Latest / Reformed Thinking / Brothers, Blow the Trumpet for the Unborn | John Piper

Transcript

Brothers, Blow the Trumpet for the Unborn | John Piper · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome curious minds to reformed thinking.
• 0:02
  Great to be diving in. Today we're looking at some
• 0:06
  really significant source material.
• 0:08
  We've got a document by John Piper called Brothers Blow the
• 0:11
  Trumpet for the Unborn, plus some related notes, and it lays
• 0:15
  out a case against abortion from a particular perspective,
• 0:19
  biblically grounded scientific observations, even legal
• 0:23
  history. Right.
• 0:23
  It's very much rooted in a reformed theological framework.
• 0:27
  Exactly. And for us, this isn't just, you
• 0:29
  know, looking at it from arm's length.
• 0:31
  It's about engaging with these ideas from a Christian
• 0:34
  worldview. Yeah.
• 0:35
  So our goal today is really to unpack these arguments, see how
• 0:38
  they're built, and understand the call to action, Piper
• 0:41
  presents. Yeah, what we have here is a
• 0:42
  really a well structured argument.
• 0:45
  It's designed I think to build conviction and really prompt
• 0:49
  action specifically from that pro-life standpoint within the
• 0:52
  reformed tradition. So our task is to kind of pull
• 0:55
  out the main ideas, help you listening, grasp the core
• 0:58
  arguments and well what Piper sees is their implications.
• 1:01
  It's a chance to really understand the thinking behind
• 1:04
  this specific stance. OK, good.
• 1:06
  So let's unpack this. The sources start by trying to
• 1:10
  establish the unique nature of unborn human life.
• 1:14
  They use both science and scripture.
• 1:16
  What's the first angle? The scientific one.
• 1:18
  Well, it's interesting how these start.
• 1:19
  They kick off with the scientific reality, emphasizing
• 1:22
  that right from conception, a human being is genetically
• 1:26
  distinct. Distinct.
• 1:27
  How so? The document says the human code
• 1:30
  in the chromosomes is there from the start.
• 1:33
  It makes the point that this code makes the new Organism
• 1:36
  utterly different from monkeys or rats or elephants as soon as
• 1:39
  the chromosomes meet. OK, so a unique genetic
• 1:42
  blueprint from moment one? Precisely.
• 1:45
  It establishes a scientific baseline for human identity.
• 1:49
  It's not just potential life, the argument goes, but actual
• 1:51
  human life with its own unique DNA and.
• 1:54
  They add details about development.
• 1:55
  Right, they do. The source notes that by 8
• 1:57
  weeks, all the organs are present, The brain's
• 1:59
  functioning. The heart's pumping blood.
• 2:01
  Liver is making blood cells, knees are cleaning fluids, even
• 2:05
  fingerprints are visible. Wow, 8 weeks.
• 2:07
  Yeah, and they mentioned ultrasound showing babies at
• 2:10
  that stage sucking their thumb, recoiling from a prick,
• 2:12
  responding to sound. It points to, you know, early
• 2:16
  and developing human activity, observable human responses.
• 2:20
  So that's the scientific baseline.
• 2:22
  But then there's this theological layer woven in,
• 2:24
  right? The sources talk a lot about
• 2:26
  God's unique person forming work.
• 2:29
  What is that at? Right.
• 2:30
  That's crucial to the argument. It connects the biology to
• 2:34
  divine action. The formation of life in the
• 2:36
  room isn't just seen as biology happening.
• 2:38
  It's presented as a direct act of God.
• 2:41
  OK, Psalm 139, verse 13 is absolutely central here.
• 2:45
  For you formed my inward parts. You knitted me together in my
• 2:48
  mother's womb. Knitted together.
• 2:50
  Exactly. The interpretation offered is
• 2:52
  that God is the primary worker. He's actively doing something
• 2:54
  unique like weaving or knitting, and the result is a human being
• 2:58
  made in his image. So it elevates it beyond just,
• 3:01
  you know, cells dividing. Absolutely.
• 3:03
  It frames the unborn's life as a direct creation fashioned by God
• 3:07
  himself. It speaks to inherent status,
• 3:09
  inherent worth, because of the Creator's involvement.
• 3:12
  It's about personal creation, not just biological existence.
• 3:15
  And I think the source is bringing other scripture to to
• 3:18
  bolster this idea. Yes, they do Consider job
• 3:21
  chapter 31 verses 13 to 15. Job is arguing for treating his
• 3:25
  servants fairly OK and his reasoning?
• 3:28
  He says the same God fashioned both him and his servants in the
• 3:32
  womb. Ah, so it implies equal
• 3:34
  creation, equal value right from the womb, regardless of social
• 3:37
  standing later. That's the point.
• 3:39
  It underscores God as the primary Workman, nurturer,
• 3:42
  fashioner, knitter, creator in this time of gestation.
• 3:46
  The sources are quite clear. Parents provide the biological
• 3:48
  material, but only God creates personhood.
• 3:51
  Personhood itself is a divine act.
• 3:53
  According to this view, yes, gestation is seen as God's
• 3:57
  special workshop, his sacred space for fashioning a person.
• 4:00
  OK, so you've got the scientific distinctiveness from conception
• 4:03
  and this theological view of God actively forming a person.
• 4:07
  What's the conclusion the sources draw from this for the
• 4:10
  abortion debate? Well, it leads to a very direct
• 4:13
  conclusion. The sources consistently state
• 4:16
  that the destruction of conceived human life, whether
• 4:19
  embryonic, fetal or viable, is an assault on the unique person
• 4:23
  forming work of God. An assault on God's work.
• 4:26
  Yes, it's viewed as directly interfering with God's exclusive
• 4:30
  right, His prerogative to form a person.
• 4:33
  So the implication is, well, our response should be 1 Of deep
• 4:37
  respect, even awe, reverence. Reverence, Yes.
• 4:40
  The document argues that reverence for God should lead to
• 4:44
  reverence and fear from assaulting or obstructing the
• 4:46
  divine work of God fashioning such a person in the womb.
• 4:50
  It frames the entire discussion around respecting God's
• 4:52
  sovereignty over life itself. OK, that sets a strong
• 4:55
  foundation. Now the sources pivot from that
• 4:57
  to the legal history in the US, pointing out a, well, a pretty
• 5:01
  major reversal in abortion laws overtime.
• 5:03
  Can you walk us through that historical shift, maybe before
• 5:05
  Roe V Wade? Right, the historical context
• 5:08
  provided is quite interesting. The sources note that that by
• 5:11
  the year 1900, abortion had actually become illegal across
• 5:13
  the United States. Across the whole country.
• 5:15
  Yeah, pretty much. But it wasn't always like that.
• 5:19
  Before this period, the document points out, abortion was more
• 5:21
  common, especially before quickening.
• 5:23
  Quickening. Yeah, that's when the mother
• 5:25
  feels the baby move. Generally, yeah, around 16 to 20
• 5:28
  weeks. So this shift to making it
• 5:31
  illegal later on, the source explains, came from efforts by
• 5:34
  different groups. The American Medical Association
• 5:36
  was involved anti obscenity crusaders and maybe surprisingly
• 5:41
  this time even early feminists. Feminists too.
• 5:44
  Interesting. Yeah.
• 5:44
  It suggests a kind of broad societal push against abortion
• 5:48
  leading up to the 20th century. And then, of course, January 22,
• 5:52
  1973, Roe V Wade. How did that Supreme Court
• 5:55
  decision just fundamentally change the landscape?
• 5:59
  Roe basically wiped away those state laws and set up a new
• 6:02
  national framework based on trimesters.
• 6:04
  Right, the three trimesters. Yeah.
• 6:06
  So in the first three months, states essentially couldn't
• 6:08
  regulate abortion much at all except requiring A licensed
• 6:11
  physician. It was largely up to the woman
• 6:13
  and her doctor. OK.
• 6:15
  First trimester, very little regulation.
• 6:17
  Then between the end of the first trimester and viability at
• 6:20
  that point where the fetus could potentially survive outside the
• 6:22
  womb. Usually pegged around 24 to 28
• 6:25
  weeks back then. Right viability.
• 6:27
  States could regulate, but only if the regulations were aimed at
• 6:32
  protecting the mother's health. They couldn't ban abortion
• 6:35
  outright during that time. Only for maternal health reasons
• 6:38
  and after viability. After viability, states could
• 6:42
  prohibit abortion. But, and this is a huge BUT,
• 6:46
  they still couldn't prevent an abortion if it was necessary to
• 6:49
  preserve the life or health of the mother, OK.
• 6:52
  Life or health? That sounds reasonable on the
• 6:54
  surface, but the sources seem to take issue with how health was
• 6:58
  defined. They really zero in on that.
• 7:00
  The definition of health used in the companion case, Dovey Bolton
• 7:03
  decided the same day, was incredibly broad.
• 7:07
  It included all factors physical, emotional,
• 7:10
  psychological, familial and the woman's age relevant to the
• 7:13
  well-being of the patient. Wow, so not just immediate
• 7:16
  physical. Not at all.
• 7:18
  It meant almost any reason related to a woman's general
• 7:21
  well-being, her stress levels, her family situation.
• 7:24
  Could be used to justify an abortion even very late in
• 7:27
  pregnancy, right up to birth potentially.
• 7:30
  And there were later rulings that expanded on this.
• 7:31
  Yeah, the sources mentioned a 1976 case, Planned Parenthood V
• 7:35
  Danforth. That decision struck down
• 7:38
  requirements for parental consent for minors seeking
• 7:41
  abortions and also spousal consent or consent from the
• 7:44
  father of the baby. So it further centered the
• 7:46
  decision solely on the pregnant woman.
• 7:49
  Pretty much, yes. It solidified her autonomy in
• 7:51
  the decision removing legal requirements for involving
• 7:54
  parents or the father. OK.
• 7:55
  So given these rulings, this broad health exception, the lack
• 7:59
  of consent requirements, what's the sources bottom line
• 8:02
  assessment of the abortion law framework established by Roe and
• 8:06
  it's related cases? Well, the source doesn't mince
• 8:09
  words. It states the practical effect
• 8:11
  is that any abortion is legal until birth if the mother can
• 8:14
  give reason that the pregnancy or the child will be an
• 8:16
  excessive burden or stress on her well-being.
• 8:19
  Any abortion until birth, essentially.
• 8:20
  That's the claim based on that broad health definition, and the
• 8:24
  document points to the outcome an average of 1.5 million
• 8:28
  abortions every year in the US since 1973.
• 8:32
  This leads Piper to declare flatly that the law of our land
• 8:35
  is immoral and unjust. A very strong condemnation and
• 8:39
  there's a historical analogy used to under score this
• 8:42
  perceived injustice. Yes, and it's a powerful one.
• 8:45
  The source compares Roe V Wade to the 1857 Dred Scott decision.
• 8:49
  Dred. Scott Case.
• 8:52
  Exactly. That ruling said slaves weren't
• 8:53
  citizens, they were property, and Congress couldn't ban
• 8:56
  slavery. Piper argues Roe is analogous
• 8:59
  because in his view, it creates the unborn similarly not as
• 9:02
  persons with rights, but as being subject to these sovereign
• 9:05
  disposal of their mothers. So denying personhood and rights
• 9:07
  similar to Dred Scott. That's the analogy drawn.
• 9:10
  And just as Dred Scott was eventually overturned and is now
• 9:12
  seen as a terrible mistake, the source expresses hope that Roe
• 9:15
  and current abortion laws might also be overturned, that a
• 9:19
  consensus for life could emerge, recognizing the unborn's value
• 9:23
  through, as Piper puts it, the grace of God and the
• 9:26
  perseverance of his people in prayer and piety and political
• 9:29
  action. It's a very pointed comparison
• 9:32
  now. The sources also tackle the
• 9:34
  common phrase that abortion is a personal decision.
• 9:37
  How do they counter that? They push back hard on that
• 9:40
  framing, The document states. Abortion is emphatically not a
• 9:43
  personal decision in that limited sense.
• 9:45
  Why? Because it argues there is
• 9:48
  another person, namely the unborn child.
• 9:51
  So it reframes it from a personal choice to.
• 9:53
  To a decision about competing human rights, the right not to
• 9:57
  be pregnant and the right not to be killed.
• 9:59
  It forces the question whose rights prevail when they
• 10:02
  conflict. And use an example to illustrate
• 10:04
  this. Yeah, it challenges the media
• 10:06
  asking why strangling a post born premature baby outside the
• 10:10
  womb would be condemned. But ending the life of a fetus
• 10:13
  at the same developmental stage inside the womb is often framed
• 10:16
  as a personal choice. It questions the logic of
• 10:19
  location determining the right to life.
• 10:21
  Are there other inconsistencies pointed out in the law regarding
• 10:25
  the unborn? Yes, several.
• 10:27
  The source mentions Minnesota's fetal homicide law, for example.
• 10:30
  Under that law, if someone kills an unborn baby against the
• 10:34
  mother's will, it's manslaughter.
• 10:36
  But if the mother chooses to end the baby's life via abortion,
• 10:40
  it's legal. So, the source argues, the
• 10:43
  baby's right to life isn't inherent.
• 10:45
  It depends entirely on the will of the mother.
• 10:48
  So the mother's choice is the deciding factor, legally
• 10:51
  speaking. That's the inconsistency
• 10:53
  highlighted. Piper calls this the essence of
• 10:56
  totalitarian rule. The will of the strong
• 10:58
  determines the rights of the weak.
• 11:00
  Strong words. Any other examples?
• 11:02
  Another one mentioned is fetal surgery.
• 11:04
  Doctors perform complex operations on babies in the womb
• 11:07
  to save their lives. Right Incredible medical
• 11:09
  advances. But the source points out their
• 11:10
  cousin at a a similar stage of development is being killed just
• 11:14
  down the hall via abortion. This juxtaposition is called a
• 11:17
  lethal inconsistency. How can the law and medicine
• 11:22
  treat one unborn baby as a patient to be saved and another
• 11:25
  at the same stage as disposable? It does highlight attention.
• 11:28
  And the source argues against using viability or size or
• 11:32
  developed reasoning as the criteria for personhood.
• 11:35
  It asks is someone on a respirator less human?
• 11:39
  Is a one month old infant who also lacks advanced reasoning
• 11:42
  not a person? The argument is that the
• 11:44
  scientific facts unique DNA functioning organs by 8 weeks
• 11:49
  responsiveness shown on ultrasound already established
• 11:51
  humanity long before these later benchmarks.
• 11:54
  OK, that covers the legal and scientific ground pretty
• 11:57
  thoroughly from the sources perspective.
• 11:59
  Now the document lays out a very structured 10 point biblical
• 12:02
  case against abortion. This seems like the theological
• 12:05
  core. It really is.
• 12:06
  Piper distills the biblical argument into these 10 specific
• 12:10
  points. Let's walk through them.
• 12:10
  What's the first one? Starts with the big commandment.
• 12:12
  Does it? Yes, .1 centers on Exodus 20.13.
• 12:15
  Thou shalt not kill. The 6th commandment.
• 12:18
  Right, but the source stresses the specific Hebrew word used
• 12:21
  there, rahaz. It argues Rahaz consistently
• 12:25
  refers to violent personal killing that is actually murder.
• 12:28
  Not just any killing. No, it's distinguished from say
• 12:32
  killing and legitimate warfare or state sanctioned capital
• 12:36
  punishment, which use different Hebrew words and have different
• 12:39
  contexts in the Bible. OK, so the argument is since
• 12:42
  abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, it falls
• 12:46
  directly under the prohibition of Rahaz of murder.
• 12:49
  It's seen as a clear and resounding indictment of the
• 12:52
  killing of innocent unborn children.
• 12:55
  All right, that's .1. What's the second biblical
• 12:56
  argument? The second point circles back to
• 12:58
  something we discussed earlier. The person forming work.
• 13:01
  Exactly. It reiterates that destroying
• 13:04
  conceived human life is an assault on God's unique personal
• 13:08
  work described in Psalm 139. Knitted me together and Job 31
• 13:13
  fashioned me in the womb. It's directly interfering with
• 13:16
  God the Creator's activity. Got it.
• 13:17
  A reinforcement of that idea. What's .3?
• 13:19
  .3 deals with shedding innocent blood.
• 13:22
  The Bible repeatedly condemns this.
• 13:24
  The phrase appears about 20 times, always negatively.
• 13:27
  Always a bad thing. Always, the source argues, the
• 13:30
  unborn's blood is as innocent as any blood that flows in the
• 13:33
  world. It cites Song 106, which talks
• 13:36
  about shedding the innocent blood of sons and daughters in
• 13:39
  child sacrifice, and Jeremiah 22, linking not shedding
• 13:43
  innocent blood with doing justice for the vulnerable.
• 13:46
  So the unborn are included in that category of innocent blood
• 13:50
  that must not be shed. That's the argument.
• 13:52
  It makes abortion a violation of that specific biblical
• 13:56
  prohibition. OK.
• 13:57
  And the fourth point seems related about protecting the
• 13:59
  vulnerable. Yes, .4 broadens that out.
• 14:02
  It highlights God's consistent concerns throughout Scripture
• 14:05
  for the weakest and most helpless and most victimized
• 14:09
  members of the community. Like widows and orphans.
• 14:11
  Widows, orphans, the poor, the needy, the oppressed.
• 14:14
  Passages like Psalm 82 call believers to give justice to the
• 14:17
  weak and the fatherless and rescue the weak and the needy.
• 14:20
  Exodus 22 warns against afflicting.
• 14:22
  Them and the unborn are seen as belonging to this group.
• 14:25
  Implicitly, yes. As arguably the weakest and most
• 14:29
  helpless members of the human community, they fall under this
• 14:32
  umbrella of God's protective concern and therefore our
• 14:35
  responsibility to protect them. Now, what about difficult
• 14:39
  circumstances? Sometimes abortion is presented
• 14:41
  as the lesser evil to prevent suffering, either for the child
• 14:45
  or the mother. How does the source address
• 14:48
  that? Biblically, that's .5, right?
• 14:50
  Right, .5 tackles that directly. It argues that judging A
• 14:53
  potentially difficult life as a worse evil than taking that life
• 14:57
  contradicts how the Bible often portrays suffering.
• 14:59
  How so? Well, the source is clear.
• 15:01
  We don't seek suffering. But Scripture often presents
• 15:04
  suffering in this fallen world as something God can use for
• 15:07
  good, for spiritual growth, for discipline, to prepare us for
• 15:10
  future glory. Think of Romans 8, Second
• 15:13
  Corinthians 4, James 1, Hebrews 12.
• 15:15
  Passages about trials producing in endurance or light
• 15:17
  afflictions. Preparing for glory.
• 15:19
  Exactly. So the argument concludes that
• 15:21
  choosing abortion simply to avoid potential suffering is
• 15:24
  essentially making themselves wiser than God, substituting
• 15:27
  human judgement about quality of life for God's purposes, even
• 15:30
  through hardship. OK.
• 15:31
  Then there's the argument some might make.
• 15:33
  Well, the aborted child goes to heaven, so it's OK.
• 15:36
  What's the response to that .6? .6 calls that a sin of
• 15:39
  presumption. Taking comfort in the idea that
• 15:42
  aborted children go to heaven or receive resurrection life cannot
• 15:46
  justify the ACT itself. Doing evil that good may come.
• 15:49
  Precisely the source sites Romans 6.1 shall we sin that
• 15:53
  grace may abound, and Romans 3.8 why not do evil that good may
• 15:57
  come? Both met with a firm By no means
• 16:01
  in Scripture, right? It's considered presumption,
• 16:03
  paper argues, to step into God's shoes and decide who goes to
• 16:07
  heaven when our job is obedience to God's commands, not trying to
• 16:11
  manage eternal destinies. Makes sense .7 brings in the
• 16:15
  concept of nature, neighbor love, doesn't it?
• 16:16
  Yes, .7 invokes the command to rescue our neighbor.
• 16:20
  Proverbs 24 says rescue those who are being taken away to
• 16:23
  death. Hold back those who are
• 16:24
  stumbling to the slaughter. And the unborn are considered
• 16:27
  neighbors in this context. Absolutely, the source argues.
• 16:30
  There's no valid reason, scientific, medical, moral,
• 16:34
  religious, to exclude the unborn from being our neighbors, who
• 16:38
  are, in the case of abortion, being unjustly LED away to
• 16:41
  death. Therefore, allowing abortion is
• 16:44
  seen as direct disobedience to this text.
• 16:47
  It's a call to act of intervention.
• 16:48
  Very much so. OK. .8 relates to Jesus's own
• 16:52
  attitude towards children. Right .8 highlights how Jesus
• 16:55
  welcomed children even when the disciples tried to shoo them
• 16:58
  away as inconvenient. Let the little children come to
• 17:00
  me. Exactly, and the source points
• 17:02
  out something linguistically interesting.
• 17:04
  The Greek word for infants brought to Jesus in Luke 18.
• 17:08
  Breakfast is the same word Luke uses for the unborn baby.
• 17:11
  John the Baptist leaping in Elizabeths womb in Luke 1.
• 17:15
  Breakfast used for both born and unborn infants.
• 17:18
  Yes, it suggests A continuity. And Jesus said receiving a child
• 17:21
  is like receiving him and the Father.
• 17:23
  This underscores the immense value he placed on children,
• 17:26
  which the argument goes, extends to the unborn.
• 17:30
  Okay. Nine more points.
• 17:31
  Or rather, two more points. What's #9. .9 addresses ultimate
• 17:35
  authority. It states it is the right of God
• 17:37
  the Maker to give and to take human life.
• 17:40
  It is not our individual right to make this choice based
• 17:44
  powerfully on Job's response to losing everything, including his
• 17:47
  children. The Lord gave and the Lord has
• 17:50
  taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord,
• 17:53
  Job 1.21. God's prerogative, yes.
• 17:56
  Birth and death belong to God's sovereign domain.
• 17:59
  Our role isn't to decide who lives or dies, but, as Piper
• 18:02
  puts it, to care for what he gives and use it to his glory.
• 18:07
  Taking that decision upon ourselves is seen as usurping
• 18:10
  God's authority. OK, that's clear.
• 18:11
  And the final point #10 it seems to shift focus slightly.
• 18:15
  It does .10 brings it home to the believers inner life and
• 18:17
  resources in Christ. It says that saving faith in
• 18:20
  Jesus Christ brings forgiveness of sins and cleansing of
• 18:22
  conscience and help through life and hope for eternity.
• 18:26
  So the gospel empowers this stance.
• 18:28
  In essence, yes, because believers have received God's
• 18:31
  omnipotent love, are forgiven, Ephesians 1.7, have eternal
• 18:36
  hope, John 3.16 and are freed from the love of money and fear
• 18:40
  Hebrews 13.5 to 6 They should be empowered to stand for these
• 18:45
  truths about life. Freed from the pressures that
• 18:48
  might lead someone else to choose abortion.
• 18:50
  That's the implication. Free from greed, fear of
• 18:53
  hardship, fear of reproach. Instead, they should be able to
• 18:56
  bear witness to the real delights of knowing and trusting
• 18:59
  and obeying God, which includes protecting the life he creates.
• 19:03
  It connects personal faith directly to the ability and
• 19:06
  motivation to uphold this pro-life conviction.
• 19:09
  OK, that's a very thorough 10 point biblical framework from
• 19:12
  Piper's perspective. After laying all that out, the
• 19:15
  sources then move into a direct call to action.
• 19:17
  Don't they specifically targeting pastors first?
• 19:20
  Yes, there's a strong challenge issue to pastors and church
• 19:22
  leaders. They're urged to put their lives
• 19:24
  in ministries on the line regarding abortion.
• 19:26
  Got to. Shy away from it.
• 19:27
  Definitely not. The source criticizes what it
• 19:29
  calls the cowardice of some pastors who treat abortion like
• 19:32
  it's just another political issue too controversial for the
• 19:35
  pulpit. And it condemns being personally
• 19:38
  pro-life but publicly neutral. It does, quite sharply.
• 19:41
  It likens that stance being personally pro-life but publicly
• 19:45
  pro-choice or non committal to Pontius Pilate washing his
• 19:49
  hands. It's framed as a failure of
• 19:51
  leadership in the face of injustice.
• 19:53
  So what should pastors be doing according to Piper?
• 19:57
  Several things. First, preach on the horrific
• 19:59
  sin and injustice of abortion and on the glory of the cause of
• 20:03
  life. At least once a year.
• 20:04
  Make it a regular part of teaching.
• 20:06
  Being explicit. Yes, and declare publicly from
• 20:09
  the pulpit that the current law of the land regarding abortion
• 20:12
  is immoral and unjust. Take a clear moral stand.
• 20:15
  Wow. OK, but it's not just about
• 20:17
  condemnation. No Crucially, pastors must also
• 20:20
  offer precious blood bought forgiveness and hope to all the
• 20:23
  women and men in the congregation who have
• 20:24
  experienced or encouraged abortion.
• 20:27
  There needs to be grace and restoration offered alongside
• 20:30
  the call for repentance. That balance is important.
• 20:33
  Anything else for pastors? The source mentions Piper's own
• 20:36
  example of engaging directly with those involved, like having
• 20:39
  lunch with an abortion provider, to try and persuade them.
• 20:42
  It suggests considering ways to engage and teach beyond the
• 20:46
  church walls, even highlighting those lethal inconsistencies
• 20:50
  like fetal surgery versus abortion, to challenge societal
• 20:54
  thinking. A multifaceted call for pastors.
• 20:57
  And what about the rest of the congregation?
• 20:59
  Individual Christians? What are they called to do?
• 21:01
  Piper outlines 5 specific actions for church members.
• 21:05
  First, submit to God and be visible Christians, meaning
• 21:08
  meaning live differently. Let God's grace shape your
• 21:11
  desires, not the world's pressures.
• 21:13
  And don't hide your faith. Be visible and audible witnesses
• 21:16
  to the joy found in following Christ.
• 21:18
  Let your life itself be a testament, OK?
• 21:21
  Live it out visibly. Second.
• 21:23
  Second. Pray earnestly.
• 21:25
  Pray specifically for spiritual awakening in the churches
• 21:28
  leading to evangelism and reformation.
• 21:30
  The idea is that revived hearts will naturally lead to action
• 21:33
  against injustice. Prayer is foundational. 3rd
• 21:36
  action. This one seemed quite vivid.
• 21:38
  Yes. Third, use imagination to see
• 21:41
  reality. Piper urges Christians to
• 21:44
  actively use your imagination to see what abortion really is and
• 21:48
  fight against societal numbness or stupor.
• 21:52
  He uses a strong comparison here, doesn't he?
• 21:54
  He does, comparing it to the blindness of many Germans during
• 21:57
  the Nazi era. Regarding atrocities like Dachau
• 22:00
  or Auschwitz, he suggests people act as if it isn't happening.
• 22:04
  That's. Provocative.
• 22:05
  It is. He even suggests if abortion
• 22:07
  procedures were graphically shown, public opinion would
• 22:09
  shift dramatically. It's a call not to look away
• 22:12
  from the reality, however unpleasant.
• 22:14
  Okay. 4th point of action. It seems more practical.
• 22:17
  Very practical 4th. Support alternatives to
• 22:20
  abortion. Give money and time and prayers
• 22:22
  to crisis pregnancy centers. Champion and support adoption
• 22:25
  within the church. Fan the flames of its spread.
• 22:28
  Even create new pro-life ministries.
• 22:31
  Be proactive in providing solutions.
• 22:33
  Exactly. Become dreamers and
• 22:34
  entrepreneurs for justice, Finding tangible ways to help
• 22:38
  women choose life and support them and their children, or
• 22:40
  support adoptive families. And the 5th and final action.
• 22:43
  5th Use democratic privileges. Use your rights to free speech,
• 22:48
  representation and demonstration to press for legal protection
• 22:53
  for the unborn. So political and civic
• 22:55
  engagement is part of it. Yes, he brings back the Dred
• 22:58
  Scott analogy here, arguing that just as perseverance led to
• 23:01
  overturning unjust laws about slavery, perseverance in prayer
• 23:05
  and piety and political action can work towards changing laws
• 23:09
  regarding abortion and building that consensus for life.
• 23:13
  So it's really a holistic, spiritual, personal, communal,
• 23:16
  practical and political action. That's right, a very
• 23:18
  comprehensive vision for how Christians from this perspective
• 23:21
  should respond. Well, this deep dive into John
• 23:23
  Piper's arguments, it certainly provides A detailed map of a
• 23:27
  specific, biblically rooted perspective against abortion.
• 23:30
  It connects the dots between science, law, and theology from
• 23:34
  within that Reformed framework. It definitely gives us a lot to
• 23:37
  think about regarding the history and the potential future
• 23:40
  of this ongoing conversation viewed through this particular
• 23:43
  lens. It really does.
• 23:45
  And I suppose it leaves us and you listening with a significant
• 23:49
  question, doesn't it? If we take these arguments
• 23:51
  seriously, considering everything we've unpacked from
• 23:54
  Piper's work, what would a society that truly values human
• 23:58
  life from conception actually look like?
• 24:01
  And maybe more personally, how might that understanding,
• 24:04
  whether you fully agree with Piper or not, shape our own
• 24:07
  actions, our own contributions, whatever our sphere of influence
• 24:10
  might be? A challenging thought for sure.
• 24:12
  Something to really reflect on. Definitely worth considering.
• 24:15
  A potent thought indeed. Thank you for joining us for
• 24:17
  this deep dive into this specific material.
• 24:20
  Until next time, keep exploring, keep learning, and keep
• 24:23
  thinking.