First: Ewan is entirely correct to point out that abortion was banned, and had been so for centuries (it being mentioned specifically in the Hippocratic oath) until the agitations of Bertram Wainer in the late 1960s, and the so-called “Menhennit ruling” of 1968, opened the floodgates to what we see now. Not that Menhennit had any real clue of the consequences of his ruling, since very few if any of the 90,000+ abortions in Australia each year are performed for the reasons he allowed. But give godless people an inch, and they’ll take a mile.

Second: I introduced the imago Dei argument precisely because many erstwhile Christians both in the early 1970s and at present are confused on the issue. The humanist arguments have penetrated their minds and as a result they will parrot the humanist line.The church was ‘caught on the hop’ in the 1960s (I remember it well), and even those churches who would claim to be Biblically faithful remain confused, and have been fighting a rearguard action to the present hour. I have even read evangelical books (e.g. Norman Geisler) which allowed for abortion on fairly liberal grounds.

Third: I support the use of rational, ‘natural’ arguments as support (N.B.) for Biblical ones, but that is all they are – support. By contrast, I fear that there is too much reticence to use and cite Scripture. Why so? Perhaps fear of atheist belligerence, or ridicule for using the “outmoded” ancient book. Whatever, do we believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, or don’t we? Dare we assert that the “sword of the Spirit” is inadequate in our secular world? That we must only fight them on their own grounds? I detect in several of the posts above a lack of confidence in God’s Word, which we are told is “sharper than any two-edged sword”. No, I am told, we must lower our standards to those of the world. I say with Spurgeon, who declared that he would never “defend the Bible”, for, he said, “God’s Word is like a caged lion. Just open the cage door and let him out. He’ll do his own defending”!

Murray Adamthwaite

To repeat again:

I’ve not said secular arguments against abortion should not be used. Where the ground is conceded is when Christians think biblical arguments have no place in a so-called ‘secular’ setting.

I’ve nowhere said that we should be “quoting Bible verses”. Not that there is anything wrong with this but my own preference is to do exactly as Damien suggests. That is to use philosophical reasoning to defend the Christian worldview rather than to quote Bible versus.

Ewan McDonald.

As is clear from the concluding remarks of my previous comment, I most certainly do support the use of so-called ‘secular’ arguments against abortion. My point is that it is a mistake for Christians to think that just because their opponents don’t believe the Bible then that makes all so-called religious arguments invalid or useless.

Matthew says that if Christian arguments “were enough to convince our politicians, abortion would have been banned years ago.” The reality is that abortion was banned years ago. It is because the church abandoned its role as salt and light that enabled abortion to be ‘un-banned’ in the first place. Christian influence has been lost from our parliaments not because the Christian worldview failed, but because it has been abandoned. And tragically it was abandoned first by the church.

The thinking that Christians shouldn’t use biblical arguments against their ‘secular’ counterparts has its roots in the fallacious concept of Christian dualism that says, among other unhelpful things, that religion and politics shouldn’t mix. Christians need to reject this unbiblical idea and start defending their worldview once more.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

Cheers

Damien Spillane

“What Matthew and others are really doing when they say that Christians should limit themselves to only using ’secular’ arguments when debating with ’secular’ people, is conceding ground to the secularists. It is to say “we abandon Christianity as a credible worldview and concede that your ’secular’ worldview is true so we will confine ourselves to arguing on your terms.” The culture-wars, of which abortion is part, is really just a battle of competing worldviews, so I don’t see how giving up our Christian worldview is going to help us win in long run.”

So the argument goes like this

1. Matthew advocates using secular arguments against abortion.

2. Therefore Matthew concedes ground to the secularists and admits that this worldview is true.

I’m sorry but this doesn’t follow. One can use philosophical arguments against abortion (isn’t this what George and others like Francis Beckwith have done?) with out conceding ground to the secularist. One can use philosophical reasoning within the purview of the Biblical worldview without actually quoting it. I would suggest this is a far more reasonable way of engagement in the public square than quoting Bible verses.

The Bible needs to be argued FOR in the public square and not argued FROM. This is because society is so dismissive of the credibility of the Bible today.

Damien Spillane

Not once do we read of Esther providing a non-secular argument to persuade the King and yet she had a hugely dramatic effect.

Or think of a more modern example. Barnes Wallis, a Christian was an aircraft designer and he wanted to work out a way to shorten WWII as this would save many lives. He ended up coming up with the now famous Dam Buster bomb and two kinds of ‘earthquake bomb’, the Tallboy and the Grand Slam. I highly doubt he would have gone around trying to convince people to produce the bombs by saying that he felt God wanted him to make the bomb to shorten the war. But when he was rewarded for his work, he spent it on the education of children of RAF people who died in the war giving a Christian example to support his views (David not accepting water from well obtained by men who risked their lives).

There is definitely a place for using secular arguments, although we should never lose sight of our Christian motivation. It’s easy enough to explain personal choices through Christian reasons, but when you want non-Christians to share your opposition to things such as abortion, secular arguments come in useful.

Matthew Mulvaney

I understand your argument and I agree that we should never be ashamed to make a defense using the Bible, but even the apostle Paul understood that people of different beliefs required different approaches in his ministry. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 comes to my mind in this case. I realize that this scripture is focused mostly on preaching the Gospel but it can apply here as well.

It’s good to be well versed in both Biblical and secular arguments so that we may effective when conversing with those who may not be religious. I’ve found that those who aren’t religious close their minds when you use religious arguments.

Victoria Demona

I believe the world will never fully live up to God’s standards until Jesus enforces them, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what we can now to try and help our nation live up to as much of God’s standards as possible. Revival would be great, but if we just sit around waiting and hoping for one, we may as well just give up the fight now against abortion as impossible.

If the secular book helps save just one innocent child it’s worthwhile.

Matthew Mulvaney