|
Pat-rebel_lady -> RE: Excuse Me (9/3/2008 3:51:58 PM)
|
quote:
quote ORIGINAL: :letusreason
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady
It looks like a Revolt -- a Civil War -- going on in these threads. If it looks like that now, what’s America going to be like after the Election? God help us all!!
Maybe it would help to spell this out a little better.
Give some examples without necessarily providing names.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
And what does the "WORLD" see when people that claim Christ support things like abortion and the homosexual agenda? How does was who votes for the person who supports such thing not support the agenda? Is there a place on the ballot to list what you support and don't support regarding the candidate and or party?
I am all for civil discussion but if it's going to come to down to tossing aside the truth in order to do what is the point?
Let me see if I can explain it this way; sorry its long:
In a recent interview, Emergent Church leader Brian McLaren was asked about abortion and homosexuality. As usual, he seems to dodge the homosexuality issue, stating his position is simply that those of different positions should a) accept that good Christians can disagree on the issue (try wrapping your mind around the proposition that two people can disagree on such a fundamental issue of human identity and both be faithful to Scripture) and b) dialogue (with him receiving a “state your position” pass).
However, his comments about abortion are what inspired this post. When I compare his statement that abortion is “not one of the most significant moral issues out there” with his book-length treatment of global climate change and quasi-socialistic economic policy (see, Everything Must Change), I get disturbed.
Following the 2004 elections, the new Democratic party leader, Howard Dean, explicitly stated that the Democrats were going to go after the evangelical vote. They would do this by talking more openly about “faith” and by attempting to show that Democrats care about “morality” as well.
Over the last 3 years, I’ve been watching as evangelical authors have, in one way or another, de-centralized this issue of abortion, making it just one more issue in a solar system of moral questions. I’ve listened as we’ve been told that we should not be “single-issue” voters. The long and short of it is this: Evangelicals have increasingly become comfortable with the idea of voting for a pro-choice candidate if she or he, for instance, has a “strong” position on “ending global climate change,” or “enacting ‘Fair Trade’ laws.”
Point 1: The issues of life, environmental stewardship and caring for the poor touch on core aspects of our faith. To each issue, Scripture offers clear command.
Point 2: The legislative response to each of these issues can be discerned with varying levels of certainty. That’s a bit thick. Let me break it down.
A) The Bible commands us to “care for the poor.” However, I believe that there can be real debate and potentially, good-faith disagreement on how that can best be accomplished. Those, like me, of a more conservative bent, believe that a socialistic policy of “required altruism” (i.e., requiring all citizens to provide a portion of their paycheck to the Federal Government and allowing that government to redistribute it) isn’t the best answer to poverty and, in fact, eviscerates true charity. Even among conservatives, there is a spectrum of opinion regarding the “right size” of a governmental safety net. Some say more; some say less. In any case, the logical connection between “caring for the poor” and “providing national health care for every child” is something open to debate, discussion and disagreement. CONCLUSION: While the biblical mandate to care for the poor is CLEAR, the legislative response is not. (and I would say the same applies to the question of environmental stewardship)
B) Unlike the issues of caring for the poor and environmental stewardship, I see a very close connection between the biblical teaching about human life and the legislative response required. [I’m not going to post an entire defense of the biblical teaching that abortion is wrong here. I’ll just assume most of us agree.] Scripture declares all humans to be “made in the image of God.” Abortion is the active taking of life. And in the last 30 years, well over 40 million lives have been taken in our country. That, by the way, dwarfs every genocidal rampage of the 20th century…PUT TOGETHER.
As far as I’m concerned, any politician who can look at the direct act of murder performed by an abortion doctor and declare it a “fundamental right” is morally deficient. That politician might have extensive positions on how we can affect the environment fifty years from now, but he has abandoned the RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW issue of human dignity.
Conclusion to Point 2: The Biblical teaching on issues like “caring for the poor” and “environmental stewardship” can be applied within a wide spectrum of legislative action. That is, there is not a virtually one-to-one relationship between the Christian ethic and Christian legislative position.
HOWEVER: The Biblical teaching on human life requires a pro-life legislative position. We should certainly seek MORE than the overturning of Roev.Wade, but to seek anything less is to lessen the horror of legalized murder. As Christians, halting the genocide of the last 30 years and seeking to heal those who have been scarred by its horror is central. While the jury is still out on how best to legislate on issues of poverty and environment, there is no question: Legalized abortion equals abortions.
I guess I just don’t understand McLaren’s thinking on this. While I believe we should certainly push for equitable economic policy, that we should continue to pursue the science of environmental change and consider the best legislative responses, I fail to grasp how he can consider the active taking of human life a “side issue.” I fail to grasp how he (and other evangelical leaders) can potentially legitimize the moral sensibilities of politicians who stand up for partial-birth abortion just because they have a cap-and-trade carbon emissions policy.
Maybe I’m missing something.
MCLAREN’S QUOTE:
Q. What’s your view of homosexuality and abortion? I know that’s a big question.
The first thing I’d want to say is that I don’t think they’re the two most significant moral issues in the world.
I believe in the sanctity of life, but I believe that our efforts should be toward reducing the need and desire for abortion on the front end by way of persuasion and education rather than putting our efforts on the side of legislation.
He, Brian McLaren, seems like he is advancing a straw man argument, suggesting that conservatives only care about abortion or "legislating" it, and then he can sound like the hip and relevant new wave preacher who is more "in touch" with the "big picture."
Of course we conservatives believe and understand that we have to touch hearts and minds and that doing so is far more effective than merely changing laws. But, in the meantime, good law (which Roe v. Wade is not) is necessary in order to restrain or train the hearts and minds of the lawless.
Every conservative Christian I know also supports adoption, compassion, support for unwed moms, and all of the holistic issues. We also care about good stewardship of the environment, fiscal responsibility, national security, upholding biblical marriage and family, and a host of other issues.
So, I do not appreciate McLaren's, and others like him in this forum, continued pandering to the secularists; there is a way to speak truth with love, or else the Bible wouldn't tell us to do so. But we do have to speak the truth, and that is not always popular in our culture. Some pastors and Christians are going to have to make some tough choices between being hip and being true.
|
|
|
|