Let me begin this post by quoting a comment that I found that sums up the urgency of such a question. It was in response to (and in support of) Pastor Wade Burleson’s post on The Creation of the Soul, from a guy named Jim:
“So in the abortion debate, if a fetus is aborted that has a soul, that fetus is a human being and thus abortion is equivalent to murder. But if the fetus does not have a soul, then abortion is morally equivalent to killing a cow so that we can have some nice roast beef.”
As repulsive as that comment may sound, it hits at the very root of a theology that teaches that not all humans are “real human[s]” (which are the words that Burleson used to describe his beliefs on the ‘ensoulment’ of the unborn – ‘ensoulment’ meaning the manner and time in which they receive their soul). If you have no idea what I’m talking about, let me outline the debate real quick for you.
First, a word or two about Wade Burleson. I’ve never met the guy, but I like him. From following his blog, it seems that he’s interested in upholding God’s Word as Truth, and being a faithful pastor and husband among other things. In that sense, we need more men like Wade Burleson. So please, do not take this blog post as an attack on Wade, because it is not. Like us all however, he is not perfect – nor is his theology, and it is one point in his theology that I’m am whole-heartedly debating today.
The issue:
Many, if not most, evangelicals today would affirm that “life begins at conception”. Wade Burleson has recently disagreed however, saying that “God forms the soul within the prepared embryo at the time of His choice.” The statement looks harmless enough at first glance, but there is something deep behind those words that should make every pro-life Christian shudder.
Burleson argues that since God choses when to place a soul into an embryo, some embryos (such as those fertilized in fertility clinics, or those who have not yet implanted in the uterus) can be viewed as something less than “real human[s]” (again his words). The implications of devaluing what he deems as sub-human (devoid of a soul), are deafening here. As I commented on his blog:
“Denying God ensouled humanity to any person begotten of man, at ANY TIME in their life is not a right or privilege that mankind has been given – it is one that has been presumptuously usurped…
…Whether you understand or will admit it, you are endangering the very lives that you are claiming to protect. Once you undermine “real human” life at its earliest stages, as your theology will inevitably do, your personal pro-life stance becomes a moot point. All you are doing here is giving liberal theologians more fuel for their pro-choice fires.
It must be understood:
Conception does NOT give us a “child to be” – it gives us a complete child – worth protecting — because it is a real human, with a real soul, made in the real image of God.”
Like I commented elsewhere, we must realize that “the discussion of the ‘ensoulment’ of man is not “vain babble” or an exercise in philosophical rhetoric – but it is of paramount importance to how we view an entire spectrum of issues from humanity, sin, and death, to abortion and the sanctity of human life in general.”
When we begin creating time lines for when children become “real,” it may actually be us who lose our humanity…
‘BH
10 Comments
November 2, 2007 at 12:42 am
A friend of mine once decided (before I knew him) that he was going to pursue a Biblical study to see whether slavery could be consistent with Christianity, since it is mentioned by Paul.
Others asked him … Why? How is this going to bless anyone?
I think that the same principle applies here. We can try to parse and break it down, but why?
I read his post, and I’ll take it under advisement. I therefore amend my position to be, “Life begins when God breathes life into the matter — which is the simultaneous events of conception and the introduction of a soul.” For short, though, I’ll stick with “life begins at conception.” It fits on the bumper sticker better.
If a clone comes into existence, it had God’s consent to do so … He chose it.
I think you’re right, we’re losing an element of humanity by even considering this kind of thing.
November 2, 2007 at 11:44 am
Wickle-
Thanks for the input. You sum my thoughts on this pretty well when you said: “Life begins when God breathes life into the matter — which is the simultaneous events of conception and the introduction of a soul.”
Both sides of the debate can affirm this without undermining the ideal that the unborn are deserving of protection at all points during their formation.
Only when we impose an arbitrary timeline, without any Scriptural warrant, do we endanger the very life that God is knitting together in the womb.
As for your friend and his study on slavery, I would argue that the roles on this debate are flipped. Imagine your friend living in 1860 and undergoing a Biblical study in order to prove that slavery was inconsistent with Christianity (like the Abolitionists). The question of how it will bless someone is clear. He is arguing that slaves are indeed a part of humanity. The same goes here. The one minute old embryo is as “real [a] human” as the 6 month old child – and just as worthy of protection since it is made in the image of God.
‘BH
November 3, 2007 at 12:40 am
I appreciate your willingness to defend the sanctity of human life Hank and that is what you are doing because the Scripture never speaks of any person as being without a soul–so the burden of proof would be on Wade to prove that a soul is given at some other point than at conception when human life begins.
Wickle, in regards to the slavery issue, I have written a couple of articles addressing the issue in my blog–you may, in particular be interested in reading one titled “Slavery and the New Testament,” here is the link if you are interested: http://electexiles.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/slavery-and-the-new-testament/
November 3, 2007 at 12:46 am
I appreciate your willingness to defend the sanctity of human life Hank and that is what you are doing because the Scripture never speaks of any person as being without a soul–so the burden of proof would be on Wade to prove that a soul is given at some other point than at conception when human life begins.
Wickle, in regards to the slavery issue, I have written a couple of articles addressing the issue in my blog–you may, in particular be interested in reading one titled “Slavery and the New Testament,” here is the link if you are interested: http://electexiles.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/slavery-and-the-new-testament/
I think the fact that the New Testament writers (not just Paul, but Peter also) address the issue of slavery says something about the power of the gospel–that the gospel transcends human cultural barriers. The gospel levels the playing field–all are enslaved to sin and all who believe may equally receive Salvation in Christ.
I think there are two main reasons that the NT writers didn’t call for the abolition of slavery. This is getting long so if you are interested you can read the article, but I think that NT writers had good reason not to call for the abolition of slavery (it should also be noted that they never condoned slavery). I hope this helps!
November 3, 2007 at 12:51 am
Sorry about that I don’t know why the comment came up twice!
I also wrote a couple of articles addressing why it is significant that Peter and Paul address slaves in their epistles and how that should affect our lives today: The first is called “Winners Never Quit” and the other is my latest entry “No Little People, No Little Places.”
November 3, 2007 at 7:00 am
Whether or not the unborn child has a soul, the mother and the abortionist certainly do, and they are scarring those souls, tainting them with innocent blood. That alone should give them pause.
December 28, 2007 at 2:25 pm
[...] asks whether babies have souls. [...]
March 7, 2008 at 4:04 pm
[...] Read more about this topic from the author here. [...]
March 10, 2008 at 1:10 pm
[...] Research more about this from here [...]
December 21, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Each person has a spirit. unborn, living, and upon dying the spirit would then enter eternity heaven or hell. Well let me clarify the unborn knows no sin therefore if the mother’s pregnacy is terminated the child’s soul is immediately removed from the mother’s womb.By a natural powerful force lifted up to heaven .This seperation between mother and unborn is how god allows the spirit of the unborn to leave the child. But, God is totally against abortion.