Evangelicals afflicted with ‘fetus fatigue’
March 12th, 2008Douglas Groothuis writes about the “fetus fatigue” that has taken its toll on millions of evangelicals.
It appears that millions of evangelicals, especially younger ones, are experiencing fetus fatigue. They are tired of the abortion issue taking center stage; it is time to move on to newer, hipper things–the sort of issues that excite Bono: aid to Africa, the environment, and cool tattoos. Abortion has been legal since they were born; it is the old guard that gets exercised about millions of abortions over the years. So, let’s not worry that Barak Obama and Hillary are pro-choice. That is a secondary issue. After all, neither could do that much damage regarding this issue.
Evangelicals (if that word has any meaning), for God’s sake, please wake up and remember the acres of tiny corpses you cannot see. Yes, the Christian social vision is holistic. We should endeavor to restore shalom to this beleaguered planet. That includes helping Africa, preserving the environment, and much more. However, the leading domestic moral issue remains the value of helpless human life.
Hat tip: Denny Burk
I would like to comment as one who has not lived to see abortion illegal. This guy is right. I don’t know that it’s that abortion is boring, but just a giving up on hope. I was born the year Ronald Reagan took office. I’ve seen 3 Republican presidents and one Democrat. 19 years vs. 8. And…abortion is still legal. Besides maybe Rick Santorum, I didn’t see one presidential candidate who I thought would even try to stop abortion. Rick Santorum did run didn’t he? Oh well, doesn’t matter. John McCain maybe is pro-life, but I doubt he will even bring up the issue. If he does, he’ll say it in such a boring way that I’ll fall asleep before he finishes.
Mark is exactly right. It isn’t boredom, but a loss of hope. Or, more to the point, I know I’m not the only one who thinks that Republican Party has no intent of actually overturning Roe v. Wade.
…the leading domestic moral issue remains the value of helpless human life
I would argue that starving children are as helpless as the unborn, though he tags it with “domestic”, which limits the scope from which I can argue.
I know I’m not the only one who thinks that Republican Party has no intent of actually overturning Roe v. Wade.
The Republican party has plenty of cowards who use abortion as a fund raising tool without any intention of taking meaningful action.
The solution, though, is not to turn around and vote for a candidate who is absolutely explicit about his intent to make abortion more accessible and widespread, even to the point of killing babies who are born alive.
I agree with Peter wholeheartedly.
Besides, as much as GW has done wrong, I think one of his greatest legacies will be the appointments of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. From what I’ve seen so far, I’m confident in how they’ll vote on matters pertaining to the protection of the unborn.
The chances of getting those kind of appointments from Obama or Clinton are a big fat zero.
The appointments of Roberts and Alito are the highlight of his presidency. I don’t see more judges like them being appointed by McCain.
I think Africa is the highlight of the Bush years. He doesn’t get enough credit on that.
The kind of judge that McCain appoints will partially depend on who controls the Senate at the time. Republicans in the Senate deserve equal credit on Alito, since Bush only went with him after being told “no way” on Harriet Miers.
Certainly there’s ample reason for concern about McCain. The point still stands, though, that voting for Barack isn’t a good response to those concerns.
I read this article a while back and what really struck me is that it’s easy to take the abortion epidemic for granted is that it’s more of a tradition among evangelicals than a righteous cause. Every January there is a pro-life Sunday to remember the tragedy of Roe vs Wade and you may see a booth at the county/state fair, but there is no real activism on the local level.
Franky Schaeffer made a speech in the early 90’s, before he went a little nuts, that you can find online where he called for more civil disobedience and a more visible reaction against abortion. Evangelicals are prone to be active in a cause or a program if there is something “exciting” happening. Since there really isn’t a lot of activism, I wonder if that’s the cause of the apathy and boredom surrounding abortion.
“Besides, as much as GW has done wrong, I think one of his greatest legacies will be the appointments of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court.”
It seems like a confirmation of of my earlier observation. The only issue that truly matters to conservative Christians is the abortion issue. Yes, conservative Christians have other issues like gay marriage and immigration, but the issue they vote on is abortion. It’s the republican party’s one unifying issue which I am sure John McCain will advertise as much as he can. If a conservative speaks in favor of being “pro-choice”, then not only is that person no longer considered a true conservative but they are also no longer even considered a Christian by their peers. If there is a person who is a true Christian and also holds a “pro-choice” view, name them. Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? No, they are not considered real Christians because they are “pro-choice.” Am I right about that? The single minded focus on this one issue is what is so tiresome and fatiguing.
The single minded focus on this one issue is what is so tiresome and fatiguing.
Am I the only one who is amused by the charge of “tiresome and fatiguing” coming from Cineaste?
No.
Hey, if my responses sound familiar, it’s only because I’m responding to the same familiar themes. Come up with a new topic and I’ll give a new response.
I am interested in your opinion about the idea that true Christians must be not be “pro-choice.” Am I correct when I say that?
>I’ve seen 3 Republican presidents and one Democrat. 19 years vs. 8. And abortion is still legal.
As Chuck Colson said recently (and I’m paraphrasing), ‘the culture is a reflection of the church’s influence on society.’
We shouldn’t be surprised that people who are not ’salt’ are not salty! I believe that politicians will stand up for truth when the public demands it. After all, they are politicians - they reflect the mood and desires of their constituents. Their job is on the line - if they feel they’ll lose their job if they don’t act, they’ll act!
>Mark is exactly right. It isn’t boredom, but a loss of hope.
If our hope is in politics instead of Christ, woe to us. We will continue to be a people without hope. But thankfully our hope is a living hope! Let’s not lose our focus - it’s on God. My pastor has been preaching on 1 Peter lately, can you tell!
The abortion issue is an issue of selfishness (and that is not a NARROW issue - it encompasses all we do). We see that time and time again in scripture - sin pretty much equates to people putting ’self’ first. So, now we hear people say that they’re tired of the focus not being on the issues they believe are more important? Yep - that’s the same principle as abortion - selfishness.
>The only issue that truly matters to conservative Christians is the abortion issue.
Let’s widen the focus to extend to all of life and not just the political arena.
Cineaste, do you want to know what the Christian life looks like? Somebody asked my pastor that a few weeks ago. His answer was, “It looks a lot like dying to self.” Yep, in a nutshell, that’s the heartbeat of the church. So, the only issue that should matter to Christians is, ‘How does God get the glory from my (insert behavior here)?’ You can apply that to any doctrine (theological or scientific), political view, lifestyle, etc…
I am interested in your opinion about the idea that true Christians must be not be “pro-choice.” Am I correct when I say that?
I’m not sure what you mean by “true Christians.” There are non-Christians, repentant Christians, and unrepentant Christians. I would put those who claim to be Christians but support abortion rights in the third category.
That’s the first time I’ve heard about that category. I’ve heard the term CINO before. Someone used the term CINO (Christians in name only) to describe Christians who are democrats and are pro-choice. Are CINO’s and unrepentant Christians the same group? How can one be a Christian and not also be repentant? If I understand you correctly, if one is a pro-choice democrat, then that person can’t be considered a Christian because they are unrepentant. But repentance is part of Christianity. You can’t separate the two and still be a Christian. Am I getting that right?
Let me just ask this very simple and direct question, is Hillary Clinton a Christian or not? If not, why?
Cineaste,
Christians are known by their fruit. I do not know Hillary Clinton personally. I do have an ability to be familiar with her politics and her voting record. Can I make a judgment call on her salvation based on her politics? I don’t think that is the right question. I cannot (and neither can any other Christian or non-Christian) make a judgment call on salvation. God alone knows who He has chosen and who will repent and believe.
With that being said, we can say that their actions are not demonstrating the notion that they have a saving faith in Christ. We can enact church discipline to display to those inside and outside the church that they are not giving evidence that they were ever believers to begin with. We cannot, however, say that they are not saved. Only God knows ultimately. Even some will come to Christ on the last day and say they did miracles in His name and cast out demons but He will say away from me you evil doers, for I never knew you.
So, for all I personally know, Hillary could be a Christian. The abortion issue should be a matter taken up with her church elders if she is indeed a member of a church (a lot more could be said on that issue). They should address it with her.
In light of that, Hillary did say that she believes Jesus existed and was resurrected, but she does not know if He is the only way to Heaven. This leads to a new question Cineaste: What must one believe about/in Christ in order to be saved? Surely they must believe His words, the scripture: “I am the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father except through me”.
Of course, that is a whole other discussion.
j razz
If I understand you correctly, if one is a pro-choice democrat, then that person can’t be considered a Christian because they are unrepentant. But repentance is part of Christianity. You can’t separate the two and still be a Christian. Am I getting that right?
No. You’re correct that repentance is a part of Christianity. But Christians still sin, and sometimes they make their sin worse by stubbornly clinging to it instead of repenting of it. As j razz said, this is where the church should intervene, but unfortunately, many times that doesn’t happen. Especially if the church or denominational leadership turns a blind eye towards the sin, as some denominations have done on abortion.
Let me just ask this very simple and direct question, is Hillary Clinton a Christian or not?
Very simple and direct answer: yes.
Okay, let me ask a question.
In a previous thread, I had mentioned the other political issues that tend to take a back seat (or are kicked out of the car completely) to the abortion issue in conservative circles (like war, poverty, AIDS etc.). Tim’s response was that he cares about those things too, he just disagreed with how things should be done. Fair enough, and I accept that.
But, I disagree about the way we should handle abortion (that allowing it is a lost cause, and even if we did outlaw it it would hardly solve the problem). That seems that it makes me an unrepentant Christian.
Now, to be fair, I have crossed some things up, and I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth. I have pulled comments from 2 people (Tim and Peter), so I guess I can’t assume that they see eye to eye on each of these (though they seem to agree on this). In addition, Peter’s comments were on those who “support abortion rights”, so I assume voting for a candidate who does puts me in that category (but again, maybe that is a leap).
If I’m correct in what I have deduced (i.e. if you agree with the premises), I must ask, What’s the difference? The issues at hand are all sanctity of human life issues. Why am I unrepentant and you are good Christians citizens?
Thanks.
“There are non-Christians, repentant Christians, and unrepentant Christians. I would put those who claim to be Christians but support abortion rights in the third category.”
Yes. So, although Hillary is a Christian, she is a different kind of Christian. One you’re calling an “unrepentant Christian.” And, this status is because she holds pro-choice views. Essentially, you’re saying that Hillary supports infanticide, and she is a child murderer, yet she refuses to repent. Hillary, and all people who are pro-choice, are classified by repentant Christians, as child murders. That is the sin they should repent for, hence the term, unrepentant Christians.
Is my synopsis of the 2 types of Christians true to what you’re trying to convey?
The issues at hand are all sanctity of human life issues. Why am I unrepentant and you are good Christians citizens?
For starters, I never claimed to be a “good Christian citizen.” On the issue of global poverty, every American Christian needs to take a long look in the mirror. Myself included.
I think you make a good point on the war.
I think your attempt to equivocate abortion and global poverty / AIDS - at least as a consequence of your vote - fails badly.
First and foremost, I would argue that there are far fewer degrees of separation between your vote and the ultimate outcome on the abortion issue than there are on global poverty. So there’s less room for disagreement on the correct means by which we should address the issue. African poverty in particular has many root causes that we won’t ever be able to address except through forced regime change. And I think we know how you feel about that.
Second, I’m not aware of any stated conservative policy position on global poverty that Christians would consider a prima facie moral evil on par with abortion. In contrast, unlimited abortion on demand is a major plank in the Democrat party platform.
Third, as I alluded to before, Bush has contributed greatly to the cause of Africa. He’s been widely praised for his efforts. So this issue doesn’t break along Republican / Democrat lines the way abortion does.
The basic point, Nick, is that even if all of your beefs with Republicans are legit - and I think some of them are - voting for a candidate who is proudly and vigorously pro-abortion won’t help anything.
Not to mention the hundreds of millions the NEOCON Repubs have killed in their war on “terror”. Majority of the GOP candidates worthless sacks of poop.
Essentially, you’re saying that Hillary supports infanticide, and she is a child murderer, yet she refuses to repent. Hillary, and all people who are pro-choice, are classified by repentant Christians, as child murders. That is the sin they should repent for, hence the term, unrepentant Christians.
If you advance the cause of abortionists with your money, your vote, or your voice, you’re complicit, in my opinion.
It’s also worth saying that the repentant / not repentant distinction is an issue-by-issue thing. In other words, it may be the case that Hillary regularly repents in other areas of her life, but on this particular issue, she doesn’t.
Not to mention the hundreds of millions the NEOCON Repubs have killed in their war on “terror”.
I’d be interested to see a link to some data supporting the claim that the war or terror has killed hundreds of millions of people.
My bad millions should be thousands. Remember though “We don’t do body counts” Tommy Franks. its all estimated so there are no real numbers.
I’m not a big fan of John McCain. That doesn’t mean I’m going to vote for Obama or Hillary. And I don’t mean I’m giving up all hope.
Here is the good thing about this election: It has caused Christians to remember that government is not answer. Perhaps this has caused some of the disillusionment towards the abortion debate. Perhaps fighting for the minds of people instead of the minds of politicians is more effective. Abortion rates have been steadily declining.
Christians should be concerned about all injustice in the world, no doubt, but if you were ranking them, abortion has to top the list as the most heinous. I can’t wait to see this war over. I don’t think we should be policing the world, and I hope to see some solution to healthcare. But I don’t think any of them are as important as the merciless sacrificing of our children upon the alter of sex. (And don’t bring up incest or rape, which occurs in less than 1% of all abortions).
The video Tim posted a few months ago made me remember how cruel abortion is.
Thanks for your thought out response, Peter. It is clear that you are interested in conversation rather than just anger and name calling. Though we disagree, your tact is a breath of fresh air.
I think your response was basically this: Abortion is more clearly wrong than all those other issues. Again, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that seems to be the rub. In addition, it seems you think abortion is easier to fix (i.e. just pass a law). I disagree with each of these, but it is good to see where our foundational disagreements are.
I would argue that there are far fewer degrees of separation between your vote and the ultimate outcome on the abortion issue than there are on global poverty.
I would disagree. This original thread was about the weariness of some of us on this issue and how nothing has ever changed. As I look back 8 years, I remember thinking (like a good conservative) This is our shot! We had the great white Republican in the oval office for 8 years, and still (ultimately) nothing changed. About two years ago, I read what someone had said, similar to what Mark has been saying here, that the GOP doesn’t want roe v wade overturned because it allows them to talk about that one issue and get elected every year, even though they have no plans to do anything about it. i remember laughing out loud at the time, but in the following weeks it sank in as I thought about it a ton. It became clear to me that that was, in a lot of ways, true. I’ve given up the hope in our political system to change this (and as mentioned, I’m also questioning whether merely passing a law is even the right way to even go about it).
In addition, I think that many of us are pro-life in name only (or said differently, we are pro-birth but not truly pro-life). I mean how many of us are befriending young girls who are contemplating having an abortion, offering to take her in and help with medical bills and diapers etc. for the first months after she delivers? How many of us are willing to say, as mother Theresa did “If you don’t want your babies, please, bring them to me.” Instead, we tend to stay disconnected and vote to pass a law. But in reality, we aren’t really part of the solution.
So, I have tried to embrace a politic of being pro-life rather than just pro-birth, which includes a score if issues we have only briefly mentioned here. i also recognize that no party has a corner on the “life market”, so is struggle with which party can do the most good. I think that is a constant struggle as Christians.
Thanks guys.
This original thread was about the weariness of some of us on this issue and how nothing has ever changed.
I suggest you go ask someone from NARAL if nothing has changed under Bush. Be sure to duck.
I’ve given up the hope in our political system to change this (and as mentioned, I’m also questioning whether merely passing a law is even the right way to even go about it).
No one here - least of all me - has argued that “merely” passing a law is the right way. But the law is one part of the right way. We still have rapes, murders and burglaries despite the laws against them. Should we repeal those laws?
In addition, I think that many of us are pro-life in name only (or said differently, we are pro-birth but not truly pro-life).
This is a popular charge, but it’s not well supported by the facts. Did you know that crisis pregnancy centers - places where women can get counseling, financial assistance, free diapers and more - now outnumber abortion clinics in the U.S.? Many of them are eligible for federal funding under Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative, which won’t survive if a Democrat is elected.
Which brings me back to my original disagreement with you, Nick. Even assuming all of your objections to the GOP hold up (many of them have not), you haven’t articulated a case for electing Democrats as a solution. I would be most interested to hear it.
“If you advance the cause of abortionists with your money, your vote, or your voice, you’re complicit, in my opinion.”
I admit I’m pro-choice. So, according to what you just said, I’m complicit in infanticide, or child murder. Would you be willing to execute me for mass murder? It’s the logical next step if you truly believe what you say.
I won’t be offended if you say yes. I’m just examining the thought process of Christian conservatives.
Would you be willing to execute me for mass murder? It’s the logical next step if you truly believe what you say.
Since you’re the one making the outrageous claim, I’ll await your thorough explanation of how we get from moral complicity to your untimely death. It will be highly entertaining, I’m sure.
Cineaste, I think you’re taking it a little far. By law, no, there’s no reason you should die. We are free to believe what we want as Americans. I know you don’t believe in God, but let’s say you’re wrong, God does care what you believe. Romans 1 talks about murderers and inventors of evil, and then says in v. 32, “and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” Please don’t tear this out of context. This isn’t calling for your death by any means. I am a much worse sinner than you. But what it is saying is that when God starts handing out judgment upon various sins, he isn’t just concerned about the sins you may not have committed, but also the sins that you gave approval for, such as murder.
I know you don’t believe in God, and I’m guessing you don’t believe in any form of final judgment, but at least from the Bible’s perspective, God will hold accountable the abortionists, the abortionees, and everyone who gave approval to it.
Since you’re the one making the outrageous claim, I’ll await your thorough explanation of how we get from moral complicity to your untimely death.
No problem Peter. If you believe I’m complicit in child murder, the next logical step is to sentence me to the death penalty. That’s what happens to mass child murderers, right? So, would you be willing to be the one to carry out my execution?
If you believe I’m complicit in child murder, the next logical step is to sentence me to the death penalty.
No, it’s not the next logical step. You are morally complicit in abortion. Not legally complicit. It’s legal under U.S. law to hold morally offensive views. No public purpose would be served by punishing you for those views, and it would be unconstitutional to do so.
Your “logic” here is a joke.
So, then you don’t believe I’m a child murderer when I paid for my girlfriend’s abortion when I was 17?
No. I think you’re someone who found himself in an awful situation and made a extremely regrettable choice because of it.
I’ve thought about this a great deal over the years. I don’t regret it. It was the right thing to do. You may wonder how I can think that. People who hold pro-choice views do not view abortion as the equivalent of infanticide. To us, it’s a question of “personhood” not murder. It’s a question of rights. People who are pro-choice think of themselves as very moral people, just like people who are pro-life. Christians who are pro-choice are not “unrepentant.” You can’t repent for something that you believe is perfectly moral.
People who are pro-choice do not believe in infanticide. Maybe evangelicals are getting tired of making that accusation and pro-choice advocates are tired of hearing it. As Christians though, I think many try to turn the other cheek when their fellow Christians say things like that.
People who are pro-choice think of themselves as very moral people, just like people who are pro-life. Christians who are pro-choice are not “unrepentant.” You can’t repent for something that you believe is perfectly moral.
Quite true. But merely believing that something is perfectly moral does not make it so. Have you gone postmodernist on us?
There’s a flip side to that coin that’s just as valid. Merely believing that something is perfectly immoral does not make it so. Peter, I’ve been called postmodernist by many Christians and I’m still not sure what they mean by it. Do they mean it as an insult or a compliment? I’ve always thought of it as an architecture term.
Derrida and Focault are probably the best-known postmodern philosophers. Basically, they are highly critical of the idea that fact or truth is fixed and can be fully known. That’s the cliff notes version.
I think it’s safe to say that you’re a hard-core modernist. I was being facetious.
“So, then you don’t believe I’m a child murderer when I paid for my girlfriend’s abortion when I was 17?”
When you mentioned this on a previous post you said that she miscarried. Just wondering if you could clear that up for us.
Em
She had a miscarriage. Though I offered to pay for an abortion she refused. It would have been better if she had had an early abortion because she miscarried later on anyway. That was a difficult time. I told Peter I paid for her abortion instead of just offering to make a point. Either way, I supported her because it was her decision. Clear?
Cineaste,
I wasn’t looking to cast judgement on you as I also conceived a child at the age of seventeen. I don’t assume that my choice to have him was necessarily easier than aborting. But it was right. I disagree that an early abortion would have been easier for her. The loss of a child should be grievous at any stage of development.
I disagree that an early abortion would have been easier for her.
The reason I say that abe is because I have never seen anybody so devastated. I wonder if it would have been easier on her if it had happened earlier. If you don’t mind. I’d rather not speak about it anymore because I don’t like to remember and it doesn’t feel right to go into details that anyone can read. I shouldn’t have mentioned her again. I just wanted to show, like you, I’m speaking from a personal experience when it comes to the abortion debate.
Fair enough. My intention was certainly not to make you feel bad. My apologies, Cineaste.
Emily (The name will never change for me.)
Just to try to lighten this up a bit. What if your kid turned out like this one? See? There is a good case for being pro-choice.
:)
No one here - least of all me - has argued that “merely” passing a law is the right way. But the law is one part of the right way. We still have rapes, murders and burglaries despite the laws against them. Should we repeal those laws?
I didnt mean to put words in your mouth. And certainly we shouldnt repel those other laws, but I think we would agree that it is a different issue. And the argument isnt that if we outlaw abortions that they will still happen, just that outlawing will not solve the problem, which involves much more than that.
Even assuming all of your objections to the GOP hold up (many of them have not), you haven’t articulated a case for electing Democrats as a solution. I would be most interested to hear it.
I’m not assuming that voting democrat solves the abortion problem. not at all, just that there are a myriad of other important issues on which i favor the democratic policies. Abortion is not sufficient enough to demand i vote GOP since i think there is very little or no chance of it getting overturned. I wont be a one issue voter.
And certainly we shouldnt repeal those other laws, but I think we would agree that it is a different issue.
As far as the law goes, how is it different? Law and culture support each other. Culture is more likely to accept something if the law says it’s legal. And vice versa.
And the argument isnt that if we outlaw abortions that they will still happen, just that outlawing will not solve the problem, which involves much more than that.
And again, who is claiming that outlawing by itself will solve the problem?
Abortion is not sufficient enough to demand i vote GOP since i think there is very little or no chance of it getting overturned.
I’m not telling you to vote GOP. I’m saying don’t vote for a Democrat and then turn around and claim to be opposed to abortion.
who is claiming that outlawing by itself will solve the problem?
I’m not saying you are!!! This is just the way I’m thinking. you asked, I’m telling. I’m saying if i though outlawing it was “the answer” then perhaps one could make the case that it was worth all of our attention (as Tim has tried unsuccessfully). I’m just saying that isnt the case.
I’m saying don’t vote for a Democrat and then turn around and claim to be opposed to abortion.
But I am though. Haven’t we been talking about this the whole time? I am opposed to abortion, as I’m opposed to starvation and militarism and war and…. The result is that no candidate has a perfect stand (as I define perfect) on each of these issues, nor does any have “the Christian stand” on each of these issues because, in fact, there is no Christians stand. Christians disagree on policy. That is okay. that is the point I want to get across to you guys…to not be so narrow as to try and exclude others who disagree about political policy
This has been an interesting conversation, but it has degenerated to where we just keep repeating ourselves. Thanks to those who contributed.
Actually, Nick, it was Doug Groothuis who was making the case, and you’ve helped him do that. His whole argument is that evangelical Christians need to take abortion more seriously, and you’re a case in point. You’re exactly the kind of person he’s speaking about.
Why do you say that Tim?
John Piper has a great article on one-issue politics.
“No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.”
It was written in 1995, but seems very timely for the current election.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1524_OneIssue_Politics_OneIssue_Marriage_and_the_Humane_Society/
You’re exactly the kind of person he’s speaking about.
And, Tim, that is absolutely fine that he say and believe that, that abortion is the most important and should trump everything else. We can disagree.
However, if he is saying “God demands that Christians vote Republican” which is the implication, than it become religious tyranny. In short, if he is offering an opinion, even a moral, convicted opinion, he is certainly entitled to that. If he is saying “Thus sayeth the Lord”, he belongs to the ilk of Falwell and Pat Robertson, and deserve to be written off as a religious nut.
I’ll let you decide where he comes down on that…disagreement between peers or crusader.
Ya, that’s why pro-lifers would actually vote for an animal like a dog, rather than a well qualified candidate who is also pro-choice. That’s a problem.
My post was in response to abe’s.
there are many other options other than the republican party.
Groothuis’ point isn’t that you should vote Republican - the term “Republican” doesn’t even occur in his post. His point is that if you think Clinton or Obama wouldn’t do real and serious damage on the abortion issue, you need to wake up.
Cineaste - so if Obama - he’s a well-qualified candidate, right? - went on CNN tomorrow and declared that all atheists will be thrown in jail once he takes office, you’d still vote for him?
Come on, Cineaste. Nowhere in that article did Piper endorse a pooch for President. Let’s be fair to the text. Piper was simply making the point that most everyone goes to the polls with certain criteria and for him and most Evangelicals pro-life is one of them. He concedes that that alone doesn’t QUALIFY someone for the office just as I would hope that you would agree that being pro-choice alone shouldn’t qualify someone.
Cineaste - so if Obama - he’s a well-qualified candidate, right? - went on CNN tomorrow and declared that all atheists will be thrown in jail once he takes office, you’d still vote for him?
Of course not. But, I also wouldn’t vote for a dog instead.
I would hope that you would agree that being pro-choice alone shouldn’t qualify someone.
I agree. The dog was in reference to another recent discussion we just had where some pro-life advocates would vote for dog over a pro-choice candidate. That’s going too far, in my opinion.
Hmm, I wasn’t a part of that conversation so I was confused as to how you got “vote for a dog” from Piper’s article. I won’t vote for Obama or Clinton and maybe not even McCain (we’ll see who his running mate turns out to be). But rest assured even if Fido were on the ballot I would probably refrain from voting for him. I’d write in Ron Paul.
But rest assured even if Fido were on the ballot I would probably refrain from voting for him.
There you go!
Let’s not forget that the enemy loves to pit believers against each other. He loves for us to fight for exclusivity amongst things that are NOT mutually exclusive. Sin is sin. We never say sin is not sin - just to focus on another sin exclusively. All sin is bad. And we say that not because believers are ‘bible thumpers’ or power tripping, it’s because SIN DESTROYS! Do we doubt that? The earthly life of an aborted baby is destroyed - is it not?
All politics aside, this is a moral issue. It’s therefore a spiritual issue - an issue of ‘Our will be done’ … or ‘God’s will be done’ … is it not?
FYI - BreakPoint had a commentary today talking about abortion:
Deadly Trend - The Infanticide Protocol
It’s pretty sobering stuff for EVERYONE because sin doesn’t discriminate based on political party affiliation or faith.
There is a problem when abortion is the lone unifier for social conservatives. We need a comprehensive stand on the dignity and sanctity of human life, which certainly includes abortion as a litmus test of ideology.
Sadly, too many politicians have stumped for election and raised funds on this issue without real regard for the sanctity of human life. They have betrayed both the spirit and integrity of our convictions.
Cineaste, Hillary said somewhere that her favorite theologian was Paul Tillich. Basically what this means is that her cultural religious affiliation is Christianity, but intellectually she is not a “believer”.
And Obama may or may not be a “Christian” in the afro-centric mold of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose Black liberation theology, again, raises question as to actual intellectual belief. His church “uses” Christian motifs to advance an afro-centric fight against the oppression of white power structures and ideologies. I would have to ask Rev. Wright some questions to determine whether his Liberation Theology was an additive to or substitution for authentic Christianity.
I’m interested. Klay, what questions would you ask of Sen. Obama’s pastor?
Bob, talk about calling the margin
The direction of my questioning would likely be adjusted based on the answers given to “triage” or diagnostic questions. My only purpose would be to discover if Rev. Wright affirmed a Biblical understanding of the Gospel. You see, some liberation theologians have actually rejected fundamental aspects of the Gospel in their quest to provide theological justification for their movement and/or rebellion.
I would start by zeroing in on the heart of the Christian Gospel: What is the nature of the Kingdom of God and what are the conditions for entering this Kingdom? For what purpose did Christ incarnate and minister on earth? What was the purpose and effect of Christ’s death upon the cross? What was the nature and significance of Christ’s resurrection? etc.
What I would be looking for is affirmations of things like the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ, the spiritual-redemptive purpose of the incarnation, and the gracious, individual experience of conversion.