# Would this take the offense out of preaching against abortion?



## Craig (Jan 7, 2009)

Here's an excerpt I found of a sermon delivered in a PCA church concerning the imago Dei...it is really quite superb, but then it seems to undercut itself later on. I'm purposefully leaving out the name of the preacher and the congregation...I just want to know if I'm crazy or if there's something disjointed about this, that the importance of the issue is, in the end, a little less offensive than it really is.

Note: this is not about a particular preacher nor is it about a particular church. I prefer input from pastors/elders/teachers. Part of me wonders if the pastoral impact of the last section could have possible negative results.



> What happens in a society that got its idea of human rights from a belief in the image of God, that all people are created in the image of God? What happens to that society when as a society as a whole it loses the idea of God? You see, what happens when you have a secular society in which most of the cultural elite say "well, we don't believe in God anymore, and therefore we don't believe human beings were made in the image of God, we just evolved, they are very complex organisms?"
> 
> Now, how do you ground human rights in the worth of the individual human being? What does that worth consist of? What makes a human being worthy of rights now that you don't believe in the image of God anymore?
> And you realize that there is a huge problem right now in the philosophy, you might say in the upper reaches of the academic world, of the Western nations, Western culture. Because that's the question. If we don't believe in the image of God, this idea, what makes human beings worthy of rights and therefore protection? And here's what they are all saying. They are saying, if we don't believe in the image of God then we have to ground human rights in what they call capacities. You understand that?
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 7, 2009)

I think point 2 is more about dehumanizing sinners rather than pretending that the sin itself isn't reprehensible. I think the whole point he makes is very sound prior to that last point. I might have made the point differently at the end but what precedes it is very good.

I've made the point many times that Romans 1 demonstrates that progression: forsake the knowledge of God -> all sorts of crimes against those who bear His image. The minor prophets are full of this progression. They begin with the charge that the Nation is idolatrous and then what is the fruit: injustice and a disregard for the downtrodden.

True religion cares for widows and orphans because they bear the image of God and not because of the benefit they offer us in return. It's the same with the unborn.

-----Added 1/7/2009 at 09:42:25 EST-----

So, getting back to point two (sorry I got distracted for a moment), there is a tendency when we are repulsed by a sin to forget that the sinner still bears the image of God. As I understand his last point, we would do well to remember that even the sinner bears some dignity not for their _intrinsic_ worth but because of the extrinsic quality of the image they bear. We sometimes tend to turn others into monsters instead of recognizing the filth that Christ had to wade through to get to us.


----------



## he beholds (Jan 7, 2009)

I think he is correct. I don't think it is our job to make those women and men feel like ****--I think we should work toward their restoration, instead, while working to prevent new abortions.

-----Added 1/7/2009 at 09:50:38 EST-----

whoa--I did not write a bad word there, just so you all know!


----------



## Craig (Jan 7, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think point 2 is more about dehumanizing sinners rather than pretending that the sin itself isn't reprehensible. I think the whole point he makes is very sound prior to that last point. I might have made the point differently at the end but what precedes it is very good.
> 
> I've made the point many times that Romans 1 demonstrates that progression: forsake the knowledge of God -> all sorts of crimes against those who bear His image. The minor prophets are full of this progression. They begin with the charge that the Nation is idolatrous and then what is the fruit: injustice and a disregard for the downtrodden.
> 
> ...



I completely agree...I wonder, however, if point 2 allows for real redemption for the abortionist and the woman who had the abortion. I don't think we should unneccessarily drag our feet on the offensiveness of abortion...i.e. how offended *we* are by it, but the moral gravity of it being clearly acknowledged would glorify God's grace. 

You, for example, immediately recognize the glory of Christ and His sacrifice. That is the product of repentance. I don't see that being the driving force of point 2. The tender conscience, by God's Spirit, would likely be driven to their knees, but that would be in spite of what was said, not because of it. That would be the Spirit superceding what was said, not attending to it.

In the end, I'm left thinking the rejection of the Imago Dei is more of an intellectual problem than a moral one. At least, that's the conclusion I walk away with after reading point two of the sermon. Along with that, easy believism and the gravity of economic poverty and not the poverty of our souls.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 7, 2009)

I'm just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt based on the whole of the presentation. The rejection of the image of God is both moral and intellectual as the moral affects the intellectual.


----------

