The Sentimental Christian Humanist

Gary North on Evangelical Ethics, 1984

[My words in brackets, naturally – AP]

[A Practial Introduction to Humanism]

After spending six chapters discussing the admittedly difficult ethical issues relating to genetic manipulation, the author then introduces his chapter on the not at all confusing moral issue of abortion, the execution of the legally innocent. I call this the “confuse, then corrupt” technique. It has been used successfully for a century and a half by theologically liberal “higher critics” of the Bible. He warns us that “there are no slick answers” (p. 7), which is the typical approach of the morally confused (or morally perverse) but self-proclaimed “honest Christian” who is about to abandon the clear teachings of the Bible.

[…]

He asks that all-too-familiar question: “When does the fetus become a person?”(p.182). When you call an unborn infant a “fetus,” you have already prejudiced the case. You have begun to answer the question. The answer, predictably, is that Christians just can’t agree on this question, so let’s use the alternatives to the Bible that “logic” provides.

No Absolutes

He cites the Roman Catholic Church’s absolute prohibition against abortion. “The major attraction of the Roman Catholic position for Christians is its high view of human life. It has the strengths of all absolute positions and it places the unborn directly in God’s will. In practice, however, issues are not so simple, and while we may wish to believe that abortion is always morally wrong, dilemmas abound” (p. 167). In short, moral decisions are sometimes costly, and certain “ethicists” recommend not paying the price.

[…]

The Church has called abominable the position defended by D. Gareth Jones, Ph.D., and he feels the heat. But it is nothing compared with the heat that he will face approximately ten seconds after his death, unless he abandons the position he maintains in this most abominable book.

[Actually, it usually takes a few minutes for brain death to occur… but that’s just a pathetic, insipid quibble. Rejoicing for a few minutes before you start cooking is a piss-poor strategy: getting right before God right now is the way to go!]

He says that “Abortion for therapeutic reasons demands a serious response by those professing to follow Christ” (p. 183). Indeed, it does. The serious response is: “Don’t.” The serious reason is: “God says not to.”

[Note that obeying the commandments because God says so in the Bible will never be seen as a serious response by those who despise Him.

Especially Ph.D Christian thinkers, who value the approval of their peers far higher than the approval of God. After all, the tenure board – and the ticket to a permanent, well-paying job – has to be appeased right now: God can always wait for a bit longer… eventually… when the time is right… after all the pieces are in place…

Do these people take God for a fool? Exactly who is the fool here?]

The arguments he offers in support of a family’s decision to abort a child can be used equally well by a family looking for excuses to murder a senile adult. The person is unable to learn. He is unable to take care of himself. He may create terrible psychological burdens for other family members. In short, caring for him is costly, and there is no economic payoff at the end of the road. Such a person is the economic and psychological equivalent of a highly retarded child. He is, in terms of Dr. Jones’ analysis, an expendable elderly fetus. Kill him. But do it lovingly, of course.

The Compassionate Ones love to kill.

With great intensity.

Except when it comes to rapist, murders, and other criminals who God commands the State to execute. Somehow, it’s never right for the State to execute them.

No… it’s other people – preferably the weakest, the least able to defend themselves, and those who challenge the authority of The People… who need to be disposed of by the State.

Lovingly.

Humanism’s Ethics of Sentimentality

A compromise must be adopted, this ethicist tells us, just so long as the decision is made reluctantly. This is the ethics of sentimentality, as Schlossberg has called it. “If good and evil are purely a matter of sentiment, then no action can be judged, since sentiments remain opaque to outside certification. Only the motives count, not the action. In this way sentiment, not reason or law, is determinative of right and wrong.” (Idols for Destruction, Thomas Nelson, 1983, p. 45.) Schlossberg has identified the source of the ethics of sentiment in our day: humanism. “Humanism thrives on sentimentality because few religions are more dishonest in their doctrinal expressions. Unable to withstand dispassionate analysis, which would reveal its lack of foundation, it stresses feeling rather than thought. That is what makes sentimentality so vicious” (p. 46.)

The incomparable hypocrisy of D. Gareth Jones, Ph.D., is found in the closing paragraph of this chapter: “Decisions relating to the handicapped should always be difficult and will prove too onerous for some to bear. This is the knife-edge along which we walk. But as we do we should be encouraged by the prophecy of Isaiah that, ultimately, ‘then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb shout for joy’ (Isaiah 35:5-6)” (p. 184). Not it their parents aborted them, they won’t.

This crawling filth, the vicious and demonic sentimentality of humanism, is what will most certainly destroy the West. It’s already done the job in Europe: the Islamic invasion is merely the logical, inescapable consequence of the dead corpse of Western European Christendom.

 Slick Solution

Jones says, “There are no slick solutions” (p. 169). Oh, but there are. The slickest of all is the saline solution, it is this solution which burns the unborn to death. But the heat of such solutions is nothing compared to the heat which awaits the biomedical practitioners of abortion and their morally corrupt apologists. Also, the publishers of their tracts.

I suggest that we pray specifically for D. Gareth Jones and James Sire, the editor of Inter-Varsity Press. I suggest the use of Psalm 83. Such a prayer can become part of husband and wile devotionals. It can also become part of public worship by elders in churches. If time is limited, use verses 13-18 only. Continue the practice from time to time until God answers your prayer. This prayer will eventually have its stated effect. Use it.

I also believe that God answers prayer, especially prayers that are in accordance to His will, as outlined in the Bible.

There are those who doubt this. We should take the opportunity to teach them, and public imprecatory prayer can be the right tool for the job.

The Lord is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous. — Proverbs 15:29

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. — James 5:16

For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. — I Peter 3:12

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s