;)
Back To The Future on Cultural Issues
Posted by Rob Ayers in Baptist Life, Church & Missions, News & Culture
I am late in getting this post up. What I meant to do was to get it in place before Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. Alas, the best laid plans of mice and men – a few weeks late and voila! Here it is. I hope that it still is pertinent with you today. I know it is with me.
In some ways the conservative reformation of the Southern Baptist Convention has come full circle. This is illustrated most decisively by some and their attitude toward cultural issues. In the old days those who controlled the convention apparatus were led by a philosophy of agnosticism toward cultural issues. If they were moved at all, they were of the opinion that “it did not matter” – we were all about missions – and since the mainstream of theological thinking among them was leftward, then the prescription for cultural issues often had a social gospel focus whose optic fixed not upon what the Bible says but by what the words “social justice” mean. Since the Bible could not be counted upon to have the proper remedy in terms of “social justice” then the Jesus of the experience could be counted upon to remedy whatever ”social justice” demanded.
Now that is not to say that “justice” is not found in the pages of scripture. We can agree enthusiastically that justice demands that no matter the skin color, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, people should hold the same rights and be afforded the same opportunities as others have. Slavery, segregation, and discrimination were (and are) biblical abominations that demanded (and demand) a cultural remedy.
Also Baptists have enthusiastically requested that no matter the religion or creed that all people have the right to worship as they please. We historically have experienced persecution when this rule was not enforced for our benefit – hence our affirmation that all religions and creeds breathe in freedom so that ours continues to be free as well. Certainly friction exists between allowing people to worship a false god while we preach and teach the message of Jesus Christ for all the nations. It is something though that we can live with. We would much rather sojourn in a culture where most people are wrong where we are freely allowed to share the truth with them than live in a society where the state makes the choice for us on the point of a sword. In other words supporting true Baptist distinctives demands allegiance to small government principles – no small government ever requires that we say, “Caesar is Lord.” Only Big Governments do that.
There are things which governments are required to attend to which garner the attention of Christians of conscience. There is no more apparent topic or any other cultural and moral issue today than that epicenter of controversy called “abortion.” During pre-resurgence days this topic within the leadership of agencies and entities of the SBC was either mixed (“our focus is on missions”), or slanted on the side of “choice.” Foy Valentine was admittedly “pro-choice” and the President of the then “Christian Life Commission” whose fulcrum was squarely pointed toward “freedom” rather than “life.” While freedom admittedly works with giving people the ability to speak openly in society and in allowing other people their God-given talents to work and live as equals despite ethnicity, does it really work when one takes the life of another? Do truly moral and just societies allow murderers to freely choose victims; to remove the victims ability for freedom and life “just because” of the socio-economic conditions (read: hardship) that the life of the victim will bring upon the perpetrator? If killing Grandma will cost less money than keeping her alive, why not kill her? Which of the following values is innate and inalienable: Life, or Choice? If both are inalienable, in the contest of wills, which one wins? And who chooses which one wins? Nine men and women in black robes? Or the Lord God Almighty?
Those of course were some of the arguments then. After successive conventions where the majority voiced their concerns about the life of the unborn, changes were made. The Southern Baptist Convention now has definitely a strong pro-life ethos. Our cultural emphasis demands both freedom and justice for all people who are both born and unborn so ultimately they will make a choice to choose or reject the message of the Gospel.
Which brings us to today. We have a post-generational moment occurring. This also occurred in Egypt a long time ago when a new Pharaoh came to be “who knew not Joseph.” A new generation of Southern Baptists are attempting to take up the torch to share the gospel to the nations. They are some of the most dedicated on fire Christians I have witnessed in my lifetime. Yet some of their group profess this same “agnosticism” toward cultural issues that the moderates who controlled things before professed as well. In their case the “golden calf” (I say this reluctantly and without malice) is church planting and mission sending while all the rest is to be ignored as a “non-priority.” Thus we have arguments to defund the ERLC, with the additional bonus of making degrading and de-humanizing comments about Richard Land (at least by some activists). In the name of “missions” we should once again ignore cultural issues, specifically the controversial issue of abortion. Being a pro-life people and convention who attempt through our voice as individuals, churches, and as a collective, to influence authorities to change the law concerning abortion is so passe to some. We have indeed come full circle.
I provide to you the following lists of “truisms” to ponder. I like simple lists (you know) where I attempt to disabuse the existence of “gray” areas (which if you think about it merely muddles choices and attempts with the insertion of complexity to make a problem unsolvable which then places humanity in a position of paralysis). Here they are. Ponder them if you will, and comment upon them if you must (of course I would like you to). Tell me where I am wrong:
1. We share the Gospel of Jesus Christ to make a better world in the here and now, and to prayerfully increase (through the work of the Spirit) the Heavenly Kingdom for the future. We teach and preach the Truth that is Jesus so that people will understand the truth of reality, therefore bettering themselves and the culture around them for God’s glory. We plant churches to make disciples as the Master has instructed us so that in the teaching of these new disciples they too will make an impact in the communities in which they live by standing for Truth and the truth. That includes standing up in the culture to promote behaviors and practices which would be for the good and the betterment of all society. Our priority is to share the Gospel so that the Spirit of God will move hearts by His Word. Yet we do not discount or abandon our other priority of being a preserving agent in the world, for it allows us the freedom to pursue our first priority.
2. Part of the mandate of the church is to provide the world a stark difference between depraved sinners and forgiven sinners saved by grace through faith. In the believer, the ethos has changed from one of death to life; from hopelessness to hope; from depravity to righteousness. Believers know what is righteous and good by what God has said is good, “for the Bible tells me so.”
3. Christians have recognized since our founding that the cultural issue of abortion is abhorrent and a part of the depraved world as we recognize any taking of life as such (murder, genocide, infanticide, etc.) and have historically and consistently resisted any attempt in the cultures in which we have lived to normalize the taking of innocent blood. While we recognize that depravity will merely do what depravity does, we also recognize our responsibility to stand against depravity in whatever form it takes and counter it with the righteousness of God.
4. Any believer who supports by direct contribution or indirect indifference the taking of innocent life through the process of abortion is committing sin, and is no different than those slavers and segregationists who in previous generations claimed to be good Christians yet muddied about in abominable evil practices.
5. Christians should “condemn the sin, yet redeem the sinner.” This includes women who choose abortions as well as those who are complicit in performing abortions, and all those who are complicit in making them happen by their activism or indifference.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;){kind=logo}
“We share the Gospel of Jesus Christ to make a better world in the here and now”
That line could have been taken from a Rob Bell book. I recognize that is not your intention, but if the “here and now” comes before the “heavenly kingdom” we run the risk of losing the Kingdom focus and end up consumed by social (liberal) or political (conservative) issues to the detriment of gospel proclamation.
If it were true that a focus on evangelism (church planting and missions) was a detriment to cultural change, I’d still have to go with the primary biblical mandate over the secondary one every time. Fortunately, the lost getting saved has a greater influence on culture than mere political action.
No Andrew not my intention – the second part of that sentence needs to be before the first – and where did you get I was formenting “political” activism? The work of the Gospel and it’s increase begets a natural outcome in the believer – by nature they become a change agent in culture.
Rob
Another point Andrew. I am not Rob Bell
Rob
Rob (Ayers, not Bell),
First of all, I affirm the Kingdom focus. I believe we are called to do the Father’s work today in the here and now. We should pray regularly for God’s Kingdom, i.e. his rule and reign, to come and for His will to be done ON EARTH (presumably in the here and now) as it is in heaven. In that, thou has well said.
As for cultural issues, I believe it is a mistake to make abortion a cultural issue. It is a moral issue and one in which we can speak with moral authority. I agree that it is part of our culture, but if we become self-styled culture warriors, we leave the mission of Jesus (to seek and to save that which was lost) and embark on the mission of his religious competitors during his day (to transform the culture around them either through legalism like the Pharisees or political activism like the Herodians and Zealots, or cultural accommodation like the Sadducees). Cultural transformation is a CONSEQUENCE of heart transformation. It is neither an end or a means to saving faith in Christ.
Finally, while abortion is a great evil and should be stopped, I believe we do ourselves and the world a disservice by focusing too much on a single issue. We need to see abortion in a larger context than just killing babies. Abortion is part of the process that often begins with a breach in sexual purity. If we had won the battle there, the abortion fight would never have to have been waged. But that’s not how we define the issue. We don’t emphasize the unequal burden of responsibility between the fathers who cooperate with the mothers to bring unwanted children into the world. If we had fought the battle there for Fatherhood, abortion wouldn’t be an issue. The vast majority of abortions are among the poor and people of color. These are issues that inform the abortion debate and need to be addressed. You mentioned social justice. Is this not a social justice issue?
In short, we have drawn a line in the sand in front of the abortion clinic which means we have abandoned all the other lines leading up to it. Is that the way we should be waging this battle?
Rick -
I agree with you. The article merely brought up one example of a current moral issue that was my “foil”.
The moral imperative of the Gospel demands that we deal with “all the above” rather than on one issue. Marriage and Family within the confines of righteousness is our message with abortion being a corollary theme.
Somehow what has been missed so far by the comments is my repetition of our priority as found in Acts 1:8. Unlike others I do not discount my mutual obligations as a believer. I understand the power of the Gospel to change hearts and minds, and am a proponent and an activist of our first priority. But unlike others I know the power of the Gospel, and do not discount our other priorities as meaningless or of non-importance. A “change agent” is just that. I am not a “culture warrior” – I am a Gospel messenger. Being a “witness” not only testifies about the good news of Jesus, but also testifies of the good life in Jesus. We know that many if not most will reject the message of the Good News. We pray that through our presence and willingness to live the life of Jesus in us that the world will be a better place. That willingness to testify both the Good News and the good life is direct, not indirect. And one cannot testify one directly and share the other indirectly. That is compartmentalization and has never worked, either in attempting to be a silent witness, or ignoring moral depravity.
We also should not give up the “line in the sand” around the abortion clinic. We work to shore up our defenses around these areas that you mention until those “forward areas” no longer need our attention.
I am glad Rick that you called me “Rob” and not “Ron”
Rob
Rob,
There are several different questions that your post touches on. I am trying to get a handle on dividing them out, as to avoid throwing them all in the same bag.
That being said, I am not sure if I personally fall into the category of the “new generation of Southern Baptists” you reference, or not. Several things I have written here at SBC Impact would indeed place me in the group of those who would like to see us place more corresponding emphasis, as a convention, on missions and evangelism, and less on the culture war and politics. However, when you use the particular issue of abortion as a “foil,” that seems to place me outside of your group of reference. I consider myself to be as strongly “pro-life” as anyone in the SBC. And I don’t believe I have ever said or written anything that could be interpreted as suggesting that, as the SBC, we should not take a strong collective stand against abortion. Perhaps there are others out there somewhere in the SBC who do suggest that. If so, I would be curious to know who they are, or to see some specific examples referenced.
Also, as I understand it, there is an important difference between the old politically-left-leaning moderates in the SBC, and the position that we should stick more to the gospel itself, and devote comparatively less time and effort to ancillary issues on which those who agree on the essentials of the gospel may be in disagreement (a philosophy of agnosticism toward cultural issues?). Up until the increase in political activism with the organization of the Moral Majority and other assorted collectives in the 1970s, as I understand it, one of the main criticisms levied by religious liberals and moderates toward fundamentalists was that they were politically unengaged, and focused primarily on other-worldly concerns.
Now, I personally am not arguing for political non-engagement. I think I have laid out my position on political and cultural involvement pretty well here (http://sbcimpact.org/2008/11/11/morality-politics-and-a-broken-heart/) and here (http://sbcimpact.org/2010/03/15/christ-the-faithful-suffering-servant-in-the-midst-of-culture/). However, as a professed gospel-centered collective, I think we do need to be careful that our interpretation of the political and cultural implications of the gospel is not markedly different from that of others who make a convincing case for believing and embracing the same gospel as us. The consensus on opposing abortion on moral grounds among gospel-centered Christians seems to be pretty strong to me. The consensus on various other cultural and political issues in which the ERLC gets involved from time to time, however, is not, in my opinion, quite so clear. And there are even some with arguments (some more legitimate than others, in my opinion) that the best overall path toward helping to reduce abortions and support life is not necessarily that traditionally held out to us by the leaders of the Religious Right.
All of this calls for a large degree of discernment. But I think it also calls for a large degree of love and commitment toward unity with all those who agree with us on the essentials of the gospel. And different understandings of the best way to deal with complex issues should not be confused with indifference toward these issues.
“The work of the Gospel and it’s increase begets a natural outcome in the believer – by nature they become a change agent in culture.”
I think we’re both in agreement on that point. Hence my focus on gospel outreach. The real issue is is in what way are we to become change agents.
I’m not against political activism, but it tends to be the primary solution that “conservatives” tend to promote. After all, a Congressional ban on all forms of abortion would certainly have an immediate and wide-ranging impact on the problem.
I for one feel that I am just as productive at cultural change by sharing the gospel with my coworkers and talking about the life that is growing in my wife as someone else is by holding a sign that reads “abortion is murder” at a busy intersection. Although I’m unlikely to join a demonstration, I don’t shy away from using the platforms that God gives me to call sin what it is and point people towards God.
Two questions for you:
1) How do you define political activism?
2) Who are these others in comment #5? In what way do we need to change agents regarding abortion that isn’t being done?
David,
Do you think I wrote this for your benefit
. I agree with you in that your writings seem to place you in the great middle of all things considered (for that part I would place myself in the same place albeit with minor tweaks and corrections). Though for the life of me I still do not understand how we as a collective can throw .88 to .90 cents of every dollar to missions, with less than .01 cent going to further cultural causes and people still complain that we don’t give enough to missions and too much for “other”. Oh well, I guess I will continue to be dismayed 
In many ways those moderates had it right. Orthodox Conservative Bible Believing folks did (and often still do) tend to Heavenly things leaving earthly pursuits to others so inclined. Yet when some evangelicals started interjecting themselves in the culture, this same group of moderates protested! You see the Religious Left are all for being a part of “changing the world” on their terms. That is part of my trouble you see. I perceive that there are many young stalwarts(present company David excluded) who desire to be isolationist all over again. Southern Baptists are notorious for wanting to “share the Gospel” and then give no one the best prescriptions on “how to live” thereby ceding to a false gospel and doctrine that has enveloped the environment in which we teach and preach. We do not live in a “maya” where the only real world is Heaven, and all else does not exist. It does exist, and real people are in jeopardy in it. We need to help them. We do so by preaching and teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, and living the life of the Master in our daily walk. We influence people around us by our words and actions. Since we are allowed, we also influence the government over us to that it would “do good and not evil” among us. Certainly we have disagreements how much, to what extent, and where our advocacy should go. We lovingly then encourage and cajole one another to do good works. In the end we are left with our conscience before God that is not subject to consensus or the lowest common denominator, and so we press forward despite how even our brothers and sisters feel at the time. But that is not how I see the debate unfolding with some.
Abortion as I see it is not an ancillary issue (I don’t think you disagree with me here). It goes to the very heart of our faith in who God is. It truly is a rebellion against what God says is best to what we say is best. If allowed unchecked, we as a people will stand right along with the mass murderers of history and the supposed “leaven” in those places which with indifference did nothing but sit on their hands.
Rob
I don’t believe, Andrew, that I have proposed any first priority other than yours. And I also don’t believe holding up signs saying “Abortion is Murder” is a very productive way to promote the priority of being salt in the world. And I don’t believe the term “politics” is a good term to describe the believer being in culture. That is a term that isolationists and biblical exclusionists use for the same purpose: to compartmentalize the two active priorities of the believers life and thus marginalize the potency of the believer’s life and work.
Instead of defining what “political advocacy” is let me describe what being a believer in culture is all about. Mature Believers understand that being biblical is an all encompassing lifestyle that is part of the relationship with Jesus Christ: an expression and activity of a worldview that goes beyond sitting in the pew on Sunday. The life ethos of the believer exudes into their daily activities at work, play or even in the grocery store.It is being a part of the school district, getting to know teachers and administrators. It is exchanging emails or letters to Representatives or Senators over important matters of the day. It is going to vote for the candidate who best expresses the ethos of life and good government. It may be advocating for a candidate, or supporting a measure concerning an important issue that would bring about order from chaos. It may be supporting a candidate or even running for office yourself. All of these could be a part of a believers life. And in each of these the Mature Believer knows that there are people who will benefit from hearing the gospel message when that believer is given the opportunity. I find that I often spend more time witnessing in the grocery store line than I do for thirty minutes behind the pulpit on Sunday.
Here is a specific answer to your question. I believe we could do more to advocate a life ethos as a collective. The NAMB most always gets in trouble when it promotes a church plant in a community that already has local churches (which in my opinion is anti-Baptist). Since we spawned those entities to do things that we as churches could not do alone, who is to say that the NAMB could not support with missionaries and funding to support a pregnancy home in a community? Or even a soup kitchen for the homeless? We would be meeting a need that the churches could not do themselves alone, as well as reach some people who need not just help in the here in now, but for eternity.
As for “others” that statement was made under the general theme of the post. “Others” are those who would discount engaging the culture in difference to my position. If that is not you, no worries!
Rob
Rob,
No, I do not think you wrote this just for me. However, when I try to think of people within present-day Southern Baptist life who advocate the views you reference here, it seems some of my own views may perhaps come as close, in certain aspects, as those of any others. Once again, it would be helpful to know, if what you are calling out here is NOT my perspective, then precisely whose perspective is it? If you don’t want to give names, at least, give specific examples of actual things that have been said or written.
As far as the 88 to 90 cents vs. 1 cent comparison is concerned, I suppose you are talking about the percentage of overall CP budget designated to the ERLC. However, you must also take into consideration there are folks in state conventions, faculty at seminaries and colleges, and even, perhaps, some denominationally-funded missionaries that are dedicating significant (if not majority) time and effort to cultural/political causes. Also (though I don’t have any hard statistics), I would venture to guess that a fairly significant percentage of BP articles and other SBC media are focused on cultural/political issues. In addition to this, many individual congregations and church members support para-church ministries that are primarily cultural/political in their focus, and a large portion of programming on certain Christian radio stations is culturally/politically focused as well. And, for some reason or another, a lot of the non-Evangelical world out there has gathered the idea that our main identifying focus as Southern Baptists and Evangelicals is cultural/political.
As far as consensus and least common denominators are concerned, I would prefer that resources given through SBC channels be dedicated to causes in which we are all (or at least a significant majority) in basic agreement. There are opportunities to give and serve, according to special interest, political perspective, and calling, with a number of different organizations. Each congregation and individual should feel free to be involved with these as they see fit, before the Lord. But the focus which draws us together as Southern Baptists, as I understand it, is specifically the gospel.
Couple points.
Foy Valentine’s legacy in Baptist life in my view is best represented in the pages of the periodical he helped birth, Christian Ethics Today. So I suggest David Rogers in particular and all of you who are fair minded, check the easily googled website periodically.
I think Ellen Rosenberg, Randall Balmer, Rice U’s Chandler Davidson and others make a strong case there was a strong anti Martin Luther King/desegregation animus at work in early leaders of the SBC Resurgence that the SBC still refuses to explore. Look closely at the passions of Criswell, Pressler and Jesse Helms to explore that aspect of the latent enthusiams of the Resurgence. Joe Ferguson profiles Helms in that matter explicitly and his networked role in the SBC Resurgence.
And Third: I have yet to see Richard Land, Al Mohler, or Timothy George engage Karen Gormley on the politics of abortion matter. There has been some interesting exchanges; blog comments by Steven Miller who explored Billy Graham, Nixon and Race and Rise of Southern GOP on the wedge issue of abortion politics.
One of my plumblines continues to be David Gushee. He looked at Southern Seminary under Mohler’s early 90′s Covenant and said God was not in the place.
A Fundamentalist view of abortion will not cover the misdoings of the CR in the SBC.
Would like for Rob Ayers in particular to give a thorough reading of the Gormley pieces easily googled as he continues his assertions in this matter.
Thanks, Sfox
Stephen,
Dr. Valentine and his legacy are legion in that for the better part of a decade he ignored the cry of the majority of the churches because “he knew best.” On his watch he promoted “choice” and as a result millions of innocents died. How many of these can we lay at the feet of Dr. Valentine and his colleagues as a result of their advocacy? His actions are no more or less evil than those who supported slavery of the black man, or who advocated “separate but equal” when there was no such. No amount of supposed “misdoings” of CR proponents will cover the blood of the genocide of millions which he and other of your worthies implicitly promoted and still do promote to this day. If you support such persons, you also support the death of millions – there is no two ways about it, so therefore you have blood on your hands. “Politics of abortion” is an absurdity that wants to wash away the “reality of abortion” of which it seems you are abysmally unaware. This is not some theatrical or political debate Stephen. If there was one issue which put the “fundamentalists” in the SBC (which you despise) over the top – abortion was it. What we found among our more moderate brethren was this: A fundamental lack of recognizing evil for what it is, and then a abysmal inability to say it so that anyone could hear. The only evil they saw (and still see) are those who can call a spade a spade, and are willing to say so openly. May God rest the souls of those who lost their lives as a result of our reckless abandonment of truth. May God forgive us for losing our way for so long, and may He continue to give us strength to share the truth. May God grant mercy to those who continue to promote such evil, “for they know not what they do.” And Lord, if they know what they do, then may your grace be made known them, or your curse be upon them.
Rob
Rob: I think it was Paige Patterson who was famously quoted as saying in early 80′s abortion would “go over as well as the inerrancy thing.”
Just because I differ about the poliitics of abortion as used by Pressler and Helms in the takeover of the SBC, and point out folks like David Gushee who place the matter on a different calculus than you, does not mean I despise fundamentalists.
Timothy George’s use of abortion to compare SBTS Paul Simmons to Nazi Insiders in the famous 1993 ERLC pamphlet I think was insidious.
In realpolitik terms your fight is with Barbara, Laura Bush, and George (43) W’s two daughters. When Richard Land and Karl Rove bring them to Nashville for the nationally televised discussion before the SBC Executive Committee with Karen Gromley and Al Mohler; let me know because I will do my best to tune in that night.
Joe – I don’t think that your offering had much to do with the post – if you have something to add to it, I would be glad to allow it. Since it merely was pointed at Stephen, then I am just going to edit it. I think my response to Stephen is a fair representation of our position on matters.
Rob
Stephen, I edited this for the same reason that I did for Joe.
My fight (as it were) Stephen is against anyone who would promote the murder of innocents by direct contribution of indirect indifference be they Democrat or Republican. If one does not like being connected or compared to mass murderers, then by all means don’t support abortion through the rhetoric of “choice” and don’t ignore the results of the abortionists work. I don’t view things in the calculus of power politics – I view things in the terms of good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust, depravity and righteousness. Those who support “choice” by their rhetoric or vote are supporting murder. That is a reality you must face. I am not you see being wishy washy about it, for the truth “will set you free.”
Our friend David Rogers has endorsed Harry Dent’s daughter, former IMB trustee Ginny Brant’s book Finding True Freedom. In correspondence with Ginny I have found we both have great admiration for the former pastor of Peachtree Presbyterian Atlanta Pastor Frank Harrington. Harrington followed Dent at Presbyterian College in Clinton, S.C. and was one of the grandest Presbyterian Pastors of the 20th Century.
It was Harrington’s conviction “The Weight of Protestant Theology comes down on the side of the Mother.”
Maybe David will invite Ginny to blog here on the mutual admiration her father had for Harrington.
In the meantime David Gushee, the man who was uncomfortable with the Mohler era at SBTS and left Union Tn for Mercer has this to say recently on sanctity of life:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6234/53/
Cynthia Gormley, not Karen. My apologies Rob for the inaccurate first name.
Have the Manhattan Declaration, Rove and Richard Land engage Gormley
Google Parsing the politics of Abortion on NPR and here is a link for a book review for you and Mohler and Land to consider:
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/05/books/bk-36056
Since you love to read Stephen, read this if you have the stomach for it:
http://media.philly.com/documents/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf
and then repeat at the end “the weight of Protestant Theology comes down on the side of the mother.”
Rob
Eisenhower or Demint Republican. Frank Page and Rob Ayers need to answer the question in their heart; and the public discussion needs to take place in earnest in the blogging world of SBC even as it has started in SBC trends at baptistlife.
I hope to see Dave Miller’s friend Scott Howell navigate this matter.
As for abortion, Rob, you and Richard Land’s discussion is with Cynthia Gorney; not me.
Have her at ERLC panel or with Mohler at SBTS.
Meanwhile the heart of the matter
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4407/original_spin:_progressives_dismiss_conservative_theology_at_their_peril/
No Stephen – our discussion about what abortion is should not be with any man (or woman) with whatever rationalizations they bring to fore – it is with the God of all. Try reading what He said sometime. It will be fairly enlightening to you I hope.
Rob
I will go with Harrington. You do not speak for God on this matter. Let’s have Richard Land invite David Gushee and Cynthia Gorney to take a look at how abortion has been used as a wedge issue politically. Let’s look at the full aura of the matter with Karl Rove and Laura Bush, Anne Graham Lotz and Barbara Brown Taylor; then let’s move on.
So let us be clear here and shout it from the rooftops: Stephen Fox prefers the opinion of those whom “tickles his fancy” to the Lord God Almighty i.e. Exodus 20:13, “You shall not murder.” You see Stephen no number of rationalizations of those whom you enjoy reading will buck up against that command which needs no further enlightenment and interpretation. Selective and intentional abortion (save the procedure used to correct a tubal pregnancy) = murder. Finis.
Rob
There are other Christian opinions on the matter; Insights of those who are as convicted of Scripture as you are. Your selective quoting of Scripture is the final say on the matter in your mind only
“Christian” opinions are irrelevant especially if they support murder. What other “selective” scriptures on point are there Stephen? In all of your mutterings that I have ever read on blogs, I find your complete lack of scriptural quotations very interesting. In all of your reading of David Gushee do you ever read the Scriptures to prove him – or is it the other way around? My Scripture quotation here is on point. Where are yours? I am not concerned about what is on my mind or even what is on yours – I am only concerned on what is on the mind of my Lord – as you should be too.
Also – beware the ad hominems.
Rob
Planned Parenthood Panel on NPR this morning just for you Rob. Not many stones left unturned.
Hope with your passion for the discussion you will make time to listen to this exchange ASAP:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-04-13/women%E2%80%99s-health-and-budget