Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue (Book Review, part 2)

Picking up where we left off in the first part of this review-

Part Two is titled, An Analysis of Pro-abortion and Pro-choice Arguments.

Ch 7- 'A Woman's Right to Her Body'- Sproul deals with these issues in this chapter- the constitutional 'rights' to privacy; are a woman's rights to her own body absolute?; is the fetus a part of the woman's body?; does a father have rights in reference to the fetus?

Ch 8- 'Three Frequent Assertions'- In this chapter, the three basic assumptions of the pro-abortion argument are considered:  (1) If abortion is illegal, women will have dangerous 'back-alley' abortions; (2) It is inconsistent to be anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment; and, (3) Men should not speak about abortion because it is a women's issue. 

First, Sproul logically argues that for those who believe abortion is the killing of a human being, continuing to protect those who are having abortions is 'ethically intolerable' (p. 105).  He also argues that if abortion is unjust, then the protection of those who engage in the practice is not a duty of the state.  (In other lectures, I've heard Dr. Sproul more fully develop this idea that laws against abortion are not a matter of asking the state to be the church, but rather asking the state to be the state.  I wish he developed these ideas a bit more fully here.)

Second, he refutes the second objection by showing the logical inconsistency that even if anti-abortion people are wrong on the issue of capital punishment, that doesn't make them wrong on abortion.  This is an example of poor logic and is easily illustrated to those who use such an argument.

Third, Sproul shows how the third argument about abortion only being a women's issue is 'specious' (p. 107). Jesus was a man...does he have a right to speak on the issue?  All arguments such as this one are ad hominem.

Ch 9- 'The Pro-Choice Position'-  Because of time and political tactic, the real difference between 'pro-abortion' and 'pro-choice' has been obscured in this country.  Sproul give a good historical analysis of the two, and how they become one.  This chapter is very different than what we usually hear on the subject of abortion from either side of the issue, and may be the most helpful and most informative chapter in the book for many people.

The following paragraph from page 115 answers Dr. Sproul's question, "Do we have the moral right to choose what is morally wrong?"  In other words, is the argument opposing laws against abortion because they restrict freedom-of-choice a valid one?

"Again, every law enacted limits or restricts someone’s
choices. That is the very nature of law. If we do not wish to
restrict other people’s choices through legislation, we must stop
legislating and cease voting. I think that most people will grant
that freedom of choice is not an absolute freedom. No human
being is an absolute law unto himself. Unless we are prepared to
buy into an ethical system of pure relativism by which law and
society become impossible, we must flee as the wind from the
proposition that the individual is autonomous."

In moving to application of the abstract, Sproul says on page 116,

"To move from the abstract into the concrete, I wonder
whether pro-choice activists object to laws protecting their
personal property rights? Does the thief breaking into a home
to steal someone’s television have the inalienable right to make
that choice? Does a man have the right to choose to rape a
woman? These extreme examples make it obvious that freedom
of choice cannot be considered an absolute right."

Ch 10- 'The Problem of Unwanted Pregnancies'- Sproul deals with the important idea that the central issue, abortion on demand, should not be clouded by peripheral issues such as rape or medical abortions. Undesirability is never a moral justification to kill a child, either after or before birth. He then confronts the actual statistics around the number of pregnancies resulting from rape or necessary in therapeutic (medical) abortions.  Those numbers are small, but real to the person in the situation.  Sproul offers reasons why and how to avoid killing the fetus in these situations.

_______________________

Here's the link to the book on Ligonier's website-

   http://www.ligonier.org/store/abortion-hardcover/

Portions used in this review were used by permission, per email on December 6, 2010, from D. Finnamore.

This book's copyright information: © 2010 by R.C. Sproul, Published by Reformation Trust Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

Update on Abortion Topic

Ironically, as I was preparing to post the second part of my review of R. C. Sproul's book on abortion, I ran across this news article via a Twitter 'tweet'.

There are no words, other than maybe, 'so much for safe abortions'.

Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue (book review)

I was given the opportunity by Ligonier Ministries to post a review of their recent book Abortion:  A rational look at an emotional issue, by R. C. Sproul.  I first heard about the book when Ligonier decided to send a copy to every member of Congress at the convening of the next congress this January.  (Ligonier gave the opportunity for their followers to purchase a copy for a congressman, which I did...hopefully he or she will read it.  I love the idea that the copy I paid for might end up on Nancy Pelosi's desk!)

Here's the link to the book on Ligonier's website-

   http://www.ligonier.org/store/abortion-hardcover/

I'll do this review in three parts, as it is a bit long for normal blog reading.  Each part of the review will correspond to the same part of the book, since the book is divided into three parts.

First, the list of names in the endorsements section is a roll call of superstars of evangelicalism:  Jim Daly (Focus on the Family), Marvin Olasky (World Magazine), Randy Alcorn (author), Russell D. Moore (pastor and seminary dean), John MacArthur (pastor and author), Chuck Swindoll (pastor and author), Peter Jones (apologist and author), and others.

The book is not long; about 150 pages plus appendices, notes, bibliography, and an index.  The book was first published in 1990.  This is the 20th anniversary edition. 

Part One is titled, Abortion:  The ethical dilemma of our time.

Ch 1- 'A Nation Divided'-  Sproul deals with the following issues in the first chapter-

Abortion is a divisive issue intertwined in our culture; core question is, "Is abortion a form of murder?"; what is a fetus...when does life begin?; philosophical basis for making decisions about right and wrong.  This chapter is a good introduction to some of the problems in thinking about the issue of abortion.

Ch 2- 'The Sanctity of Life'-  The second chapter moves to some philosophical foundations for why both believers and unbelievers can understand the value of human life.  These issues are highlighted in this chapter-

The nature of man; biblical roots of the concept of sanctity of life; the relation (morally) of the death penalty to abortion; the potential desctruction of actual life versus the actual destruction of potential life.  This chapter moves the reader into deeper thinking about the issues involved in abortion, as well as general issues related to life and death.

Ch 3- 'The Sanctity of Life and Natural Law'- Sproul continues to develop the themes from chapter 2 in this chapter.  Here, he deals with these issues-

Abortion as an act against nature; our culture's intense concern for living individuals but not for the unborn; the early church's opposition to abortion; the connection between abortion and infanticide in early cultures.

Ch 4- 'When Does Life Begin'- Sproul deals with some of the key issues in the legal realm as well as the philosophical realm in this chapter-

Scriptural support for the idea of the fetus as human life; scriptural distinction of the unborn baby from the mother; the power of prejudice in decision making and the forming of opinions; 'What should we do if we remain unsure of the answer?'  Dr. Sproul will more fully develop this last idea in the next chapter.

Ch 5- 'What if You Are Not Sure about Abortion?'- In a continuation from the last chapter, Sproul deals with these issues-

The argumentum ad populum; the logic of dealing with the rightness/wrongness of abortion; the conscience and abortion (Luther- 'To act against conscience is neither right nor safe').  Dr. Sproul makes a cogent logical argument for the moral duty of anyone who may have doubts, one way or the other, about any moral dilemma.  This is a valuable chapter for what is probably the majority of non-believers on the topic of abortion...not sure about what is right or wrong.

Ch 6- 'The Role of Government in Abortion'- Sproul moves to the political side of the issues in this chapter-

'Is abortion a private ethical issue or does it fall within the scope of government regulation and control?' (p. 75); the role of government in restraining evil in society; separation of church and state; the moral implications of law (and how this does not entangle church and state); how Roe v. Wade was the state's greatest failure at being the state.  This chapter breaks down some of the mythology that has developed around the 'wall of separation' issues between the church and the state, and shows why the state's dealing with moral issues falls fully within the appropriate sphere of activity for a state.


To be continued...

____________________
FCC disclaimer:  Ligonier provided me with a PDF copy of the book for review purposes.  Anyone who writes a review is eligible to receive a paper copy of the book.

Here is the copyright information for the book.  Portions used in this review were used by permission, per email on December 6, 2010, from D. Finnamore.

This book's copyright information: © 2010 by R.C. Sproul, Published by Reformation Trust Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

The Bible in One Sentence

Over on Dane Ortlund's blog, Strawberry-Rhubarb Theology, he asked a number of pastors, writers, and similar folks to sum up the Bible in one sentence.

Here's the post...very much worth the read just to see the variety of responses.

I have my own response, and I can tie for the shortest sentence in the list.  Not only that, mine is a play on words (see if you can figure it out). My one-sentence summary of the Bible is,

   "The Bible is His story."

We try so hard to write God into our stories, our lives, our meta-narratives.  But that's the backward approach, and it results in some very bad theology (like health/wealth nonsense, for starters...throw in some moralist therapeutic deism as frosting on that cupcake).

The correct approach, and the one that makes sense in light of the revelation of Scripture is, we are to write ourselves into His story.  We are part of His story.  And all of history is His story.

We Lost a Hero

I am saddened by the passing of Maj. Dick Winters this past week.  He needs no introduction to anyone who saw the Steven Ambrose mini-series Band of Brothers, or who read the book.  For those that haven't yet seen it, Maj. Winters was the unlikely hero of Easy Company, 503rd PIR, 101st Airborne Division, in the battles of France and Germany at the end of World War II.  (If you haven't seen it, go NOW and buy or rent it.  It is not appropriate for children because of violence and language, but is essential for adults who want to try to understand the level of sacrifice that generation offered, and to get a comparison of how a we-centered generation lived versus how our me-centered generation(s) live.)

Maj. Winters was truly a hero, though he declined that description for himself.  In his words, he served in the company of heroes.  There were a lot of heroes in those places, some more likable than others; but heroes nonetheless.  For quite a while now, we've been hearing of the death of these men.  As most who served in WWII were born between 1915 and 1925, that generation (the Greatest Generation, as Tom Brokaw appropriately called them) is disappearing quickly.

One of the things about Maj. Winters that is compelling is the thought of him as simply the face of so many unknown heroes just like him.  If you read Ambrose's series of books on that period and place of history, you'll meet many more of them, but they have not had the benefit of a mini-series to bring their stories to light.

I guess this is a reminder of why we should pay our respects (in words and actions) to those who served...we may often be showing our respect to a real hero, and never know it.

Obituary for Major Dick Winters (NY Times)

Things the Internet has Killed (Part 5)

This is (I think) the final part of the things-the-internet-has-killed saga.  This part will deal with some other things that didn't make the first (Newsweek) list.

If you missed the first four, they can be found here-
  Part 1
  Part 2
  Part 3
  Part 4

Local Shopping- This one is a no-brainer.  More than half of the Christmas presents I bought were purchased online this year.  Statistically, I'm not much different than the rest of the populace, except I might be a bit behind the times...they bought more than half online.

I hate what this does to the local (mythological any more) mom-and-pop shops, but I certainly like what it does for my wallet.  (What's in your wallet?  Well, more money than if I'd bought the same things locally.)  Or at least, I think I do.  I wonder if all the stuff I have access to online wasn't so accessible, if the cost of things I can access locally wouldn't be a bit lower?  We'd need a PhD-economist to figure that one out.  I don't happen to have one handy.

The Gospel-Whoa, there.  That's a pretty big accusation!  I really don't think the internet can kill the gospel (in fact, I know it can't).  But it can make it harder to come by.  With all the talking heads and bloggers (like me!) out there, it is getting harder to find orthodox Christianity amid all the health-and-wealth nonsense put out by the Joel Osteen wannabees.  (I'm not saying I'm an Osteen wannabee, I'm saying I'm another blogger who has an opinion.)  All media is a tool, and just as the internet can be used to make pornography more accessible, it can be used to make the gospel more accessible.  And in the process, those who think they are spreading the gospel but are instead spreading something other than the gospel can obfuscate the real gospel without even being aware of the problem they are causing.

Asking Questions- In the good ole' days, if you needed to know something, you asked a person smarter than you.  Now, you ask Jeeves.  Or Google.  Or whoever your search engine has happened to make your default search provider.  I guess people are still asking questions, maybe even more than they used to (after all, when's the last time you saw a search engine reply to a stupid question, "Now that's a Stupid Question!"?).  But they aren't asking each other.  They are typing their questions into a search box on their computer or their smart phone.

Maps- This one might fall under Reference (#12), but not quite totally.  I recently took a trip over into Oklahoma.  I didn't bother putting a map in the car with me, other than the mapquest.com map I printed of the military base where I was going (which showed me how to get to the building to which I needed to get).  I also took my smart phone, which has a 'Maps' app, and whenever I needed to look for a road number or a turn, just flipped my phone on and looked.  If the 3G wireless had been down in some of those rural areas, I'd have been lost.  Maybe keeping a printed map in the glove box isn't a bad idea after all.

Newspapers-  This one's not news to anybody.  It's been going on for some time.  And with the amount of bias that seems to be inherent in national news sources any more, I can't say that I'm terribly disappointed with this trend.  But then, the biased used-to-be-professionals-but-that-doesn't-matter-anymore reporters and editors will just take their trade somewhere else...they won't go away.

Spontaneity- How so?  Well, we used to be driving around and on the spur of the moment, would pick a restaurant or other attraction and simply walk in.  Now, we have to plan everything.  Menus are viewed, prices are investigated, specials are researched, coupons downloaded, and so on.  Nothing much seems to happen on a lark anymore.  (Even in the car, the smart phone comes out when we need to find a place to eat.)  This has HUGE ramifications for where and how a business should spend their marketing money.  I just don't know if all those ramifications are sorted out yet.

Exclusivity-Used to, if you had some information, a story, news, or even gossip, you had a small-time monopoly for a while.  Now (unfortunately), we can know what the Kardashians ate for dinner before the maid has cleared the table.  Everybody can know (if they want).  In a way, the volume of information available now is mind-boggling.  And almost all of it is useless.

Originality-  Well, maybe the internet has not really killed it, but made it plain its not a real as we thought.  In the past, two people who had a very similar thought, and managed by chance to put that thought into words and write it down somewhere, were very unlikely to ever know about the other, and very few (if any) people in the world ever knew the two thinkers had the same thought.  Now that we put almost every musing on paper (ok, not paper, on screen), and all of this musing is then searched and cataloged by some mystical web crawlers, and can be retrieved in an instant with a search engine, we see whenever anyone has something similar to say.  In fact, we see examples of real and accidental plagiarism all the time.  (The trick is to determine which was accidental and which was not...my English teachers always told me that plagiarism was wrong even if it was accidental...we'll see how that goes over in the internet age.)  There's no better example of the importance of motive (a big deal in criminal law) in making attribution to someone's actions than with all the similar thought going on. 

How much of what we think and say is really original, and how much is recycled, sometimes verbatim, of what we read and hear?  More than we realize, I'd guess.


Well, that about wraps this topic.  The fun will be coming back to this list in a year or in five years and seeing how right some of these predictions/explanations were, and how wrong others were.  We'll see.

Southwest Airlines- Not Just Because They Have Cheaper Fares

This isn't a long post, but I think an important one.  I ran across this blog today, telling of how a SWA pilot held a plane in order to get the grandfather of a 3-year-old murder victim on the flight and on his way.

We hear a lot about how bad air travel has gotten, and I've posted some of those stories here.  But we shouldn't forget there are still heroes in the mess that terrorists (and our government's response to them) have made of private air travel in this country.

The Gospel in the Old Testament (an Ongoing Quest)

One of the things that has consumed me for the last few years is the task of finding the gospel in the Old Testament.  Having studied the OT for years as a dispensationalist, that task has not come easily.  After being introduced to the doctrines of grace, my view of theology proper changed, and is still changing (I suppose you could say I am semper reformanda).  My leaky dispensationalism is rapidly becoming empty, and some sort of covenant theology is slowly taking its place.  Part of this is finding, as I said, the gospel in the OT.

I recently ran across a review on the 9Marks website about a new book that may help with that quest.  The whole review can be found here.  The book is God's Glory in Salvation Through Judgment by James Hamilton, Jr.  It is an overview of how judgment, looked upon by many Christians as a topic not to be discussed, and by others as a myth, is shown in the OT to be a manifestation of God's character and a picture of unity with the NT view of God on sin and salvation.  If covenant theology is true, then the God of the OT is not only the same God of the NT, but his work and activity then reflect the same goals and objectives that his work and activity did at the time of Christ, and of today.  Reading the OT in this light makes a huge difference in how one interprets the events found there, and even how one interprets why certain events are included in the OT narrative.  (For example, read the story of David and Mephibosheth as an Arminian dispensationalist, then re-read it as a Calvinist covenantarian...see what I mean?)

I'm adding this book to my Amazon wish list...and look forward to getting into it in the near future.  (My stack of 'must' reading is about 15 inches high now...I gotta get busy!)

More on the Evolution/Creation Debate from Al Mohler

Dr. Mohler has posted this blog entry today...it is too important not to pass along.

Please take the time to read it.

Things the Internet Has Killed (Part 4)

Well, I suppose it is time to get back to the series I started in December.  Seems like it was last year.

If you didn't see the first three installments, they are here- 
  Part 1
  Part 2
  Part 3

For Part 4 of the series, we'll look at

    11. Polaroids and other Film
    12. Reference Books
    13. Yearbooks
    14. Peep Shows and Adult Bookstores

Polaroids and other Film-  First, I have to say I always thought 'Polaroid' was a terrible name for a product/company.  Didn't they do focus groups back then?  When was back then?  (I just googled it...Polaroid was founded in 1937...I doubt they did many focus groups back then.)  The name has always sounded like a disease instead of a film product.  It reminds me of this dialogue from Vacation:

Rusty Griswold: Hey, ya' got Pac Man?
Cousin Dale: No.
Rusty Griswold: Ya' got Space Invaders?
Cousin Dale: Nope.
Rusty Griswold: Ya' got Asteroids?
Cousin Dale: Naw, but my dad does. Can't even sit on the toilet some days. 

Polaroids, asteroids, they both sound like a pretty bad condition to have.

Anyway, I'm not so sure that the internet is primarily responsible for their downfall; I think it is secondarily responsible, however.  The primary cause is the digital camera.  Anyone who was even a little bit into photography in the past hundred years or so knows the frustration and expense of taking bad photos.  Film wasn't cheap, developing wasn't cheap, and you had no feedback on what you or your camera were doing until you got the pictures back.  That took a couple of weeks back before the one-hour developing shops opened up. With a digital camera, you shoot, you look, and if it isn't a keeper, you hit the delete button.  At worst, you shoot about a dozen more shots than you need, then later at the computer you pick the best one or two and delete the others.  (Side note:  I've learned that some in the older generation don't delete bad photos...they can't stand to do it.  They just haven't made the connection that it didn't cost them (effectively) anything so they aren't wasting anything...they just won't delete bad pictures.  I assume they buy larger hard drives to store all those bad photos, and that does cost them something.  Go figure.)

What the internet has done in a secondary way is it has made sharing the photos easier and no paper-developing is required.  You don't even need instant film if you can email a photo to grandma a thousand miles away.  In fact, the concept of photos on the internet probably deserves its own blog post.  Think about it...how many casual acquaintances in the past showed you every photo they'd ever taken?  Well, if you look on facebook now, there they all are.  You can see photos of other people you may just barely know in situations and places you know nothing about, acting silly or sad or whatever, totally meaningless to anyone but those who were there.  It's kinda weird, if you think about it.

The downside is, there won't be any boxes of old photos discovered in the attic by the next generation.  (Of course, in my family, the last couple generations didn't write anything on the back of those old photos, so even when we found them, we had no idea who they were or when or where they were taken.)

Reference Books-  My kids have very possibly never looked at a Worldbook or Britannica, and I'm pretty sure they've never opened a Miriam-Webster.  I got a new set of Worldbook encyclopedias when I was in the 4th grade.  By the end of 5th grade, I'd read every volume, cover-to-cover (I suppose that's why some of my classmates thought I was strange).  I still have that set, along with yearbooks through the 70s and 80s, in my home office.  We also have a set of Britannicas that belonged to my wife.  But why would my kids pick up those heavy books? Everything is done online now in the reference world.  I used to spend hours at card catalogs looking for library books.  Now, everything is 'googled'.  (We call it that when we do any search, not just a search on Google.)

I have to admit, in many ways, we have it better now than ever before.  Access to information is much quicker, so we don't tend to put off or forget about finding things we want to know.  But this has its downside as well, as others have written so much about.  You can google (ha!) lots of interesting articles about how the internet, Twitter, and Facebook are making us all dumber, less able to concentrate, or whatever.  It may be true.  Where was I?  Oh, yeah, lost my train of thought...  (humor)

Yearbooks- I hadn't really noticed this one where I live.  Our kids still take money to school each year for their yearbooks (in these parts, they are called, 'Annuals').  Its a lot more money than I used to take to school, and the books are paperback now.  My yearbooks were hardbound, with sometimes fantastic, sometimes geeky cover art done by the yearbook crew.  The ones the kids get new are all photos...very little or no art.  But they do what they do.  I think the online yearbook fad is something that's a lot bigger in other parts of the country, and will get here soon enough.

I think it's a bad idea.  I have all my old yearbooks in the bookshelf in my office at home.  It's fun to pull them out, see the old pictures, and get laughed at by the kids.  I suppose you could do the same thing by pulling up a web page, but one thing you can't do is write all over your friends' copies.  I still enjoy reading some of the notes written in the front and back covers of my yearbooks by friends (some of whom are now dead).  I hate to see that go by the wayside.  It'll be just like not finding those boxes of old photos in the attic.

Peep Shows and Adult Bookstores- At first glance, when you look at the statistics about the dramatic decrease in the number of brick-and-mortar adult bookstores in the US, it looks like good news.  But if you think about it, there isn't any less use of pornography in our society, there is just a shift in how it is obtained.  When I was very young, porn was nearly impossible to get ahold of...you had to go to a seedy place in a seedy part of town to get it.  Where I grew up, we didn't have these seedy places, nor did we have that seedy part of town (at least, I was never aware of it).  But in the Texas panhandle, in a town of less than 2000 people, that's not surprising.  You still can't find adult bookstores in towns like this today.

When I got to college, porn was more prevalent...there were always guys in the dorm who had magazines, and living in an apartment next to some Air Force pilots made it real easy to find...they had a movie going pretty much 24-7 there.  Fortunately, I wasn't a big hit with those guys, them being top-gun wannabees and me being a junior in college working at the Frito Lay plant every day from 330 to midnight; I didn't get invited to many of their parties.

Now, I rarely ever see an adult bookstore, and the few that are here in Amarillo are still on the seedy side of town, and only stay open because of the truckers who don't have much internet access on the road.  (But that's changing...many of the rigs now use 3G and 4G setups and have full internet access.)  Nobody I know goes there.  They don't need to.  Get on google and try searching for anything that might remotely sound like it is adult-related (try finding an Adult XL tee-shirt with google) and you'll find porn.  And supposedly, where all the porn sights used to require a credit card, now many are free to browse.  No age check (other than the silly front screen asking if you are 17), no ID check, nothing.  It's nuts.

I suppose I'm glad the local losers who peddled porn through adult bookstores for years have suffered due to the internet.  But really, the money has just skipped these middlemen and gone straight to the producers.  It's not a pretty picture (pun intended) when you see what's really happened.

----------

This isn't finished yet, even though I've gone through the entire list.  Next post, I'll add some things that I've thought of that the internet has killed, or is killing, that didn't make the Newsweek list originally.  Feel free to add things in the comments section that you've seen as well.

Best of 2010?

Oh, so many 'best of 2010' topics available to write about, and I'm just not up to it yet.  A couple years ago, my wife and I sent out 'Valentines Letters' instead of Christmas letters...I think I may take that approach on this blog this year...I'll do the best of 2010 sometime in the first quarter of 2011.

In the mean time, I'm getting ready to take my 15-year-old twin boys deer hunting this weekend.  Everything is looking good so far, minus the fact that they have mandatory basketball practice Friday morning (the tags allow us to hunt Friday through Sunday, but I'll be in church Sunday, so that day is out).  That gives us Friday afternoon to travel, scout, and make a plan.  Saturday is hunting day. Hope the deer are anxious to get shot, or we might end up with an empty freezer this year.

I'm not mentioning the possible blizzard that might hit...so far, things are still looking good (for it to pass to our north), but things change in a hurry around here.  We'll see.

Blogcation Almost Over

Well, I still have a week to go on my vacation, but I think the blogcation needs to be over...maybe tomorrow.

I'm supposed to take my two 15-year-old sons deer hunting this weekend.  We drew two (hard to get) youth tags for the Gene Howe Wildlife Management area over near Canadian, TX, for New Year's weekend.  There's a big storm over the west coast now...the track it takes will determine if we hunt in nice 50-degree weather, windy, cold 20-degree weather, or if we get snowed out in a big blizzard.  Right now, it appears to be tracking north, which will mean cold and windy, but at least we'll get in the field.  Hopefully.

Plagiarism in the Church: How Big a Problem is it Really?

This post started out as a reply to a Collin Hansen post on this subject.  I found out about Collin's post by reading Justin Taylor's blog post.  I located Taylor's post by using Google Reader, where I follow him, among others.  (There, now I can't be accused of doing what I'm writing about!)

Some time ago, a few years after I wrote my doctoral dissertation, I was interested in trying to find out if anyone had used my work in any further work.  I entered a few phrases in Google, and was surprised how many hits I got from people who had used my words, but clearly hadn't seen my dissertation.  I know they hadn't seen it, because their work was published before mine was.  I know I didn't use their work, because in the process of writing a dissertation, one becomes pretty familiar with the research he or she is consulting (for those who have written one, you will appreciate the humor of the understatement, I hope).

So, do this little experiment yourself-

Take a phrase, sentence, or a few sentences from something YOU have written that you KNOW you did not plagiarize or borrow from another source…something original to you; and ideally, it should be something you have not published or made public.

Now, Google it.

Except for rare instances, you’ll be surprised at how many ‘hits’ you get. How? If you didn’t steal it, and it wasn’t published for others to steal from you, how did others use your original words?

I think there are several factors in play.

First, we are talking about a finite body of information (the gospel). Within the limitations of a language, there are only so many ways to say what the gospel is. There are bound to be repeats.  I'm talking here about unintentional, chance-based used of similar language.

Second, and this is probably the biggest factor, our memories are not like video tape…they are dynamic. We hear things, and then repeat those things, sometimes years in the future, without realizing where the thoughts came from.  We think these are original thoughts, but they are original only in the sense we have processed them in our minds and forgotten their genesis.  (It makes one wonder if there is truly any original thought...how are we to know that no one in history has ever thought what we are thinking?)

Third, in combination with the second factor above, the internet has made it possible to put almost any thought in writing in a public venue. In the past, we had a lot of unoriginal thoughts (though we didn’t realize it) and they passed through our minds, or were even spoken in public, and nobody noticed. Now, when we repackage an idea we think is original but is in fact something we heard in the past, we put it in a permanent, written format, and put it online where the net bots can quickly find it. This makes the (unintentional) problem more noticeable.

Finally, a rhetorical question: If we express what we understand to be the gospel, do we OWN that material? If not, how can the use of that verbiage be called theft if someone else uses our words?  If you believe that you DO own that material, what does that say about the gospel?  There was recently a series of posts over on the Resurgence blogs about copyright and Christian music intended for use in worship.  It was thought-provoking, though I don't know that it went far enough at times.  (Personally, I believe that if one writes worship music, markets it as worship music, and then profits from it above and  beyond ones costs, he or she is going to have a tough argument to convince me he or she has not robbed God by committing some form of usery against His people.  This isn't a fully-developed idea by me yet...I'm working on it.  I may be wrong. But it bugs me, deeply, to think that a gathering of believers, singing a song together to praise God, may be breaking the law by not paying a license fee to some organization.)  I wonder how much of that applies to sermons and Sunday School lessons?

There is certainly a large gap between intentional use of someone's thoughts and the mistaken regurgitation of an idea we heard long ago but don't really remember isn't original with us. But motives are hard to judge. I would urge caution before accusing someone else of plagiarizing your work, at least until you’ve tried the little experiment I mentioned above.

Blog Vacation?

Being on Christmas vacation makes me want to take a blog vacation as well.  So if you don't see much posted here for the next couple weeks, that's why.

Trying to think of a good new word for  it...blacation?  Blogation?  Vlogcation?

Hmmm.

Was Jesus Really Born in a Barn?

Of course, it is possible that Jesus was born in a barn, but I don't think he was.  At least, not the barn that you see in your imagination when you hear he was laid in a manger.

Why not?

The primary reason I don't think he was born in a barn is an obscure verse in the Old Testament, Micah 4:8.  Now, everybody knows Micah 5:2, the passage prophesying that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.  But Micah 4:8 is less well known.  It says,

And you, O tower of the flock,
        hill of the daughter of Zion,
    to you shall it come,
        the former dominion shall come,
        kingship for the daughter of Jerusalem.
 (Micah 4:8 ESV)

The phrase, 'tower of the flock' is migdol eder in Hebrew (I'm not a Hebrew expert, so I'm transliterating...you might find it under different transliterated spellings, such as migdal or edar, etc.).

It means, as the English text indicates, a watchtower for a flock of sheep.  It refers to an actual tower in an actual location just outside of Bethlehem.  It isn't so much the location as it is the purpose of the place that makes me think this was very possibly the birthplace of Christ.

The place was first mentioned in the bible in Genesis 35:21.  At this point in Genesis, Rachel dies giving birth to Benjamin.  She was buried very near the site of the tower.

Remember that at this time in history, the temple in Jerusalem, less than 5 miles away, was still standing, and sacrificial worship was in full practice.  The priests at the temple kept large flocks of sheep (and likely other sacrificial animals) for sale to those who needed them for temple worship.  These flocks were of course not kept at the temple (that would have been scandalous because of the odor and mess), but just outside Bethlehem.  It is these flocks to which I believe Luke refers in the nativity story (see Luke 2:8).  The flocks weren't simply allowed to roam around with no one keeping an eye on them.  The tower served as a place from which a few shepherds could keep an eye out for predatory animals, both four-legged and two-legged kinds.  It was supposedly about 20 to 25 feet tall, with an upper story and a lower story at ground level.  I've been told the foundation is still visible on a hillside just outside of Bethlehem today.

You may have heard it said that the nativity story is not believable because shepherds wouldn't have been out in the fields during the cold winter months that this time encompasses.  Private shepherds likely weren't.  However, the temple flocks were kept year-round, as sacrificial worship didn't take time off for cold seasons.  So these flocks were tended by shepherds on a year-round basis.

Since these animals were destined for sacrifice, they were specially cared for.  As you know from passages like Exodus 12:5, Leviticus 4:32, and Numbers 6:14 (there are many others), the sacrificial lamb was to be without blemish (a picture of the sinlessness of the Messiah; see 1 Peter 1:19).  One of the critical times for these animals was the first day or so of their lives.  They were prone to being damaged out in the fields as they stumbled about just after they were born, and any bumps and bruises at this tender age would likely show up as scars (blemishes) when they were old enough for temple worship.  In order to protect them, the shepherds brought the pregnant ewes into the ground floor of Migdol Eder where there was a special birthing room.  It was not like an ordinary stable, but was kept ceremonially clean by the temple priesthood.  When the ewes gave birth to the new lambs, the babies were wrapped in swaddling cloths, and laid in a manger (feed trough) for a few hours to protect them from any scarring accidents.

If you read Luke 2 carefully, you see there isn't any information there as to the location of the Messiah.  So how did the shepherds in the fields know where to go and find him?  Note the sign given to them by the angel in Luke 2:12:  "And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger."  What was so unusual about a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths?  Nothing.  How could it be a sign of anything then?  The key was, "...and lying in a manger."  These shepherds, employees (as it were) of the temple, would have known instantly and exactly what and where the angel meant for them to go to find the newborn king.

So why is this important?  It matters in this sense:  everything in the Old Testament points toward the Messiah, the Christ.  The entire Jewish sacrificial system was a type or shadow of the one sufficient sacrifice to come- the son of God.  The laying of the sacrificial lambs in mangers, wrapped in swaddling cloths, is just one more proof of the reality and authenticity of Jesus as the Messiah, the final lamb and sacrifice which would take away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

There is much more to say on this topic, but I'm trying to keep this at a readable length.  If you google 'migdol eder' (and variant spellings) you can find all sorts of variations on the idea, some more credible than others; many which include much more scriptural support than I have.

Migdol Eder as the birthplace of Christ is an idea worth considering.