Back in October, 2022 I noted that abortions were down nationally since the overturn of Roe v Wade and argued that anti-abortion laws saved lives on the whole. Since then there have been a number of headlines about how abortion numbers have gone way up compared to the pre-Dobbs era, which seems to indicate that women in states that banned abortions simply went elsewhere, undermining my 2022 observation.
However, John McCormack at The Dispatch yesterday argues that abortions are down in states that have banned it and are up in states that have increased funding for it. “While the number of abortions may indeed be up overall—in part due to trends that began before the Dobbs decision—it can also be true that laws restricting abortion since Dobbs have kept those numbers lower than they would be otherwise.” In short, the increase in abortions since Dobbs is not from women leaving anti-abortion states, but pro-abortion states increasing access and funding for their citizens. “The Society for Family Planning study estimates there were 208,000 fewer abortions performed in states with abortion bans since the Dobbs decision.” Abortion restrictions save lives.
Kevin DeYoung has a piece up at Themelios arguing that the 1788 American revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith surrounding the civil government’s relationship to the church are substantially and irreconcilably different from the original 1647 version. Stephen Wolfe’s rejoinder I think gets the better of it: removal doesn’t imply denial. The 1788 version of the WCF only ceased requiring ministerial belief in the government’s responsibility to ensure doctrinal purity in the church, enforcement of Christianity in society, and the establishment of a national church. The revisions don’t rule those views out. Back in 2019 (pre-Christian nationalism debates) I wrote
“The 1788 version [of the WCF] does not explicitly contradict the 1647 version, it just does not specifically hold [its assertions], which means someone who agrees with 1647 may faithfully subscribe to 1788. The 1647 version of the WCF… taught that the civil government was also instituted by God, and therefore there should be no separation of church and state in a Christian society. Since both church and government were instituted by God for the ordering of society there were levels of interaction and accountability between the two. The 1647 WCF is not Erastian, but neither does it grant secular authority over the church.”
This week my denomination, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, held its 44th stated General Assembly in Memphis, Tennessee. This is the annual meeting and council (synod) of my church, and every pastor has a right to attend and every congregation may send elder representatives. This was a busy and lively assembly. Many things went on at the assembly, but below is a summary of its official actions.
To amend the EPC’s constitution requires a majority vote of one assembly, a majority vote of three-fourths of the presbyteries over the next year, and then a majority vote of the subsequent assembly. The assembly completed this process for an area that is essentially cleaning up language. The Book of Government places the authority over a local church’s budget in the hands of the Session (board of elders). The GA voted to delete a section from the BoG on the grounds of redundancy and to clarify that a church’s financial and budgetary authority are always vested with the Session unless the Session delegates otherwise. The GA also completed the amendment process for part of the Book of Discipline to include this line: “Church discipline does not supersede or negate the legal responsibility to report cases of suspected abuse to civil authorities according to local and state requirements.” This is part of the denomination’s ongoing work of proactively addressing abuse in the church…
An open letter and accompanying theological paper on same-sex attraction and ministerial ordination have been making the rounds of the EPC this past week. There is much I could say on the substance of the letter and paper (my thoughts on the topic are well documented on this page, especially in my recent talk on same-sex attraction and pastoral care) but instead I wanted to highlight and engage an unassuming paragraph in the paper. This was written by Don Fortson, a retired professor of church history from Reformed Theological Seminary, who has worked extensively on American presbyterian history, and authored Liberty In Non-Essentials, the official history of the EPC. He also has written quite a bit on confessional subscription and authored the EPC’s official guide on adopting and receiving the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. What Fortson said in the paper is,
This [homosexuality and the ordination of celibate, same-sex attracted people] is not a liberty in non-essentials issue. The EPC position on women’s ordination, is put in the non-essential category because it is recognized that there are legitimate differences in biblical interpretation on this topic. Both sides agree that there are texts of Scripture that may be understood to support either position. This is not true of homosexuality; there aren’t any passages, anywhere in the Bible, that say anything positive whatsoever about homosexuality.
The EPC’s motto is “Unity in Essentials. Liberty in Non-Essentials. In All Things Charity.” This motto is the true creed of the EPC. It shapes the way we think and act more than other doctrinal statement, its informal status notwithstanding. And Fortson’s argument here demonstrates that — to persuade people in the EPC he has to convince them that this is an “essentials” issue…
“I’ve been very vocal in my love and devotion to the [Traditional Latin Mass] and its necessity for our lives. But what I think gets misunderstood is that people who attend the TLM do so out of pride or preference. I can speak to my own experience, but for most people I have come across within these communities this simply is not true. I do not attend the TLM because I think I am better than others, or for the smells and bells, or even for the love of Latin. I attend the TLM because I believe, just as the God of the Old Testament was pretty particular in how he wanted to be worshipped, the same holds true for us today. It is through the TLM that I encountered order, and began to pursue it in my own life.”
This was NFL kicker Harrison Butker’s explanation in a recent commencement address at a Catholic college for why he attends the Latin Mass. Michael Brendan Dougherty agrees, saying, “One reason to attend the Traditional Latin Mass is that the God of the Bible is revealed to be especially interested in right-worship.”
Absolutely God is interested in right worship, and both Butker and Dougherty go on to have good insights about the good ordering of worship that comes with a structured, rooted, reverent liturgy. However, they both make a logical leap that is characteristic of Roman Catholics on this point. Yes, God is interested in right worship and is very particular about how he is worshiped. But God nowhere reveals or commands that particularity be expressed in the Traditional Latin Mass.
This is where the Roman and the Reformed catholics differ: we both believe God is particular about worship, but we Reformed think he’s actually revealed what right worship looks like in the Bible, whereas the Romanists think the church’s traditions capture God’s design. In Matthew 15:9, Jesus makes the point that well intentioned, well designed worship of God is vain if the commandments and traditions of people are held to be divine in nature.
