Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. (Isa. 5:20)

I like food. Good food. I like ice cream and baked goods (no, not casseroles, pastries!), in particular. I’m not a huge candy fan so I would usually prefer if the candy were left out of the ice cream. If I eat ice cream and baked goods in excess, it will be to my detriment. One could say that by doing so I will be accumulating a debt that has to be paid off with dieting or disease in the future.

It is necessary… to make a distinction between pleasure that is true or legitimate and pleasure that is not. We know that a pleasure can be as heavily debited as an economy. Some people undoubtedly thought it pleasant, for example, to have the most onerous tasks of their economy performed by black slaves. But this proved to be a pleasure that was temporary and dangerous. It lived by an enormous indebtedness that was inescapably to be paid not in money, but in misery, waste, and death. The pleasures of fossil fuel combustion and nuclear ‘security’ are, as we are beginning to see, similarly debited to the future. These pleasures are in every way analogous to the self-indulgent pleasures of individuals. They are pleasures that we are allowed to have merely to the extent that we can ignore or defer the logical consequences.[1]

The abortion industry likewise counts on an economy that is heavily debited to the future. It sets out to capitalize on an immediate felt need. It may be couched as anything from not allowing an unexpected baby to ruin one’s whole life (as if producing life is ruining one’s life), to the ability to have sexual freedom (modern wording for “enslavement to our desires”), to having control over one’s body (without consideration of the other person’s body within). (I do not deny that in some cases the it involves an anguishing decision over a child produced by incest or rape. That is a subject beyond the scope of this post.) The desires sought in these cases at the cost of a life can only be achieved by leveraging a heavy debt in the future, a future that is not far off.

Paying Abortion’s Debt

How might the future have to pay the debt created by the abortion done today? It will have to pay a compounding debt paid from the future emotional health of the mother and/or father making the decision. It will pay from the future health of the community they live in. And from the future health of the nation they live in.

This is not speculation. One merely has to consider the economic crisis abortion has already created. If one looks at the U.S. population by age group, it is easy to see that since the 1970s there has been a rapid shift. Naturally, one expects (as was always the case) that younger age brackets would always be the greater portion of the population than the older brackets. (The 3 charts acting as the “photo” for this post are taken from the U.S. Census Bureau at Census.gov. They are called pyramids because in all history one would expect them to be shaped like one. In the 1965 chart, it is easy to see the effect of WWII on the population. In the subsequent charts, the effect of easy access to abortion on the shape of the pyramid is obvious.)

The 2020 chart above shows the radical change such that now, despite the attrition caused by aging (i.e. death), population by age is almost the same across the board. This is why Social Security is in crisis. I am not denying other reasons, but the biggest is that the need will naturally outrank the supply because of population decline of younger workers. Meeting the need of an aging population will require more from each worker since there are fewer workers per older person drawing Social Security.

Will the debt be paid by increasing costs (taxes) to the younger people? Or will it be paid for by ignoring the needs of the aged? In a culture willing to discard its new life, certainly one would expect that they would gladly discard the aged who aren’t even cute. The consequences cannot be deferred forever.

Will the debt be paid by increasing costs (taxes) to the younger people? Or will it be paid for by ignoring the needs of the aged?

Discerning Desires

I don’t think the church can solve the nation’s economic problems, but we can live differently than the world. We cannot be the light of the world if we are conformed to the world. If we want to make a difference in the world, we must think differently about life. In the scenario this post speaks about, that begins with how we view pleasures.

We must distinguish between pleasures that are true and legitimate and those that are not. Our culture has rapidly moved in the direction of defining good or morality by whatever makes you happy. To be led by our desires has historically been considered bondage. Yet all of us, Christians included, know that there are legitimate pleasures we should indeed want to experience.

For believers to navigate the pitfalls of this logic that good is defined by what makes us happy, we must recognize that not all desires are legitimate. What makes a desire illegitimate can lie in the actual thing itself, but also in just how intensely we desire it. For example, if we desire it so much that we are willing to do evil in order to achieve it, it has become an illegitimate desire.

In the opening example, there is nothing inherently evil in ice cream (except, in some cases, the additives). But over-indulging in the pleasures of eating ice cream exacts a price of our future health and/or our future desires. Such debts always come with heavy interest payments!

Wanting financial security is a good desire. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be fed and clothed. But Jesus teaches us that to make even those basic needs a higher priority than generosity is a problem for His people (Matt. 6:19-34). Financial security is good, but if it cannot be placed above generosity (sharing with others), then it certainly cannot be placed above the life of another. Doing so (culturally) has created a debt that is coming due.

How will this debt be paid? It is already being paid by the economy: ours is a consumer-based economy, and we’ve killed a bunch of consumers. Maybe it will be a future national security crisis. Nations require young people to defend themselves, an age bracket has dramatically declined since abortion has become increasingly an option. It will likely be paid in all these areas and more.

Financial security is good, but if it cannot be placed above generosity (sharing with others), then it certainly cannot be placed above the life of another. Doing so (culturally) has created a debt that is coming due.

Where does the church fit in?

Jesus told us that the poor will always be with us. Yet, in the church, there was a time when that was not the case. We read about it in Acts 2:42-45 and 4:32-35. This is often read as an idealistic, unrealistic, unsustainable experience. Certainly, because of human sin it will not be without its trials (Acts 5, 6). But to experience it as the early church did, the church must be willing to live differently than the world around us. To pursue different desires.

How did the early church accomplish this? We are told, “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.” (Acts 4:32) They were thinking and living in line with the Sermon on the Mount (see Matt. 6:19-34 also referenced above). They were yearning for God’s “kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven.” That was their chief desire.

Only when people see us living by a different hope, will they ask about the reason for the hope that we have. That hope is God’s kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.

I’d love to see a time when killing a child in the womb is unthinkable in our society but that won’t happen until it is unthinkable in the church. And it won’t happen in the church so long as we believe achieving our desires (whatever they are) is the essence of good. We must begin to live as if we are not our own but belong to our Lord. We must begin to realize that bearing God’s image toward other image-bearers is the purpose for which we were created.

Only when people see us living by a different hope, will they ask about the reason for the hope that we have. That hope is God’s kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.

The church ought to be the place where life, all of life, is so valued that the idea of snuffing out the life of a baby in the womb would be unthinkable. But it cannot be that place until the life of the elderly, the life of the disabled, the mentally ill, or the immigrant, etc., is so valued that a young couple finding themselves pregnant would immediately know that that life is valued in this community.

Conclusion

To be prolife, truly prolife, one needs to be consistently prolife. We need to respect life at every level (infants in the womb, elderly, poor, underprivileged, etc.). But the reverse is inherently true. If one is not prolife in the womb, simply by the debt abortion creates it is not prolife in the future because it degrades the lives of the elderly or the young (depending on how things are handled) or both. The costs will be paid in a compounding way in the future.

Heavier costs to the young, disregarding our elderly, and lack of security as a nation can all create burdens that ought not to be born. If the church is going to make a difference, it must begin with the household of God. We must begin to live and think differently about our desires in order that we might be the light of the world, a city on a hill.

[1] Wendell Berry. The World-Ending Fire: The Essential Wendell Berry. 275.