PREACHING ON THE SANCTITY OF LIFE
A Paper
Submitted to the Baptist Center for Expository Preaching
of
The Baptist College of Florida
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Mission Objective
to Supply Preaching Resources
to the Students and Friends of the College
Edwin E. Scott
B.A., Baptist Bible College, 1980
M.Div., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1984
Th.D., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989
June, 2010
CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................................
1
The Scope and Variety of the Issue ............................................................................................
2
Preaching on the Sanctity of Life................................................................................................
5
Common Characteristics for Preaching on the Sanctity of Life ............................................
6
Specific Topics for Preaching on the Sanctity of Life ........................................................... 13
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 17
Appendix: Sample Sanctity of Life Sermon ............................................................................... 18
WORKS CITED ......................................................................................................................... 22
iii
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to suggest an approach for preaching on the issue of the
sanctity of life. The approach suggested will seek to encompass the multiple manifestations of
this issue, not just the higher profile question of abortion. The approach will be biblically based,
and will seek to be an effective approach in the contemporary congregational setting, one that
may often include persons with direct experience in that higher profile question of abortion.
While the paper emphasizes the delivery of the message for the contemporary audience, it
should also be stated that a lack of respect for the sanctity of life is not a new development in
society. The modern expression of the issue is certainly troubling, but the issue has commonly
cited ancient antecedents. The perennial villains of the Old Testament era, the Assyrians,
bragged about their lack of respect for human life. Their bragging was most likely a vehicle for
increasing the anxiety of their opponents, but it was also based in fact. A modern translation of
one of Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions reads:
I captured many troops alive. I cut off the arms and hands of some; I cut off the
noses, ears, and extremities of others. I gouged out the eyes of many troops. I
made one pile of the living and one of the heads. I hung their heads on trees
around the city. I burnt their adolescent boys and girls.1
While the obvious barbarity of the Assyrians is not paralleled, the statistical portrait of a cultural
mindset without a respect for life in the modern world leads one to ask if civilization has made
any progress at all in the years since the Assyrians.
1
Paul Lawrence, The IVP Atlas of Bible History (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 87.
1
2
For example, the Guttmacher Institute, a partner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of
America, has suggested in a positive fashion that half of all American women will experience an
unintended pregnancy by age 45 and that about one-third of those women will choose wisely to
have an abortion.2 A recent study by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the
Southern Baptist Convention confirms that estimate, but also suggests that the rate of abortions
may be falling.3 Even if the rate is falling, the statistics are still disturbing.
The Scope and Variety of the Issue
The issue of the sanctity of life is not limited to the single dilemma of abortion, but is
also expressed in a whole range of social concerns such as euthanasia, capital punishment,
violent crime, and the weakening respect for life seen in modern entertainment. It is in that final
category of entertainment that the evidence may be more difficult to specify and analyze, and
thus may seem somewhat more anecdotal, but it can be clearly seen in the commonality of
violent images on television and in the movies, as well as in the commonality of their exposure
to underage viewers. Taken together, all of these issues combine to create what Charles Colson
has called a “culture of death.”4
“Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States,” The Guttmacher Institute, July 2008, web page;
available from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html; Internet; accessed 25 April 2010.
2
Dwayne Hastings, “Abortion Statistics,” The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern
Baptist Convention, December 2009, web page; available from http://erlc.com/article/abortion-statistics-IAAG/;
Internet; accessed 28 April 2010.The study by the ERLC expressed the Guttmacher statistics in a somewhat more
dramatic way by comparing the estimated number of abortions performed annually in the United States to the
estimated number of annual conceptions and births. The analysis stated that the average number of abortions for the
period 1973-2004 was 27% of the total babies conceived. It is gratifying to notice that the same report also noted a
decline in this percentage for the period 1994-2004. In 2004, the percentage of abortions in relation to all babies
conceived had fallen to just less than 24%.
3
Charles Colson, “Abortion and the Threat to Civil Order,” in Proclaiming the Pro-Life Message: Christian
Leaders Address the Abortion Issue, ed. Larry L. Lewis (Hannibal, Missouri: Hannibal Books, 1997), 7.
4
3
How has this “culture of death” been expressed? In terms of the abortion issue, the
outstanding negative characteristic is the motivation for choosing an abortion. Far from the
public outcries commonly made by pro-choice representatives for the safety and health of the
mother as well as the protection of the victim of rape or incest, the currently cited reasons for
choosing an abortion focus on the inconvenience of the pregnancy. Even the Guttmacher
Institute confirms that the majority of women choosing abortion cite issues of convenience as the
primary factor. To be fair to the Guttmacher Institute, the statement below is quoted in full:
The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of
the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite
concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot
afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work,
school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be
single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.5
The Institute concluded that family planning clinics have “helped women prevent 20 million
unintended pregnancies during the last 20 years.”6 According to Charles Colson, the 1992
decision of the United States Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (a follow-up case
to the better known Roe v. Wade) gave this convenience based choice the same status as a
religious choice.7 The follow-up case, in effect, enshrined abortion as an undeniable
convenience. In one sense, that decision was inevitable because society had already largely
given up on the sanctity of life in the womb. Jimmy Draper reported that the July 1983 issue of
Pediatrics Magazine had already made the following statement in the lead editorial: “We can no
longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation, made in the
5
“Facts on Induced Abortions in the United States.”
6
Ibid.
7
Lewis, 8.
4
image of God, and singled out from all other animals and alone possessing an immortal soul.”8
That editorial was written by noted utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer. In a separate article,
Singer later commented on the future of the sanctity of life in relation to abortion by saying:
During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will
collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic
developments. By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing
religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from
conception to death, is sacrosanct.9
Another way in which the sanctity of life issue has been expressed is found in the
chronological opposite of abortion: the euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide question.
While this particular manifestation has not yet reached nation-wide legalized status in the United
States, the issue is at least being discussed. In some cases, it is even being embraced illegally.
Referring to doctors and nurses who secretly euthanize the weakest and most helpless patients in
their care, Wesley Smith has suggested that society is developing a “culture of death angels.”10
Smith’s thesis is that such death-angel behavior proves that the impulse for physician-assisted
suicide will ultimately lead to non-voluntary euthanasia. Any suggestion, therefore, that this
issue may be neatly categorized and standardized as an act of compassion for the desperately ill
is misguided.
As previously stated, the entertainment arena certainly reflects and in some ways may
even initiate cultural changes, but the impact is best seen over the long term, where the direction
of changes in the cultural mindset becomes clear. The shock at a single curse-word in the classic
James T. Draper, “The Death of America,” in Proclaiming the Pro-Life Message: Christian Leaders
Address the Abortion Issue, ed. Larry L. Lewis (Hannibal, Missouri: Hannibal Books, 1997), 23.
8
Peter Singer, “The Sanctity of Life,” September 2005, web page; available from
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200509--.html; Internet; accessed 26 April 26 2010.
9
Wesley Smith, “The Culture of Death Angels,” web page; available from
http://www.euthanasia.com/deatha.html; Internet; accessed 26 April 26 2010.
10
5
1939 film, Gone with the Wind, pales in significance to the plethora of language and violence
found in modern films, and it seems that the audience’s thirst for such films continues to grow.
The well-known Friday the Thirteenth horror series had its ninth sequel, Jason X, in 2001. Such
films are apparently desired to be as bloody as possible. According to the Internet Movie
Database, the early version of Halloween 4 (an installment in another violent series of films) was
deemed to be too “soft,” and so a special effects expert was secured for an extra day of “blood
filming.”11 David Chagall has noted that extremes in language and violence are now so
commonplace in entertainment that they seem to be a part of acceptable thinking.12 It seems
logical to suggest that even such imaginary violations of the sanctity of life in entertainment are
reflective of, or are actually leading to, an erosion of the sanctity of life in the real world.
Preaching on the Sanctity of Life
Having briefly surveyed the scope and problematic variety of issues related to the
sanctity of life, the primary issue at hand is to develop of strategy of proclamation for dealing
with this issue. A general orientation for preaching on this subject may well be found in Ken
Ham’s comment about the nature of all preaching in the contemporary age.13 Ham’s observation
concerns a contrast between the Day of Pentecost sermon preached by Peter in Acts 2 and the
Mars Hill sermon preached by Paul in Acts 17. When Peter preached to the Pentecost audience,
he preached to people of the Jewish faith, who believed in the inspiration of Scripture as well as
moral absolutes. When Paul preached to the Athenian audience, however, he preached to people
“Trivia for Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers,” The Internet Movie Database, web page;
available from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095271/trivia; Internet; accessed 29 April 29 2010.
11
12
David Chagall, Surviving the Media Jungle (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996), 54.
Ken Ham, Why Won’t They Listen? The Power of Creation Evangelism (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master
Books, 2002), 39-56.
13
6
of a polytheistic faith, who did not know the Old Testament or the New Testament proclamation
and who may not have had strong belief in any moral absolutes. According to Ham,
contemporary preachers are more in Paul’s position than in Peter’s position.
In other words, contemporary proclamation generally takes place in the context of Paul’s
predicament: how to preach to people who do not have common ground with the preacher.14 If
this is the case, then a beginning philosophy for dealing with the issue of the sanctity of life in a
contemporary church audience will be similar to dealing with any subject in which the preacher
and the audience do not share the common ground of a commitment to an inspired Scripture, the
sovereignty of God, and an acceptance of moral and spiritual absolutes.
Common Characteristics for Preaching on the Sanctity of Life
A first and more general common characteristic for preaching to such alien audiences on
any number of topics would be to heed the valuable advice of Charles Swindoll and avoid being
“preachy.”15 What Swindoll means by that comment becomes clear in the context of his writing:
be loyal to the Bible’s clear teaching and timeless principles related to a given subject; be direct
about how man has ignored the clear teaching of the Bible; but do both without being arrogant,
harsh or judgmental.
Adam Hamilton has suggested that this goal of being firm but fair in preaching on
controversial issues can be accomplished, but not without planning to influence people rather
than simply announcing your position in the mode of traditional prophetic preaching:
Ramesh Richard, “Developing Topical Evangelistic Sermons That Are Audience-Driven,” Preaching:
The Professional Journal for Preachers 21, no. 3 (November-December 2005), 38-41. Noted homiletics professor,
Ramesh Richard, has drawn the same conclusion as Ken Ham, but in particular reference to evangelistic sermons.
He suggested that while a shared worldview allows the preacher to make the text a source in most preaching, the
lack of a shared worldview often requires an audience based topic as a vehicle for preaching an evangelistic sermon.
14
15
Charles Swindoll, Sanctity of Life: The Inescapable Issue (Dallas: Words Publishing, 1990), 7.
7
More recently I have watched pastors, who were quite proud of their “prophetic
ministry,” drive churches right into the ground. Or, if they did not drive the
church into the ground, they succeeded in driving away everyone who disagreed
with them, attracting only the like-minded to their church. What they did not
manage to do, unfortunately, was to actually influence anyone to change.16
Rather than simply being proud of one’s position, Hamilton suggested the adoption of the
methods of forensic science, which considers all possibilities before drawing a conclusion.
When preaching on controversial issues, therefore, Hamilton suggested the following five
techniques:
1. Show respect for all participants in the debate, as well as their positions.
2. Study all sides and be prepared to argue for or against any position.
3. In the sermon, first make the case for the position you will not ultimately
choose. Make it as strongly as possible. Those who hold that position will be
more likely to hear your side if they feel you understand theirs.
4. Make the case for the side you hold. Make it biblical, but also admit the
weaknesses of your argument.
5. Be willing to change and grow during the study process, just as you expect
your listeners to change after hearing your message.17
And while such a methodology will not guarantee universal agreement with the preacher, it is in
keeping with Colson’s idea of avoiding the “preachy” sermon.
A corollary of avoiding being “preachy” would be to emphasize hope and restoration. To
identify the wrong of some action is certainly important, but it is equally if not more important to
identify the restoration available in Christ. The advice of Sam Serio is helpful at this point even
if the target subject differs. In giving instructions about preaching on sensitive sexual subjects,
Serio said:
Never preach against any sexual behavior without equally sharing the wonderful
hope, grace, mercy, pardon, and victory available for those who are in Christ
Jesus. Always be aware that whichever sexual sin you preach about was probably
done by people who are hearing your sermon. Did they hear any message of hope
16
Adam Hamilton, “Opening Closed Minds,” Leadership XXV, no. 2 (Spring 2004): 37.
17
Hamilton, 38.
8
from you? As a preacher and pastor who is delicately dealing with such difficult
topics, your main goal is to help your people get past the hiding of their sexual
suffering or sin.18
A second common characteristic for preaching to such alien audiences on this or other
topics would be to know one’s audience. The late Keith Willhite may not have been the first
scholar to discuss this subject, but he was immensely helpful in his emphasis on this part of
audience analysis and his coining of the suggestion that the preacher “look from the pew’s
perspective.”19 Another way to state this would be to say that contemporary preachers need to
develop a sensitivity to the secular identity and nature of their audience. Bill Hybels has
suggested that speaking to modern secular audiences requires two critical steps: understanding
the way the secular audience thinks, and communicating to the secular audience that they are
liked. Hybels is concerned that many faithful preachers and churches artificially distance
themselves from unbelievers by failing to demonstrate any level of understanding or
compassion.20
Willhite’s contention is that while only God ultimately determines whether or not a
sermon is relevant, it is the listener who determines what can be called the temporal or
immediate relevancy of a sermon. Therefore, the preacher must give attention to knowing his
audience, even though he is mostly interested in the biblical message, its literary genre, and its
historical-critical context.21 In other words, he must break out of the certainty of the preacher’s
Sam Serio, “Sensitive Preaching on Sexual Topics,” Preaching: The Professional Journal for Preachers
21, no. 2 (September-October 2005): 28
18
19
Keith Willhite, Preaching with Relevance (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001), 21.
20
Bill Hybels, Stuart Briscoe, and Haddon Robinson, Mastering Contemporary Preaching (Portland:
Multnomah, 1989), 29-30.
21
Willhite, 22-23.
9
world and understand the unsure and potentially confused thinking of the listener’s world, and do
that with compassion.
According to Willhite, such an analysis occurs with a study of and an awareness of one’s
congregation at multiple levels: cultural opinion (the kind found in national polling), local
opinion (the kind found in local and regional databases), particular opinion (the kind found in
congregational surveys and in congregational conversations), and personal opinion (the kind
discovered in pastoral experiences with the congregation and in praying for the congregation).
Willhite suggested that the eventual outcome of this process would be a better understanding of
how people think that would inform and improve preaching. The vehicle for this improvement
in preaching could function either formally or informally. Informally, the preacher can visualize
where various people might regularly sit in the sanctuary on any given Sunday and then pray
intentionally for them. Formally, the preacher could write a planning grid for sermon
application. In either case, the preacher is analyzing his congregation and can then adapt his
delivery, style, or approach appropriately.
Willhite suggested that this analysis cover theological issues (what percentage of the
audience is regenerate or unregenerate), psychological issues (paradigms, values, emotional
processes of the audience), demographic issues (age, gender, income level, race, type of
employment, political opinion), and “purpose-oriented” issues (previous congregational
feedback, unresolved tensions in the congregation, hostility of the audience to previous
messages). 22 In other words, the preacher should know his audience as thoroughly as he can,
and he should adapt his style of communication to that knowledge. Just to be clear, it should be
repeated that Willhite has suggested an adaptation of style (dress, language, type of sermonic
22
Willhite, 26-33.
10
argument, arrangement of sermon material, illustrations), not an adaptation or change of the
essential Christian message.23
A similar argument has been made by David Henderson, who confessed that
contemporary preachers who desire to influence secular audiences must work diligently to
achieve a proper balance between the authority of the text and the real and felt needs of the
audience. Henderson suggested that the difficulty in achieving this balance occurs when
traditional preachers put a higher concern on the message than they do the needs of the audience.
Similarly, contemporary preachers also err when they give more concern to the needs of the
audience than they do to the authoritative text of Scripture. The former is a failure to translate
the text into the modern situation; the latter is accommodation:
There’s a fine line here. It is important to begin where our audiences are. It is a
fundamental communication principle: begin where people are, not where you
wish they were. Our words should intersect with the issues and concerns of their
daily lives. Only then is it possible for our hearers to get a sense of the functional
relevance of the Bible. As Haddon Robinson has said, we need to preach our
audience from the text, not the text to the audience. But this is key. While we
need to start with the pressing issues of our hearers, we cannot stay there. We
must move on from a person’s experience to God’s view of the issue, and then set
that in the frame of God’s larger purposes.24
What Willhite and Henderson have argued for can amount to a paradigm shift in
preaching away from traditional expository preaching or at least from the more stringent
methods of traditional expository preaching. It might be better to say that Willhite and
Henderson argued for a paradigm shift from the methods of unthinking or overly-bound
traditional expository preaching:
23
Willhite, 31.
David W. Henderson, Culture Shift: Communicating God’s Truth to Our Changing World (Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1998), 25-30.
24
11
The preacher must relate the Scriptures to people who face diverse situations and
needs. Unfortunately much of expository preaching is merely pedantic
explanation, almost to the extreme of being an oral commentary. Many
expositors, attempting to communicate the biblical text faithfully, fail to
demonstrate its relevance to their listeners. This is lamentable, for nothing is
more relevant for human beings than the revealed Word of the living God.
Scripture does not need “to be made relevant”; it is already relevant. Often,
however, that relevance must be demonstrated rather than assumed evident to the
audience.25
It is expected that this questioning of traditional methods will meet resistance, particularly from
those who equate the form of preaching with the message of the sermon. Preachers, however,
would do well to be reminded of two important definitions of expository preaching that refute
the equivalence of form and content. Haddon Robinson has defined expository preaching
without reference to form:
Expository preaching is the communication of a biblical concept, derived from
and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, and literary study of a passage
in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience
of the preacher, then through the preacher, applies to the hearers.26
John R. W. Stott has gone even a step further, defining expository preaching as specifically not
related to form:
It is my contention that all true Christian preaching is expository preaching. Of
course if by an ‘expository’ sermon is meant a verse-by-verse explanation of a
lengthy passage of Scripture, then indeed it is only one possible way of preaching,
but this would be a misuse of the word. Properly speaking, ‘exposition’ has a
much broader meaning. It refers to the content of the sermon (biblical truth)
rather than its style (a running commentary).27
Keith Willhite, “Connecting with Your Congregation,” in Preaching to a Shifting Culture: 12
Perspectives on Communicating that Connects, ed. Scott M. Gibson (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 96.
25
26
Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages, 2nd
ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 21.
27
John R. W. Stott, Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), 125
12
It would seem clear, then, that the contemporary preacher must adapt his style of preaching and
the form of his message to the needs of his audience without, of course, deviating in any way
from the content of the biblical message. That is the goal of knowing one’s audience.
Willhite’s urging for the preacher to know the audience will almost certainly result in the
expectation that some in the audience have directly experienced the abortion issue. As
previously stated, such knowledge would reasonably demand a demonstrated level of
compassion in the pulpit. An excess of preaching against violations of the sanctity of life can
lead to an assumption on the part of church attendees that grace and forgiveness are ultimately
not available. In a surprising and disturbing testimony, noted Southern Baptist pastor and
evangelist, Ron Herrod, related how even he and his family were questioned and in some cases
rejected in the case of his daughter, who was raped, became pregnant, and chose to give birth
instead of having an abortion.28 At a time when they needed ministerial and congregational
families to support them, they discovered that they were alone in their journey through this
experience. So while the need to oppose violations of the sanctity of life is fundamentally
necessary, the granting of compassion for sinners and victims in the pulpit is an equally
fundamental necessity.
Ironically, a third common characteristic for preaching to the postmodern or alien
audience certainly is one based on form. While what Willhite called the “pedantic” sermon form
will be less helpful, it is also expected that the conversational, dialogical sermon will be more
helpful. Jeffrey Arthurs has affirmed the current assessment that Franklin Delano Roosevelt may
have been one of the first to recognize the value of a relaxed communication environment with
Ron Herrod, “Raped and Pregnant: A Testimony of Tragedy and Triumph” in Proclaiming the Pro-Life
Message: Christian Leaders Address the Abortion Issue, ed. Larry L. Lewis (Hannibal, Missouri: Hannibal Books,
1997), 69-75.
28
13
his “fireside chats.” In reference to modern church audiences, Arthurs stated, “Postmodernists
are socialized to value communication which is natural and modulated.”29 Arthurs explained that
in the age before quality sound amplification, public communication was necessarily “loud,” and
audiences were “socialized to value communication to be oratorical.”30 Modern communication,
however, should be more measured, thoughtful and intimate.
This has been the consistent argument of long-time preaching professor, Wayne McDill.
In his book, The Moment of Truth, McDill argued that the preferred form of sermon delivery
should be one which is free of artificial intrusions into style (otherwise known as “ministerial
tunes”). The preferred style is conversational. By that description, McDill does not mean
“chatty, light, or of little importance.”31 A conversational style is natural, personal, and even
dialogical.32 It would seem to be without question that a sermon on a difficult subject being
preached to a wary audience will be better received if delivered in McDill’s recommended style.
Specific Topics for Preaching on the Sanctity of Life
Preaching sermons related to the sanctity of life should be part of the preacher’s normal
fare. In other words, these sermons should not be reserved for special observance Sundays or
pro-life rallies. Instead, they should be part of his ongoing expository efforts to teach the
Scriptures. In that case, these sermons will be part of an overall strategy and style of preaching,
Jeffrey D. Arthurs, “The Postmodern Mind and Preaching,” in Preaching to a Shifting Culture: 12
Perspectives on Communicating that Connects, edited by Scott M. Gibson (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 194.
29
30
Ibid.
31
Wayne V. McDill, The Moment of Truth: A Guide to Effective Sermon Delivery (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 1999), 118.
32
Ibid.
14
and therefore will not be reserved as single-format “problem x is bad” sermons. What kind of
sermons, then, will be found in the contemporary strategy for preaching on the sanctity of life?
It would seem that the first kind of sermon should be one which identifies the power of
culture’s prevailing worldview. As a corollary, the determining power of one’s own personal
worldview could also be a significant sermon topic. Worldview sermons would be effective in
demonstrating the basis for human dignity in Christian thought, as well as demonstrating the loss
of human dignity in secular thought. The contemporary preacher would do well to become
informed about the specifics of prevailing secular worldviews that undermine the Christian idea
of the sanctity of life. Francis Schaeffer has identified this prevailing worldview as
“materialistic humanism.”33 By that, Schaeffer means that the prevailing worldview understands
the only true reality to be matter. Only matter exists. This means that the supernatural is denied.
Only the natural is real. Man, therefore, is not a unique creation of God, but rather is something
of a biological accident in the universe. And if man is nothing more than an accident, then the
loss of the weaker and less important members of the human race is not a tragedy; it can even be
an improvement. James Sire has identified this same worldview as “naturalism” in his classic
work on worldviews.34 The reference is again to the lack of the supernatural. Regardless of the
terminology used, if the often disguised negation of the importance of the human race in existing
worldviews can be shown to the modern audience, the impact of that revelation should greatly
assist their grasp of the idea of the sanctity of life.
33
Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Old Tappan, New
Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1979), 122.
34
James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Worldview Catalog, 4th ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 2004), 61.
15
A second kind of sermon in the overall strategy should be one which demonstrates the
Christian affirmation of moral absolutes. If society consistently follows the naturalistic or
materialistic course outlined above, the result will almost certainly be a lack of moral absolutes.
Francis Schaeffer characterized this lack of moral direction as the result of living in an
“impersonal” universe.35 The sense of the “impersonal” refers to the lack of a personal God in
the worldview of unbelievers. If all that truly exists in the universe is matter, then the universe is
ultimately impersonal and without moral guidance. The contemporary preacher may not be able
to overcome this vacuum of moral absolutes by simply pronouncing that moral absolutes do
exist, but he may be able to reach his audience by teaching moral absolutes patiently and
consistently. Jeffrey Arthurs has suggested that such patient and consistent teaching is crucial
for postmodern audiences:
Patient instruction in the Truth is crucial since a post-modern audience is
“igniostic”—lacking knowledge of God. The audience is likely composed of “a
diversity of listeners: people who constantly hear other voices and priorities,
seekers, children, believers, doubters, and cultured despisers. As a result of the
pluralism of our society, the preacher may never assume that the congregation has
already been converted.” We should not assume that our listeners, even if they
are baptized church members, fully understand and embrace the Christian
metanarrative; therefore, preachers should skillfully illustrate what they mean and
patiently demonstrate how they have reached their conclusions.36
A third kind of sermon in this overall strategy would be one which demonstrates the joy
and grandeur of life. Such sermons could originate in the creation story of Genesis or the
reflections on man from the Psalms. In either case, the strategy would be to demonstrate that life
is worth living and should be honored and defended for all.
35
Schaeffer and Koop, 136-139.
36
Arthurs, 191.
16
A fourth kind of sermon in this overall strategy would be one in support of outside
agencies or internal ministries who are involved in defending the sanctity of life. And while an
entire sermon may not be given to supporting such agencies, a pastoral affirmation of these
groups within a generic sanctity of life message can have great significance. Such mentions
could be for crisis-pregnancy centers which urge respect for life or for recovery groups for those
who have had abortions. It has often been said that Christian proclamation against the taking of
fetal life should be accompanied by measurable assistance to those struggling with the issue.
This is certainly correct, and is a helpful component of the overall strategy for speaking on this
issue. Secondarily, such sermons may also encourage Christians to volunteer their time in
service to these groups or to support them financially.
A fifth kind of sermon in the overall strategy would be a therapeutic sermon which
invokes the available forgiveness of God. As previously stated, it is entirely possible for those
who have failed in this issue to end up avoiding the church. If the pastor can effectively
communicate the love and forgiveness of God, then those who have sinned can be drawn back to
a Christian walk and to an effective church membership. This is true even and especially if they
have to deal with the ongoing consequences of sin. Charles Swindoll has suggested that such
messages teach the audience to make a full acknowledgement of the wrong that was done, repent
in a genuine fashion, claim the cleansing of God, and then refuse to allow Satan or anyone else to
hold them in bondage over this issue.37
It might seem elementary to mention, but a sixth and final kind of message in this overall
strategy should be the evangelistic sermon. The issue of the sanctity of life rises from the fact
that man is in rebellion against God. For all his accommodations to style, the contemporary
37
Swindoll,44-49.
17
preacher cannot cease to being people to the cross of Jesus. More people will respect and defend
life when more people have met and been transformed by the Son of God.
Conclusion
Defending the sanctity of life may be one of the most important tasks of the
contemporary preacher. The defense, therefore, should come from an intentional strategy of
preaching and pastoral ministry. The defense should be based on the presupposition that
contemporary preachers often preach to alien audiences, that is audiences who do not share a
firm commitment to inspired Scripture and moral absolutes. Consequently, the preacher should
give attention to that context and preach sermons which avoid being “preachy,” sermons which
are based on careful audience analysis, and sermons which are natural and conversational in
style.
These sermons will not be stand alone sermons, but will most often be an integral part of
the preacher’s expository program of preaching. The sanctity of life sermon can be referenced to
any of the issue’s contemporary manifestations, and can take the form of a worldview sermon, a
moral outlook sermon, a joy of life sermon, a sermon in support of a ministering group, a
therapeutic sermon, or even an evangelistic sermon. The issue of the sanctity of life is important
enough, and broad enough, that it need not and should not be relegated to the occasional special
emphasis sermon.
18
Appendix: Sample Sanctity of Life Sermon38
The Midwives of Exodus 1
Exodus 1:1-22
Most people have no idea of what all happens in a local church. There is so much that goes on
behind the scenes that no one, not even the pastor, can truly comprehend it all. There are people
who give sacrificially, giving more than reason dictates that they should, but their sacrifice is
often known only to God. Their sacrifice is unseen, in the background. There are people who
work sacrificially, doing more than reason dictates that they should, and often doing it out of the
public eye. There are people who pray sacrificially, caring more than reason dictates that they
should, and only God knows about the level of their dedication.
These people are largely unrewarded, at least in human terms. And often, that is just the way
they want it! They are not doing what they are doing because of any desire for recognition; they
work for God. They simply want to see good things happen in the name of Jesus Christ! And
even if they are not publically rewarded in a specific way, we ought to at least recognize that the
church as we know it would never accomplish all that it does without these largely unknown
givers, workers, and prayers.
In recognition of such folks, I want to spend a couple of Sunday mornings talking to you about
unsung heroes in the Bible. I want to remind you of these obscure stories in the Bible, and see
what they have to say to us. In these sermons, I want to remind you that God sees, and God
knows, and God blesses those who love Him and serve Him.
And I’m convinced that looking at such stories can be helpful. We seem to concentrate a little
harder when we don’t have the story already memorized. Sometimes, the unknown, lessertraveled story strikes a real chord. The first one is about two ladies named Shiprah and Puah.
It’s hard to know very much about Shiprah and Puah. Some scholars think they were Egyptian
midwives who were in charge of monitoring the Hebrew birthrate. If that is the case, then
Exodus 1 is a striking testimony to the presence of God in the world, because it tells us about two
Egyptian women who chose to disobey their own king for what they had felt in their hearts from
the God their own country did not acknowledge.
Other scholars think Shiprah and Puah were Hebrew midwives assigned to take care of their
own people and then report back to Pharaoh. If that is the case, then Exodus 1 remains a striking
story, because it tells us of two brave women whose very lives were subject to the whims of a
ruthless tyrant who did not care about their race, and yet they chose to risk everything in order to
be obedient to their faith, and to be a blessing to their people.
38
This sermon serves as both an example of a worldview sermon and as a sermon containing an affirmation
of a partnering ministry.
19
I think these two ladies were teenagers. I think that for two reasons. One reason comes from an
examination of what these two girls did that was somewhat questionable. You’ve probably
spotted it already: they lied.
They stretched the limits of honesty to do something good. Just like Rahab lied to the soldiers
who were chasing the spies. But it wasn’t bald-faced lying. Look at what they said in v19.
“Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are strong and give birth before the
midwives arrive.”
What they said was true—as far as it went. They implied that they could not fulfill Pharaoh’s
commands, but they never came right out and said they had decided to refuse to obey Pharaoh
and kill the male children. You could describe what they did in this way: “they commented on
what was true without giving all the details.” They evaded. They circumvented. Therefore, I
deduce they were teenagers!
Secondly, I think they were young because we are told in verse 21 that God blessed the
midwives, and gave them “families” of their own. God gave them “houses” or “households” of
their own. For that to be a blessing, it would have been something that they were without at the
time of the story.
So that makes the story truly striking, because it shows two young girls who had somehow risen
to leadership among the guild of the midwives, enough so that they represent the guild to
Pharaoh. And as young as they are, they become part of God’s plan. Never doubt that God can
use you.



If you are young, God can use you.
If you are facing a tough audience, God can use you.
If you are facing a desperate situation, God can use you.
But no matter whether they were Egyptian or Hebrew, young or old, ethically perfect or not,
there is one big thing we know about them. They feared God.
You’ve heard that expression before, but I want to what you think that means. What is the fear
of God and how is it expressed in our lives? In their lives we see a connection between the fear
of God and behavior.
1. Because they feared God, they saw life as God’s creation. And because life was God’s, they
did not allow a life to be wasted! Even though Pharaoh ordered the death of the males, they
realized this was wrong, and they went to work saving lives. They sided with God.
I hope you see the application. If we fear God, then we have to get involved in saving lives. For
one thing, this means we can’t pretend the abortion issue isn’t a critical one. We have to get
involved even if it won’t be popular. In The Marketing of Evil (2005), David Kupelian asked,
“How does crushing a baby’s skull and sucking out his brains become a ‘constitutional right’?
How does quoting the Bible become ‘hate speech’?”
20
We have a worldview crisis on our hands. In the early days of this country, we were theistic in
philosophy: we believed God created life. Now we are largely naturalistic: we believe there is
no God; that matter is all there is; that man is an accident of the universe and therefore not much
more than a complex biological machine. So it just doesn’t hurt the world if we remove some of
us.
I fear that the issue will eventually be more than just the right to choose. Now that fetal tissue
has become a medical asset, I believe Christians will ultimately be accused of being against
medical research because they don’t want to use fetal tissue. The early Christians were accused
of being atheists because they didn’t worship the Roman gods. In the same way, Christians who
have sacrificed to build hospitals and to care for the sick will be accused of being without
compassion. It is untrue, of course, but that is how it will be portrayed.
This problem will never be rectified by the government. It can only be changed by the church
getting involved and making a difference by supporting, cooperating with pro-life agencies, and
even sponsoring their own pro-life ministries, and doing that as a priority budget expenditure
because it sides with God. That is why I am happy to have Linda Faw as a member of our
church. Linda, in case you did not know, directs the Crisis Pregnancy Center here in town.
2. But look, the application is not just single-faceted. It is sometimes easy to get caught up in
big social issues and forget the ground-level issue of how we treat each other day to day.
Because these girls feared God, they made ways of escape. They saw a situation that was bad,
and they made it better. Verse 17 says they “let the boys live.” They brought relief. How do
you suppose that went down? Maybe the conversation went like this: the midwife whispers to
the fearful mother, “Keep the baby quiet as long as you can and get away from here. I’ll make
some excuse.” The mother’s only response was a hurried, “May the Lord bless you.”
When people fear God, they take on God’s pattern and heart. God always gets people involved
for good. You remember what Joseph told his brothers when he revealed himself to them in
Egypt, ”You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.”
When we find people in a tight spot, do we watch them squirm, or even turn up the heat, or do
we help them find a way out? Do we add pressure to the lives of people, or do we relieve
pressure? Do we make the lives of others harder or easier? If we really fear God, and are
making a serious attempt to take on His character, then we’ll work for easier lives for others.
We’ll treat them better. Fearing God and being pro-life isn’t just about the big causes, it is also
about loving the folks God has put into your life.
There is a frequent pairing of these two ideas of fearing God and helping others, especially in the
Old Testament.
 In Exodus 18, when Jethro tells Moses to delegate some of the work, Jethro tells Moses
to choose men who fear God, and who hate coveting. In other words, choose men who
will work in the best interest of others.
 In Leviticus 19, there is a part of the law that says to fear God and not curse the deaf. It
is never godly to make fun of or be frustrated by someone’s disability: physical,
21

emotional, or even social. If we fear God, we are to be patient and understanding with all
people.
In Leviticus 25, we are told to fear God and not oppress each other or take advantage of
each other. We’ve got so far to go here.
3. Because they feared God, they made permanent commitments to God. Their commitments to
God were not temporary. They chose to depend on the resources of God, and if those resources
did not save their lives, then they did not want their lives to be saved.
“What will we tell Pharaoh?” Puah may have asked Shiprah. “We’ll tell him we were late.”
“We’ll tell him that we were late 2000 times last month?” “Do you have a better idea?” “No, so
I hope God is listening?” He was!
We very seldom have to put ourselves in God’s hands like that, and we’re pretty happy that we
don’t. But if that time comes, can we live up to the testimony of two teenage girls? They sided
with God, took action, cared for people, and didn’t look back.
WORKS CITED
Arthurs, Jeffrey. “The Postmodern Mind and Preaching.” In Preaching to a Shifting Culture:
12 Perspectives on Communicating that Connects, edited by Scott M. Gibson, 177-198.
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.
Chagall, David. Surviving the Media Jungle. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996.
Colson, Charles. “Abortion and the Threat to Civil Order.” In Proclaiming the Pro-Life
Message: Christian Leaders Address the Abortion Issue, edited by Larry L. Lewis,
7-11. Hannibal, Missouri: Hannibal Books, 1997.
Draper, James T. “The Death of America.” In Proclaiming the Pro-Life
Message: Christian Leaders Address the Abortion Issue, edited by Larry L. Lewis,
20-29. Hannibal, Missouri: Hannibal Books, 1997.
The Guttmacher Institute. “Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States.” July 2008.
Web page. Available from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html.
Accessed 25 April 2010.
Ham, Ken. Why Won’t They Listen? The Power of Creation Evangelism. Green Forest,
Arkansas: Master Books, 2002.
Hamilton, Adam. “Opening Closed Minds.” Leadership XXV, no. 2 (Spring 2004): 37-41.
Hastings, Dwayne. “Abortion Statistics.” The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
of the Southern Baptist Convention. December 2009. Web page. Available from
http://erlc.com/article/abortion-statistics-IAAG/. Accessed 28 April 2010.
Henderson, David W. Culture Shift: Communicating God’s Truth to Our Changing World.
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Herrod, Ron. “Raped and Pregnant: A Testimony of Tragedy and Triumph. In Proclaiming the
Pro-Life Message: Christian Leaders Address the Abortion Issue, edited by Larry L.
Lewis, 69-75. Hannibal, Missouri: Hannibal Books, 1997.
Hybels, Bill, Stuart Briscoe, and Haddon Robinson. Mastering Contemporary Preaching.
Portland: Multnomah, 1989.
22
23
The Internet Movie Database. “Trivia for Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers.”
Web page. Available from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095271/trivia. Accessed 29
April 2010.
Lawrence, Paul. The IVP Atlas of Bible History. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006.
McDill, Wayne V. The Moment of Truth: A Guide to Effective Sermon Delivery. Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999.
Richard, Ramesh. “Developing Topical Evangelistic Sermons That Are Audience-Driven.”
Preaching: The Professional Journal for Preachers 21, no. 3 (November-December
2005): 38-41.
Robinson, Haddon. Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository
Messages. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
Schaeffer, Francis A. and C. Everett Koop. Whatever Happened to the Human Race. Old
Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1979.
Serio, Sam. “Sensitive Preaching on Sexual Topics.” Preaching: The Professional Journal
for Preachers 21, no 2 (September-October 2005): 24-28.
Singer, Peter. “The Sanctity of Life.” September 2005. Web page. Available from
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200509--.htm. Accessed 26 April 2010.
Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door: A Worldview Catalog. 4th ed. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Smith, Wesley. “The Culture of Death Angels.” Web page. Available from
http://www.euthanasia.com/deatha.html. Accessed 26 April 2010.
Stott, John R. W. Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.
Swindoll, Charles. Sanctity of Life: The Inescapable Issue. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1990.
Willhite, Keith. “Connecting with Your Congregation.” In Preaching to a Shifting Culture:
12 Perspectives on Communicating that Connects, edited by Scott M. Gibson, 95-111.
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.
Willhite, Keith. Preaching with Relevance. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001.