seems ridiculous that the personhood of a human baby in the womb has ever been questioned. Is it alive and growing in the mother’s womb? Was it conceived by human parents? These two questions, answered in the affirmative, ought to automatically establish personhood, immediately, at conception. Even the “difficult question of when life begins” seems out of place in the process of deciding the legality of abortion. If the “zygote” is a living cell, on its way to becoming a fully functioning organism, of human origin, with a full set of chromosomes at the instant of fertilization of the ovum by the sperm, “LIFE” (as our finite minds understand it) has begun! To question the timing of that fact is to question God, our Omniscient Creator, who set the entire process of propagation in place.
Who is most responsible for this basic cultural misunderstanding of when life begins, or of when personhood applies? Bill Clinton, in a 1990’s interview which included a question about his pro-abortion stand, said that we cannot make something illegal that “even theologians can’t agree upon.” As wrong as he was in his war against the unborn, he was at least correct in that placement of responsibility in the realm of the Church.
First, the Church has generally misunderstood that abortion is a “political” issue. It is not. God was “pro-life” eons before politics first came into the social schemata. But, the Church has been led to believe that it is political. In the same vein, the concept of “Separation of Church and State” has also been twisted beyond its original intent, so much so, that most of the Church now see a real wall of separation. The “construction” of that wall became evident in the mid-1960s, when we began hearing of churches losing tax exempt status for overstepping political bounds. Then, in 1973 -- the year of Roe -- the “Humanist Manifesto II” was published. Is it coincidental, or part of an agenda, that their article #1 is a rejection of “traditional religious morality“, or that their article #5 calls for “freedom of choice” (sound familiar? -- “F.O.C.A., Freedom of Choice Act”, now in Congress), or that their article #6 calls for the right to birth control and abortion, or that their article #9 calls for “separation of church and state?” That document reads like a play-by-play history of the last half century of our “brave new world.” Article #8 states that: “Alienating forces should be modified or eradicated.”
Those of us who still believe that it is Church duty to bring society under the sway of Christ, continue to raise our voices against legalized abortion, hoping that our brothers in the Church will join with us in unison. Evangelism is our first calling -- reconciliation of man to God is our first priority. But, evangelism is not the only calling of the Church. Among the various purposes of the Church, we are called to prophecy (I Corinth.14). Prophecy can be a tool of evangelism (I Corinth.14:24-25). We are to prophesy, not just against personal sin of individuals, but also against sin at the national level (Eph. 6:12). A church without prophecy provides an ideal environment for napping. We are called to teach (Matthew 28:19-20). Pro-Life efforts should be seen as carrying out that part of the Great Commission, which says “. . . teach all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things . . .”
Second, the Church has not resolved “the difficult question of when life begins.” Perhaps it would be better to answer this question with a deeper question -- “What is life?” It is an oversimplification to say, as most Christians do, that “life begins at conception.” This simplified answer, correct though it may be, leaves God out of the equation, in subordinate tolerance of the secular mindset. The deeper question affords opportunity to give deserved glory to the Creator of life.
In order to fully understand the biblical definition of “life”, certain scriptures must be diligently considered. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7) Whether, or not, the word “the” is added before the word “man”, as modern translators have done in this verse, it can still be understood as “mankind” became a living soul. Webster called this “breath of life” the “animating principle.” At no other time in history, has it been reported that God physically breathed this breath of life into another human being’s nostrils. The “omnipotence” of God comes into play here. In the light of Job’s fourth friend’s description of the infinite, incomprehensible power of God, it should be easily understood that a single breath of the Almighty is sufficient for the “continual creation” of life, passed along -- generation to generation, beginning with Adam, the first man. Job’s fourth friend, Elihu, understood it. “The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” (Job 33:4). King Solomon understood this separation of body and spirit. “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit [Strong’s H7307 -- roo‘-akh -- “wind . . . Breath . . . Life. . .“] shall return unto God who gave it.” (Eccles. 12:7) King David understood that life is a “continuum”, from Adam. “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.” (Psalm 139:16, KJV)
There are, now, signs of a fresh, new awakening of the Church, on the abortion issue. Last month (June, 2008) a coalition of African-American pastors and leaders took both major political parties to task over continued public funding of Planned Parenthood. Read the full article at http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=153650
This month, a video shown on the following link http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com reports that a “proposal to define a fertilized human egg as a person will land on Colorado’s ballot this November, marking the first time that the question of when life begins will go before voters anywhere in the nation.” According to the “Colorado for Equal Rights” report, over 500 churches participated in gathering far more petition signatures, than required to place “The Human Life Amendment“, also known as the personhood amendment to the state constitution, on the November ballot. This was also reported by the Washington Post, linked at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201615.html.
These reports are testimony as to what can be accomplished when individual churches understand God’s math, as shown in Leviticus 26:8, “And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.” How God’s math works is shown in Joshua 23:10. “One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you.”
The reasoning behind this Colorado “Human Life Amendment”, and the “Life at Conception Act”, now being considered in the U.S. Senate, is to follow up on this leading statement, made by Justice Blackmun. This legal establishment of “personhood” is seen as possibly the best hope for overturning Roe v. Wade. Similar bills have been considered in the U.S. House of Representatives, in 2005 and 2007, and so far, have failed to pass.
It is time for you to consider God’s math. Use these following links to find mail addresses to your representatives in both houses of the Congress: