1. Free to Change
2. Freedom and Responsibility
3. My Kind of People
4. "Come Out And Be Separate"
5. Private Intepretation
6. A "Monkey-Wrench" Scripture
7. The Truth That Frees
8. Literary Devices
9. Fear of God
10. A Love Story
11. The Three Trees In Eden
12. Imputed Righteousness
13. Different Essentials For Different People
14. God's Sons In All Ages
15. Looking To Lust
16. Divorce Her!
17. "While Her Husband Is Alive"
18. "They Won't Let Me Preach!"
19. God's Perplexing Prophets
20. Religous Titles
21. Who Sinned?
22. "I'll Join Your Church"
23. The Church As The Route To Heaven
24. One Hundred Years Old
25. Can Our Churches Unite?
26. Can The Cause Of Sickness Be The Cure?
27. When Life Begins
28. Abortion: Law Or Principle?
29. Human Chattel
30. The Hope of Israel
31. The Great Temptation of Jesus
32. The Rich Man And Lazarus
33. My Hermeneutic
34. Is Immersion Proved By Example?
35. Who Gets The Credit?
36. Hook's Points
37. Heresy
38. I Am A Debtor

Other Books at Freedom's Ring

When we see a green light at an intersection, we perceive it as a representation of the law saying, "You may go." In the red light we see the law commanding, "Stop!". Generally, the green light may be understood to be a positive yes and the red light may be interpreted as a dogmatic no; yet those lights actually are intended to promote the higher purposes of safety, orderliness, and courtesy in all situations.

The rules may be bent in many ways to accomplish the purpose of the law. For instance, the liberty of the green light is surrendered and its demand to proceed is ignored when a child dashes out in front of you, and the red light is disregarded cautiously when you are rushing a victim of a heart attack to the hospital. The driver must be guided by the higher principle of the law at all times. We must look for more than just green and red lights.

It is easier to keep specific legal regulations than to make responsible decisions based upon the principles that laws are intended to promote. If our effort to keep arbitrary law hinders or prevents our acting upon the higher principles of justice, mercy, and love, then we have misunderstood the purpose of the precept and have acted as true legalists.

In making the hard choices relating to many of our complicated problems, the proper decision can best be made by asking and answering, "What is the most loving, just, and merciful alternative for those involved?" As I have elaborated on this concept before, especially as it relates to abortion and letting the terminally ill person die with dignity, several of my friends have expressed concern about the teaching. Let me add a few thoughts about law and principle as they apply to those two matters of great concern.

Legalism demands dogmatic answers___a yes or a no without qualification. If I declare dogmatically that all abortion is sinful (Red! Stop!), I leave no place for justice, mercy, or love to be applied. Law and grace are not compatible. If I say, "Abortion is a sin except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother (or any other exception)," then I abandon unbending law and I favor abortion in certain situations where higher principles prevail. Law allows no exceptions, but in applying principles, circumstances alter cases. Where law says no, principles may say usually not.

The admission of any exceptions would eliminate law as the sole basis of my decision. Most of us are willing to let principles prevail in other matters that are less emotionally perceived than abortion is now. For instance, almost all of us agree that killing another human being is sinful except in defending our family or for some other noble purpose. In our legalistic conditioning, we have become inconsistent___dogmatic only on our current hangups. Our inherent sense of justice lets the principles of law prevail in other cases even as the scrupulous Jew would labor in lifting an unfortunate animal out of a well on the sabbath.

Law demands definite answers, but few problems have simple solutions. Efforts to bind dogmatic, simplified answers have often lacked in justice and mercy and have always proven to be divisive.

It is unfair to conclude that the application of principles rather than law would be a tool to use against the unborn, the terminally ill, or the helpless person in any circumstance.

No, abortion is not mentioned in the Bible; however, that does not mean that there are no principles set forth which would apply to it as well as to every other circumstance of life. The reference in Exodus 21:22f addresses involuntary miscarriages. There is as much difference in bringing forth by abortion and miscarriage as there is between dying of murder and cancer.

When does life begin? Rather, when did life begin? All human life began in Adam. Conception and birth only continue that life. Each sperm and each ovary are alive. When they unite, they begin a new individual body but not new life. When does a new personhood begin? I do not make a dogmatic pronouncement for none is given in the Scriptures. God knew David in the womb but he also spoke of John the Baptist centuries before his coming. Does that mean that John existed as a person in the time of the prophets who foretold his coming?

Again, I do not have all the simplified answers, so I try to discern the highest principles with which to consider each case. That course is not as easy as giving an inflexible, merciless "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not."

I choose to answer to God for showing mercy rather than for giving judgments of law, "For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13).