Brethren,
It is with the utmost humility that we inform you of a change of worship practices. Be assured that we bring about this change only after much prayer and study. We have recently concluded an in-depth study of the Law and have decided to bring about a change in the type of fire used in worship. We are aware that there is a standing tradition of using only one source of fire, but we, as priests, do not feel obligated to blindly follow tradition. Numerous polls indicate the overwhelming opinion that worshipers do not care where we get the fire. We are in agreement with the majority, as we cannot see how a change in fire will affect anything in the least about our sacrifices.
Besides all this, nowhere in the Law does the Lord forbid the use of what some detractors have referred to as “strange fire.” We feel that the lack of such a restriction was meant to give us freedom. Is there any place in the Law that tells us we cannot do something the Lord has not seen fit to condemn? Where are other fires explicitly condemned?
Also, Israel is the only religious group that limits itself to one kind of fire. We have become a laughingstock and have been ridiculed openly by many groups. We are in great danger of appearing distinctive. This self-righteous, “only-one-fire” policy has alienated us from everyone else. We believe this change will open up many fellowship opportunities.
Now, to set the minds of some of you at ease, we will continue to offer a traditional service using the old-fashioned fire as well as a progressive service with the new fire. This approach will also make it possible to appeal to a younger audience as we discover more entertaining ways to “light the fire” of our assemblies. For those who still oppose the use of new fire, we ask you not to be judgmental.
We also hope you will not use this change as an excuse to divide our people or stir up trouble. We remind you that this has been well thought out and the majority of priests have signed on with us. We are all very much looking forward to our first new fire service. God will be watching, and we anticipate that His joy over seeing His people take a great step toward throwing off the burden of binding tradition will be an electrifying experience. Our new contemporary worship service will no doubt make it easier for us to really be on fire for the Lord! See you there! We think this new practice is going to spread like wildfire. Please come and enjoy what we know will be an illuminating experience for all of us.
Your faithful priests,
Nadab & Abihu
A few days later…
Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. And Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD spoke, saying:
‘By those who come near Me
I must be regarded as holy;
And before all the people
I must be glorified.’”
So Aaron held his peace.
[Editor’s note: This “open letter” (with some minor changes) was written by David Brassfield for The Bridgewood Beacon. It captures well “liberal” thinking, and the author is accurate in his assessment.]
Originally, the title was going to be “Arguments for Abortion,” but then using such terminology both dignifies slogans and demeans the word argument. How many times has anyone ever heard anything that could possibly be construed as an intelligent argument in favor of abortion? Most of the time pro-life people spend a considerable amount of time showing the historical evidence against abortion, recounting the irrefutable medical evidence against it, or making the Biblical case, which absolutely closes the book on the subject for anyone who purports to be governed by the Word of God.
All of these above evidences are counteracted by some modern feminist who mouths one of the famous slogans that are used to defend abortion (five are presented below). These are mouthed as if they provided a real answer to the issue, but they only consist of a few words—inadequate ones at that. While slogans can be useful, they do not prove anything. Basically, they are being used by the pro-abortion side in place of a substantive, thought-provoking argument.
First of all, the pro-abortion group likes to refer to themselves as “pro-choice” (because it sounds better), but think about it. Who but they protests a woman giving birth? Women have been fulfilling this function since the beginning of the Earth. So what is the choice they really want? They champion abortion (the termination of a pregnancy); hence the legitimacy of calling them pro-abortion. They have five favorite slogans that they have adopted to persuade others to their deadly point of view.
1. “The decision should be left to a woman and her doctor.” This one is not used as much any more—and for a good reason. Did the doctor create the child? How is it that he has a stake in this decision? What about the husband, the boyfriend, or even a girl’s parents? What if the doctor is pro-life? Should she get another doctor? Simple slogans cannot deal with complex issues; perhaps that is the reason some of them are no longer being used.
2. “A woman ought to have the right to control her own body.” Bernard Nathanson (a former advocate of abortion rights) has made one of the best comments on this slogan, which are quoted by Rus Walton in his book, Biblical Solutions to Contemporary Problems: A Handbook:
I think everyone should control their own body…BUT we have very sound data which have demonstrated that the fetus is not part of a woman’s body. It is an unsound tenant—immunilogically distinct, biologically distinct…it is not in fact a part of a woman’s body (12).
Radio and television personality, Rush Limbaugh, counters the, “It’s my body,” slogan by pointing out that when it comes to prostitution, most communities do not think that a woman has a right to use her own body in that way (except in Nevada). He further argues that society does not allow women (or men, for that matter) to shoot up, snort, or in any other way ingest illegal drugs into their bodies. One critic thought that the answer to this point was that prostitution and drugs were illegal but abortion is legal. That is a difference, but abortion was illegal too until a court decision overrode the nation’s laws. Prostitution and drug use could be made legal, also. Therefore, whether laws are changed or not is essentially irrelevant. Society has recognized that those things currently or once outlawed are evil and constitute crimes.
Why were these laws on the books in the first place? They were not enacted merely to curb the freedom of individuals—but for their protection. Abortion terminates a life, and that is the reason it was illegal in the first place. Prostitution is bad for individuals and bad for society. The use of drugs leads to addiction and the destruction of society. Bill Bennett, the former drug czar, wrote:
The price that American society would have to pay for legalized drugs would be intolerably high; more drug-related accidents at work, on the highway, and in the airways; bigger losses in worker productivity; hospitals filled with drug emergencies; more students on drugs, meaning more dropouts; more pregnant women buying legal cocaine, meaning more abused babies in utero. Add to this the added cost of treatment, social welfare, and insurance, and welcome to the Brave New World, of drug legalization (The De-Valuing of America 118).
Likewise, why do all states but one forbid prostitution? The other 49 states have enough sense to know that prostitution is often connected with organized crime (or other unsavory elements) and that young women are often forced into it, having first been hooked on drugs. They also know that diseases are spread in this way despite the precautions that are taken and that prostitution devalues human beings as mere sexual objects.
Now, how are prostitution and drugs tied to abortion? They were all illegal at one time. Why was abortion illegal? The reason is that it kills a human being who is already in existence; furthermore, this human life is so helpless that it cannot defend or protect himself. Abortion, for many women, leads to great suffering and agony due to the guilt they experience. And it devalues human life.
Therefore, the issue is not just whether or not it is legal—but whether it is right. We frequently limit a person’s “right” to control his own body when it is deemed harmful to both oneself and to others.
Although Nathanson had the best argument that the baby is a separate entity, there are two more arguments to make against this slogan. The way the case is made on behalf of abortion, one would think that a woman became pregnant the way one catches a cold or the flu. She wakes up one morning and is surprised to discover that she is pregnant—as if the condition was not the natural result of engaging in sexual relations.
Although pregnancy may result without her consent (in a small percentage of cases), in 99% plus instances, she was a willing participant. If she consents to use her body in an immoral way, knowing that pregnancy could result (no contraception is foolproof), then she must be mature enough to live with the consequences of her decision and fulfill her role of birthing and nurturing the life she allowed to be created within her.
The Biblical response is that what has been created is a child. The being that exists both within the womb and after birth is referred to in the New Testament as a brephos, “a babe.” That same separate entity in the womb (Luke 1:41, 44) is designated the exact same way by the inspired writer after birth (Luke 2:12-16). There can be no question but what God regards the “fetus” as a human life.
3. “If men had to have babies, there would be a lot more abortions.” This slogan just ignores the facts and acts as if all women favor abortion while men oppose it. Many men, however, are pro-abortion, and probably the majority of women are pro-life. In his book, Aborting America, Dr. Bernard Nathanson wrote:
James Mohr’s historical book points out that the original nineteenth-century feminists were universally opposed to abortion, even after antisepsis had made it a safer procedure. They considered it yet another outrage that had been afflicted upon women by men who forced them to have abortions (189).
It makes sense. Historically, men are the ones who duck responsibility for their actions (their part in conception). How many women, assured by promises of eternal love and devotion in the heat of passion (“at this moment you mean everything” from the song, “C’mon, Eileen”), have discovered that eternity lasted only about as long as they could prove useful as a source of pleasure? What a convenience abortion is for males! A few hundred bucks for an abortion is a far better deal than child support for eighteen years and college tuition after that. And the woman? Her bargain is hearing useless slogans to try to assuage her guilt.
4. “An unwanted child may become abused.” Right! So kill him now instead? The same possibility that allows for abuse also opens the door to the fact that he may not be abused, either. What causes abuse? Was there no child abuse before abortion was legal? There was, and alcohol was behind a great deal of it. It might be the case that an unwanted child would be abused, but plenty of wanted children have suffered, also. Men inflict more injuries upon children than women. Sometimes it is the mother’s “boyfriend,” and sometimes she just neglects them, seeing them as a means of support for her. Regardless of all of the causes of abuse, the fact is: When did we begin eliminating people from society because of hardships they may face?
Should we also just kill victims of automobile accidents rather than have them endure the “hardship” of recovery? What did we do with servicemen who need prostheses in order to function? Should we spare them the process of rehabilitation? And what about those diagnosed with cancer? Should we spare them the hardships they will have to face? What kind of logic is it to say that babies should be killed because they may have to endure hardships?
5. “Without legal abortions, women will revert to illegal abortions,” symbolized by the coathanger. This is, of course, an assumption. If abortion were illegal again, then women would likely be considerably more careful regarding their behavior. Likely, the number of pregnancies would diminish. Generally speaking, people are only as cautious as they need to be. A safety net always encourages carelessness.
Second, adoption is still an option. Many couples would be delighted to have a baby; waiting lists still exist. Third, the coathanger is a fear tactic, representing something that existed to a far less extent than is currently reported. In his book, Bernard Nathanson commented:
Christopher Tietze estimated 1,000 maternal deaths as the outside possibility in an average year before legalization; the actual total was probably closer to 500 (151).
Is that an acceptable number? No, but each woman had the abortion, knowing that it was illegal and unsafe. However, if we compare 2,000 lives lost (the mothers and their babies) as opposed to 1,500,000 innocent babies being eradicated each year, which is the more compelling statistic? To ask the question is to answer it.
Seldom has a movement (pro-abortion) been kept alive so long through ignorance, slogans, and hysteria. The more people know about the child in the womb, the more they will protect him. Knowledge is clearly helpful as it pertains to this subject, and Christians should be willing to speak up with the facts. [Editor’s note: This article was written and published in the Columbia City Crusader for January 24, 1993; it has been amplified.]