For those unfamiliar with the situation, I would appreciate your reading this post first, both to clarify the issue and demonstrate the attitude with which I am discussing this (very public and influential) event.
I am grateful to the reader who notified me of a follow-up statement made by pastors Chuck Smith and Don Stewart, hosts of Pastors Perspective, released at the beginning of their show on Monday, Feb. 14th.
First, we can appreciate that Smith and Stewart recognized the need for a response. I am especially grateful they spoke directly (or at least over the airwaves) to "Nikki from Riverside" about receiving further counsel before deciding on an abortion.
However, one cannot help but feel sorely disappointed that neither men specifically retracted any of those statements which raised the original controversy, and which stand regardless of whatever medical jeopardy the woman may or may not have been in. The fact is that some of Smith's advice has no relation to the well-being of mothers. For instance,
However, one cannot help but feel sorely disappointed that neither men specifically retracted any of those statements which raised the original controversy, and which stand regardless of whatever medical jeopardy the woman may or may not have been in. The fact is that some of Smith's advice has no relation to the well-being of mothers. For instance,
“It’s awfully hard to actually suggest abortion,” said Smith. “But, you know, I’m sure that, uh, in a case like this where the life expectancy is just, you know, is so bleak, and all, that I’m sure that the Lord would not condemn her if she went ahead and had an abortion at this early stage of the development of the fetus.”
Here, at least, his implication seems clearly abstracted from the mother. Smith says, "where the life expectancy is... so bleak... at this early stage of development of the fetus," he is able somehow to, "actually suggest abortion."
The above statement was neither addressed or retracted in his broadcast on the 14th. Instead, both men stressed their belief that the mother's life might have been in danger (which may or may not have been so, and is besides the point to the implications of what was actually said in the first call). Neither did they acknowledge the indiscretion of handling such a call on live air, or of their poor communication on the matter (if in fact Smith does not believe we are excused to abort "bleak chance babies", which he has still not formally retracted). Instead, he spent a good while castigating those who voiced their concern out as being "false accusers" of the brethren and overly judgmental of his ministry. Such a response is exactly the opposite of what promotes accountability.
The above statement was neither addressed or retracted in his broadcast on the 14th. Instead, both men stressed their belief that the mother's life might have been in danger (which may or may not have been so, and is besides the point to the implications of what was actually said in the first call). Neither did they acknowledge the indiscretion of handling such a call on live air, or of their poor communication on the matter (if in fact Smith does not believe we are excused to abort "bleak chance babies", which he has still not formally retracted). Instead, he spent a good while castigating those who voiced their concern out as being "false accusers" of the brethren and overly judgmental of his ministry. Such a response is exactly the opposite of what promotes accountability.
False accusation is deplorable, but there was nothing false about the concern of the above quoted statement. Until Smith retracts it, there will be some question as to just how elastic Smith's–and by proxy, Calvary Chapel's–"extenuating circumstances" really extend. Is the destruction of "undeveloped fetuses" excusable when their "life expectancy is... bleak", as Smith said?
The sad fact is already one woman (who studied under Smith) has written to me saying this confirms her belief that we are justified to abort mis-developing children. Of course you and I know better than to base our beliefs regarding the interpretation of scripture on any one man's opinions, but the reality of Pastor Chuck's influence must be acknowledged lest the consequences prove to be literally fatal for others.
I'm interested to know your thoughts on this, please pardon me however for not publishing those comments publicly. I would like to avoid a flame war. If you are concerned please pray and consider speaking with your pastors. It is their duty to address such issues.
I'm interested to know your thoughts on this, please pardon me however for not publishing those comments publicly. I would like to avoid a flame war. If you are concerned please pray and consider speaking with your pastors. It is their duty to address such issues.
Again, my intention is not to stir unnecessary ire, but to promote an open statement of consensus on this issue in CC before there is opportunity for a quiet minority to gain ground in the wake of this devastating precedent.
God bless you,
~ Michael:.
God bless you,
~ Michael:.
Was this helpful to you? Please share. Thanks!
© Michael Spotts:. 2011
———————
You are permitted to reproduce and distribute this article in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and that you do not charge any fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For printed copies, as well as web posting, please include the following statement:
By M. Benjamin Spotts:.
Copyright © The Open Life
www.theopenlife.com
Titus 3:3-8
© Michael Spotts:. 2011
———————
You are permitted to reproduce and distribute this article in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and that you do not charge any fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For printed copies, as well as web posting, please include the following statement:
By M. Benjamin Spotts:.
Copyright © The Open Life
www.theopenlife.com
Titus 3:3-8
0 comments:
Post a Comment