Check out the new Convergence Church Network! 

Visit and join the mailing list.

Enjoying God Blog


I hope that all of you regularly listen to the Ask Pastor John podcast at In a recent episode he addressed a question that many are asking, the question posed in the title to this post. Piper’s response is clear and persuasive. I urge you to read it carefully.

Let me make four kinds of observations, and hope and pray that these will give some guidance to our thinking and our feeling and our acting. And I think all three of those really matter, particularly in regard to the use of human organs or human tissue harvested from the killing of unborn children. And we need to say it with words like that; otherwise, we will conceal from ourselves what’s happened.

1. We should never do evil that good may come.

First observation: in Romans 3:8 some of Paul’s adversaries accused him of “do[ing] evil that good may come.” Paul responded to this, that it was a slanderous charge. In other words, he distanced himself from that kind of ethical stance. And I think we should too. We shouldn’t do evil that good may come.

God alone has the infinite wisdom to manage an entire world of sin in which he can turn horrible things for wise and good purposes. He never tells us that we have such wisdom; we don’t. We are to live our lives guided by the principles he reveals in his word, not by our calculations about how much evil we can join in for some greater good.

So, if we really believe that the killing of unborn children is abhorrent to God and falls into the category of the shedding of innocent blood, for which God’s judgment fell, we should not think of turning this wickedness into a wonder drug to save our lives. We should not do evil that good may come. That’s my first observation.

2. We value Christ and his kingdom more than security or health.

Second, God frequently, in the Bible, calls us to do things and avoid things that are very costly to us personally, in order to demonstrate that Christ and his ways are more precious to us than safety or security or comfort, and that we sacrifice in order to do what’s right. When we are told not to return evil for evil (Matt. 5:38-39), or that we should love our enemies (Matt. 5:43-44), or turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:39), or go the extra mile (Matt. 5:41), or do good to those who hate us (Luke 6:27), all of those kinds of commands are designed to show that we are not in bondage to this world, and that the deepest contentment of our lives does not flow from needing to avoid risk or show vengeance.

By denying ourselves comfort or satisfaction or safety for the sake of testifying to Christ’s value to us, and testifying to the sanctity of another person’s life, or testifying to our hope for another person’s well-being, or testifying to our confidence in God’s reward beyond the grave, when we deny ourselves in that way, we aim to exalt Christ and his ways over mere self-preservation.

So, if a scientist avoids using tissue and organs harvested from babies killed in abortion, or if an ordinary citizen avoids using a medication that they know has been developed specifically through such harvesting and research, the aim is that the Christian conscience is preserved and Christ is made much of as more valuable than any security or safety or health we might get through sin.

3. We testify to the sanctity of life.

Third, avoiding such research and avoiding the use of the products of such research is only one way of testifying to the truth and value of Christ in the sanctity of the unborn persons. But another way that should be added is the proactive engagement in whatever way we can to speak and act against the taking of innocent human life in the womb and the use of those children for research and experimentation.

So, I’m saying renunciation (that is, the avoidance part of our ethics), which is being asked about — Do we avoid the medication? — the renunciation of the use of such drugs has value. Yes, it does. And supplementing that value should also be the proactive engagement of resisting and discouraging abortion and the use of aborted babies in research.

4. God blesses principled action in his name.

And the final observation, the fourth one that I would make, is the one that’s most difficult to articulate, but may be the most important. The observation is that acting on principle — in this case, the principle that we do not want to be complicit in the desecration of dismembered human beings — acting on principle often does not look like the most obvious way to be a blessing to the greatest number people.

For example, if you try to act on the principle of not participating in the desecration of these children by avoiding medicines developed from their dead bodies, someone will say, “But look, look at all the good that is coming through the medication.” And they will say that they can’t see the good that may be coming from your principled action. So, what I’m saying here is this: God has ways of honoring and blessing and multiplying the effectiveness of principled action in his name, which, to the human calculation, may appear futile.

This is certainly the case with many martyrdoms in history, for example, or other kinds of sacrificial principled actions, which didn’t look like they were going to have any payoff at all for the suffering person or their family, or for the cause of Christ — just a dead-end street at the stake of suffering. The sufferers simply acted because their consciences wouldn’t let them do otherwise, while the world sees that as futile and foolish. “Just save yourself and your family and others, and stop denying yourself the privilege of life or health or prosperity.”

And my point again is this: God is God. He honors integrity and principled action that is rooted in his truth and his beauty and his worth, even where the world cannot see the point. We have no idea what explosive effects, in the depths of God’s providence and purposes, our principled action might unleash by God’s grace.

So, I’m saying, let’s not act as researchers or as ordinary consumers in a way that desecrates the bodies of unborn victims and treats those children as though they can be killed and their tissue harvested for our benefit.


Dear Brother Sam, years ago it was common knowledge that fetus material was used in SHAMPOO. So, if you ain’t gonna get the shot, then stop washing your hair, just sayin. Love your new book by the way.
Thanks Sam. Your point #2 can't be overstated: We value Christ and his kingdom more than security or health.

A good question to ask is: Would / could this vaccine (treatment) exist if it were not for tissue from an abortion? If the answer is "no" then we have clarity.

There are a lot of medical experts out there (whose voices are being suppressed), that are explaining that the covid "vaccine" is not a true vaccine because it does not claim (and has not been proven) to prevent us from getting the virus or spreading it. Ask your doctor "What is the shot supposed to do" ?

So if we take it, we should understand that we are volunteering for an experimental product that would not have been approved if we weren't in a (so called) state of emergency. It is an experimental biological agent.

Don't take my word for it. Please see America's Frontline Doctors, Dr Simone Gold, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, and /or The Great Barrington Declaration, .. These are not "anti vaccine" quacks. They are very reputable medical experts and practitioners.

As is often the case, if we follow the money we can find out what is really behind all this.

As you know, I'm a staunch defender of the common grace of God but the folks behind the "pandemic," and their media accomplices, are examples of the T in your TULIP!
FYI -- Two articles on this topic have been published by the Gospel Coalition:

The FAQs: Are Fetal Cells Being Used in COVID-19 Vaccines and Treatments? (

The FAQs: What Christians Should Know About Vaccines (

Write a Comment

Comments for this post have been disabled.