Letters to the Editor -NRA

I want to thank you for the excellent and high biblical standard of the articles in The Christian Statesman. Especially your interpretation of Prov. 29:2 [November-December 1999 issue] is very helpful and encouraging for the times we live in. May God by His grace revive His people again in every tribe, language, and nation around the world, so that we can really rejoice and glorify His wonderful name.

May our Lord richly bless the NRA as an instrument in the furthering of His Kingdom!

...I find the articles in The Christian Statesman to be great reading. I am trying to apply them to the Canadian context.

Here are a few comments: I think that this law also does apply to what we might ignorantly call an accidental striking of the woman. The two men are fighting. The woman attempts to defend her husband. The other guy, while beating up her husband, happens to "accidentally" hit her. He meant to strike, albeit her husband and not she herself, and that strike was meant for harm. The fact that he had poor aim doesn't lessen his evil intent. In addition, the fact that the woman and her husband are one flesh must surely be considered in such a case as this.

It is wrong to assume that the mother is implicitly guilty whenever an abortion is performed. In a country like China, for example, the government often imposes abortions against the mothers' wills. Even in our own country, I imagine that it is possible for the mother to be drugged, or something like that, and then for the abortion to be performed without her being able to effectively resist the attack. The biblical case law for fornication illustrates such potential innocence of the woman.

While I'm about as opposed to abortion as I think anyone could be, having an intense hatred for the practice which I'm absolutely certain can never be placated, I must admit that there is one situation which might cause me to reluctantly consent. An ectopic, or tubal, pregnancy invariably means that the child will die, and that the mother, too, will suffer most painfully and will probably lose her own life too. I recognize full well that the termination of such a pregnancy would still be abortion, i.e. premeditated murder of the child, however I, at this point, feel that this is one of those sad situations where we, amidst the sorrows of our fallen creation, may end up having to perpetrate the lesser of two evils.

Also, I don't think that we need to give abortion some sort of special status. We should have proper laws with respect to murder, and, independent from that, we should recognize that abortion fits the bill for that crime. We already have laws to deal with murder, imperfect as they may be, and, should we finally do the right thing and recognize the full humanity of a child as of his conception, we'd be on the right track.

Finally, why would we dare to assume, as Calvin seems to, that an unborn child does not yet enjoy life?

William Einwechter responds: As you will notice in endnotes #1, #4, and #5 in my article, I refer to the possibility that the striking of the woman in Ex. 21:22-25 is accidental. I recognize that the text is somewhat ambiguous on this matter, but give my reasons in the article why I believe that the striking was deliberate. I believe this law is covering deliberate assault, which is the context of Ex. 21:12-26. As far as I can see, none of the other laws of vv. 12-26 would admit of an accidentally inflicted injury interpretation. Also, I have a problem of applying the death penalty to an accidental killing. Be that as it may, I recognize the problems facing interpreters here, and grant the possibility (which I do in the article) that it would cover accidental striking.

Please note, that I do not assume that "the mother is implicitly guilty whenever an abortion is performed." My statements in the article are in regard to the mother who "seeks an abortion." I do not comment on all the specific possibilities such as you mention. The case of a woman in China is very similar to the case of Exodus 21:22-25 --she is assaulted deliberately by evil men with intent to kill--so obviously she is not guilty of a crime. This law protects her; it does not condemn her. I speak only of a woman who deliberately (for whatever reason) seeks to kill her child by abortion.

Ectopic pregnancy is a difficult moral problem. I have heard arguments on both sides of what the moral duty is in such a circumstance. I did not comment on the possibility in the article because of the limited scope of the article, and because I would like to give the matter over to more research and reflection. Perhaps medical technology will some day make the point mute because of the ability of doctors to remove the child from the fallopian tubes and to plant him/her again on the wall of the uterus.

It may be, as you say, that abortion should not be given a special status as a crime, but only if it is understood that abortion is one form of premeditated murder.

Finally, Calvin is not saying that the child is not alive, for in the same quote he speaks of the baby in the womb as already being a human being and as an infant that is killed by an abortion. All that he says, as I read him, is that it is a terrible crime to kill a child before it has the chance to enjoy life after birth. If you mean that we shouldn't assume that the unborn are not enjoying their life as it is in the womb, I agree, and don't think that Calvin would disagree either. I only think he has an eye to the purpose of our time in the womb which is to prepare us for life outside the womb in service to God and the enjoyment of all of the gifts of His love.

It is unfortunate that advocates of Free Trade tout its advantages while an evil international cabal fosters a government controlled replica with entirely different ominous and malignant objectives.

Andrew Sandlin's attack on Pat Buchanan is a standard, superficial Free Trader ploy that omits all of the down side in favor of a scholarly utopian formula which ignores the disastrous results of its implementation.

Few would find fault with the excellent example of biblical free trade which can be found in the building of the Temple in the second chapter of Second Chronicles. Materials and artisans were brought in from Tyre. The trade (really barter) was conducted because the imported materials and labor were superior to what was available domestically. Since it involved a new, one time project, it did not jeopardize domestic employment or industry. Significant, also, is the fact that consumable items were traded in return for the superior materials and labor.

King Solomon would not have traded away his nation's ability to defend itself in a blind effort to foster free trade. He would not have traded advantages to potential enemy nations in the name of free trade. Nor would he have imported inferior goods in an effort to establish peace, or forced the people of Israel to lower their standard of living by competing with inferior foreign labor. Many scholars believe that King Solomon acquired much of his wealth by buying and selling for profit. He was a wise man. Far too wise to give away technology and access to lucrative markets without compensation.

America's founders were well schooled in the dangers associated with power. When they designed our government the checks and balances were instituted to provide roadblocks to the sinful lusts of governors. This same sinful lust barring a semblance of the year of Jubilee would culminate free trade into tyranny.

Andrew Sandlin dismisses the free trade encumbered family farm to its ultimate demise. He frees the 60 hour per week working mother and father with a decrease in taxes (a fine but inadequate idea) and quotes Henry Hazlitt's statement that protecting domestic industry results in higher consumer prices.

All this appears to be sound reasoning--however, in today's America the result of this abhorrence is a precipitous decline in the standard of living, a transition from a working husband supporting a wife and children on a 40 (rumored in the 1950s to be reduced to 35) hour work week to both husband and wife working 60 hours per week to accomplish the same end.

During this transition, corporations while still purchasing the labor of their employees on a 40 hour per week basis made unprecedented profits. Much of this purloined wealth was exported from our nation to be invested in foreign countries.

Mr. Sandlin says, "You don't conserve towns and communities and country by authorizing Big Brother to 'protect' the jobs of outmoded and inefficient industries against foreign competition that gives the country's citizens more buying power that, in turn, produces new, efficient industries and thus more jobs at home."

Maybe Mr. Sandlin could explain what is "outmoded and inefficient" about a factory laborer in Alabama that was making $10.00 per hour assembling a spring into a switch for an automobile who is now without a job because the plant has been moved to China and facing the prospect of working at a fast food restaurant for $6.00 per hour. While we are at it, it might be good to consider whose responsibility it is to pay for the time, effort and family upset this displaced worker must endure through no fault of his own.

Pat Buchanan in his book, The Great Betrayal, makes a valid argument. All industries are not equal. He says if infant America had, "followed free trade theory, we should have stayed with the production and export of cotton, corn, rice, and tobacco, those commodities in which we were most efficient, and imported our manufactured goods from England. Americans would have become the bakery and tobacconist of Europe. Instead, behind a protective tariff wall, we challenged--and within a century displaced --Great Britain as the greatest industrial nation on earth."

Pat goes on to say, "Manufacturing is the key to national power. Not only does it pay more than service industries but the rates of productivity growth are higher and the potential of new industry arising is far greater. From radio came television; from television, VCRs and flat-panel screens. From adding machines came calculators and computers. From the electric typewriter came the word processor. Research and development follows manufacturing."

I would go a step farther. Manufacturing produces wealth. Service industries do not. Consumables are temporal, while manufactured items have lasting value.

Family government, eloquently espoused by Chalcedon and Andrew Sandlin, requires time and organization. Free Trade as it is being practiced today is a freedom robbing, family breaking, wealth robbing, time consuming abomination--a great jeopardy to families.

There are others, but following are several questions that Free Traders need to address:

Pat Buchanan may have made a mistake in moving to the Reformed Party. I was against it. Nevertheless, it appears he is the only candidate that might disengage us from the pagan World Order that threatens not only our freedom but Christians and Christianity as well.

National Reform Association,

Publishers of The Christian Statesman.
Declaring the Lordship of Christ since 1864
editor Bill Einwechter

A six month subscription to The Christian Statesman is FREE on request. Renewals are FREE on request.
POBox 8741-WP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15221

Use this form to comment on this site. Use this form to request a FREE introductory six month subscription to The Christian Statesman or to renew your existing subscription.

For a FREE introductory three issue subscription,
send email to Bill Gould with
your name and mailing address.