Open Letter to First Lady Michelle Obama about Abortion and 'Womxn'

 Dear First Lady Michelle Obama,

So much discussion about abortion is in the news today in anticipation of a Supreme Court decision that is expected to return legislation on abortion to the states.  In this regard, I note with regret your comment, "State lawmakers will have the power to strip womxn [xic] of the right to make decisions about their bodies and their healthcare."  Might I briefly clarify four matters of biology?

First, a child in the womb has a different, though related, DNA from the mother.  Therefore, a choice to abort the child is not a choice about the mother's body so much as about her son's or daughter's body.  The child inherits one chromosome from each parent, making a separate individual.  Any decision to take the life of the unborn child is a decision about the child's life.  Stripping a woman from the so-called 'right' to make decisions about terminating someone else's life is hardly a decision about her own body.  Incidentally, even in the case of two persons with identical or nearly identical DNA--i.e., identical twins--the persons are not one person.  An identical twin cannot and should not be able to choose to terminate the life of his or her sibling.  Mothers share even less DNA with their children.

Second, DNA establishes gender.  A baby girl inherits an X chromosome from the father and an X chromosome from the mother.  A baby boy inherits an X chromosome from his mother and a Y chromosome from his father.  There are no other chromosomes or combinations, and so there are no other genders.  Girls have XX chromosomes, and boys have XY chromosomes.

Third, the chromosomes determine the gender, reproductive organs, and sexual characteristics of the child.  From the moment of conception, a girl with two X chromosomes has what it takes to develop into a child-bearing woman some day.  Boys have what it takes to develop into fathers.  There are no alternatives, such as your 'womxn' category.  Simply put, men do not have babies, and if someone pretending to be a man does, this only reveals that she is a woman, not a man.

Fourth, from the above, it follows that one cannot turn an intention, such as someone's sexual identity choice, into a fact, such as biological sex.  To imagine that this is so involves the same logical fallacy that, if a human being intends to identify as a dog, one actually is a dog.  One's gender identity cannot alter the fact of one's gender, that is, one's biological sex.  You need not worry about the recent invention of a 'womxn' category in all the history of humanity as it has no basis in fact.  As we read in Genesis, 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them' (1.27).

The science is both simple and marvelous.  We should follow it because there is no alternative in reality.  I trust this clears up any confusion or misunderstandings.

Sincerely,

Professor Grams

The Impending End of Evangelicals in Mainline Denominations

 

We seem, at long last, to have reached the end phase of Evangelicals leaving mainline denominations.

The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia voted on 10 May, 2022 on their understanding of marriage.  A Biblical and historical Christian understanding of marriage between a man and a woman was rejected—not by the laity or the clergy but by the bishops in a vote 12-10.  The response of the orthodox Christian bishop and chair of GAFCON Australia, Richard Condie, and the text of the defeated statement on marriage, may be found here.

Various issues arise around this failure of the Anglican bishops, but one is the ongoing fellowship of orthodox Christians with false ‘brothers’—a problem Paul dealt with clearly and decisively in 1 Corinthians 5.  This false partnership has followed every mainline denomination over the past half a century at least, and the result is always the same in the end: after a great loss of membership, the denomination eventually splits.  The purpose of this brief post is to bring an excellent letter on the subject to the attention of readers who might wonder if Biblical concern for ‘unity’ in the Church somehow might mean continuing in the same denomination with persons who promote immorality such as homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  The letter was written in 2011 by Professor Robert Gagnon to a very confused Rev. Dr. Sheldon Sorge, then Pastor to the Pittsburgh Presbytery of the PCUSA denomination.  It may be helpful to those Evangelicals in Anglican dioceses and provinces who mistakenly think that Biblical unity means fellowship with sexually immoral persons calling themselves ‘brothers,’ as Paul says.  Gagnon’s letter, which may be accessed here, is particularly helpful in that it clearly and decisively corrects Sorge’s misuse of several texts in Scripture on the issue of unity.[1]

Most Evangelicals have moved on from this stage of the debate: whether to stay or leave mainline denominations that have changed the doctrine, ethics, and practices of the Church beyond any recognition of Biblical and orthodox Christianity.  Just this month, significant numbers of orthodox believers in the United Methodist Church have separated to form the Global Methodist Church.  This is a move that has come very late, with other denominations having separated from and formed distinct from heretical mainline denominations many years ago.  Some churches are simply ‘stuck’ for various reasons in these denominations, and they continue in a kind of ‘hospice ministry’ within them.  They must not be disparaged or forgotten.  Yet the argument, popular in the 1970s and 1980s, that Evangelicals could somehow bring revival to these denominations by staying in them has long since proven wrong.  This raises the question why some Evangelical seminaries still hire some faculty carrying ordination in mainline denominations like the PCUSA or Episcopal Church—are they really ‘Evangelical’ after all?  No professor should be seen as an independent operator such that his or her denominational affiliation is irrelevant to their ministry.  The process of leaving a denomination for a church or diocese/presbytery, however, is somewhat drawn out, difficult, and emotional, but those who can leave should do so now.  Individuals with no flock to guide who are simply faculty members should have made their exit long ago on the same grounds that Paul lays out in 1 Corinthians 5.  For those with others in their care, Evangelical priests/pastors, bishops, etc., what is urgently needed is unity with each other so that they can separate together and not one by one.

What we are witnessing now is the final part of the first act of separation, and we can only hope and pray for God’s blessing and wisdom for the Global Methodist Church or GAFCON Australia and others.  Only then will the ecclesiastical virtues of faith, love, and hope be free to operate.  The second act began years ago with the formation of new Evangelical denominations or independent Evangelical churches.  For some of these, many challenges have already arisen, including some concerns about orthodoxy.[2]  The third act will either be a refining of ‘Evangelicalism’ to exclude progressives (those compromising Biblical teaching and orthodoxy because of their friendship with the world) and include a more robust ecclesiology around traditional Evangelical tenets, or it will be the failure and demise of Evangelicalism.

---

[1] Robert Gagnon’s book is a classic, scholarly work on the subject of homosexuality and the Bible.  See The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002).  See also S. Donald Fortson and Rollin Grams, Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic,  2016).

[2] See, e.g., my article, Platonists, Stoicists, and Paul and Gender Fluidity, ‘Side B Christians,’ and ‘Conversion Therapy’; https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2022/04/platonists-stoics-and-paul-on-gender.html.

Why Christians Celebrate the Life of the Unborn and Say that Abortion at Any Stage is Wrong

As Christians, our witness to the culture involves speaking and living out our faith in the public square even when the cultural context is opposed to us.  This involves our view about life itself being a gift from God, even before birth.  We have, therefore, remained consistently opposed to abortion through the centuries and distinguished from many cultures on this issue.  (Only in recent times have the post-Christian, mainline denominations (and rebellious individuals like Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi) approved of abortion and other ethical views that are nothing more than an adoption of the present-day culture and a rejection of Scripture, historic Christianity, the Church, and God Himself.)

Various cultures find ways to make killing the innocent morally right, even a moral duty.  The conclusion is what is important; the reasoning is irrelevant--only some path chosen to get there.  Abortion is not merely permitted; it is made into a moral good.  It is justified by the culture, the myths, the politics, and the ethics of a people.  As Isaiah says,

Isaiah 5.20: ‘Woe to those who call evil good

                        and good evil,

             who put darkness for light

                        and light for darkness,

             who put bitter for sweet

                        and sweet for bitter!’ (ESV)

Here are examples of cultures and nations that have called evil concerning children ‘good’.  Their views are captured as statements (not quotations):

Canaan: ‘Our god, Molech, calls for child sacrifices.  Whatever your reason, pass your child through the fire to Molech.  You have a religious reason and right to kill your children.’

Rome: ‘The father has the power of life and death over his slaves and his children.  If he says to kill his newborn child, no law stands in his way.  Leave the child in the hills to die.’

Some Amazonian Tribes: ‘Children born with defects, twins, or triplets are soulless or cursed.  It is right to bury them alive, poison them, or leave them to die.  Kill such children.’

Bassa Komo Tribe, Nigeria: ‘Some children, especially twins, are not human but evil spirits.  They will kill a parent (or both) and are a danger to the community.  They must be killed.

Bolshevik Russia: Laws against abortion are the hypocrisy of the ruling classes.  There is no ethic apart from what the Party dictates.  Lenin allowed abortion; Stalin forbade it, then allowed it.  Do what the Party permits.’

Nazi Germany: ‘Eugenics teaches us that some races are better than others.  No abortion for the master, Aryan race—unless the child is deformed.  Non-Aryan races are encouraged to practice contraception or abortion.’

Communist China: ‘The community is more important than the individual.  One family, one child.  Kill the rest.’

Iceland: ‘Having children with Downs Syndrome is wrong.  We proudly announce we are a nation without such children.  Kill them before they are born.’

Some Americans: ‘Freedom is the primary virtue.  Women must have the right to choose.  It is good and right to kill unborn boys and girls if you so choose;’ Other Americans: 'The unborn are human beings whose life is constitutionally protected.'

We Christians, however, live by God’s Word.  We firstly understand that we are highly valued for what we are, not simply for what we can do (viability, ability to choose, social value).  We are created in His own image and likeness (Genesis 1.26-27; 5.1).  Thus, shedding the blood of any person is the murder of one who is made in God's image (Genesis 9.6).  God commands, ‘You shall not murder’ (Exodus 20.13).  He has taught us to praise Him for His creative work in forming us in the womb, just as in His forming humanity from the earth, saying, 

'For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.  I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.  Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.  My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.  Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them' (Psalm 139.13-16).

We understand that God knows us, as He did the prophet Jeremiah, 'before I formed you in the womb' (Jeremiah 1.5).  God has plans for us before we are born, as Jeremiah says in this verse and Paul says in about his own life in Galatians 1.15.  We understand from Elizabeth's and Mary's meeting that the unborn child can respond to the presence of God (Luke 1.41).  Ever since the 2nd century, Christian authors have recorded the Church's opposition to abortion.

We do not live by the arguments of our cultures.  It is that simple.  We will not take the life of the innocent.  We will not kill the unborn.  Life is a gift from God.  We will not call evil ‘good’.

Nor do we give our support to any who do such a thing or to those who approve of those who do (Romans 1.32).  Our support of innocent life defines us.