The Church v. Roe v. Wade
Before I even endeavor to touch this third-rail of discussion, please let me be clear that a) if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned by the US Supreme Court, I will be at the front of the pack leading a week-long celebration; b) I am a stauch believer in the rights of the unborn to have life; and c) if anyone links to or quotes this article in a manner which implies nullification of (a) or (b), they will be guilty of slander.
I was born in 1968, five years before the landmark Supreme Court ruling on Roe vs. Wade, which made abortion legal in all 50 US States. I was probably 12 years old before I heard anything about it, or even understood what it was all about. Since this time, almost every political discussion I have heard with Christians has had, at its underpinnings, the subtext of abortion. Every presidential and congressional vote I have cast to date has been, by and large, based almost solely on this issue - with little more than lip service paid to other issues (which happen to best align with my pocketbook, coincidentally).
In the past few years, I wonder how wise I - and entire Christian organizations - have been in so blindly following this issue and electing politicians who a) promise to do something about - or to at least curb - abortion; and b) fail to accomplish anything regarding it. We end up playing Charlie Brown while Lucy holds the ball for us to kick - and we’re continually surprised and/or disappointed when nothing happens.
In reality, though, we have displaced our faith.
Find rest, O my soul, in God alone;
my hope comes from him.
He alone is my rock and my salvation;
he is my fortress, I will not be shaken
Instead, we have placed our hope in politicians and governments to correct this “wrong” - we have expected that the government will provide the justice that only God can provide. Certainly, the government’s purpose according to scripture is to provide defense and to provide a system of justice. Abortion is clearly an injustice against the most innocent in our society. But when we cry out against the systems of this world for not acting in the manner that God would, have we not displaced our source of hope and is it possible that our cry is one of selfishness, as well?
The Silver Lining of Roe v. Wade
Something that I have witnessed in the church that, I have been told by those older and wiser than I, was distinctly missing prior to the legalization of abortion is this:
In the manner of caring for young, unwed mothers, the church finally stepped up to the plate and been what it is supposed to be. Before 1973, there were very few ministries aimed at assisting young, unwed women (or, for that matter, poor married and/or abused women) who were pregnant and in despair of what was to come in their lives. I have heard it argued, and I believe, that Roe v. Wade became culturally ‘necessary’ because of the failure of, and self-righteous attitude of, the church.
Much like the stages of grief, the church moved through denial, protest and anger (with a rash of abortion clinic bombings, to boot) in its response to abortion legalization, and it wasn’t until at least a decade (possibly two) after the 1973 ruling that wholesale ministries aimed at assisting at-risk women and their unborn children both before and after their childbirth really took hold in the church. While it speaks to the human nature of humans in the church, it is a sad commentary that it took millions of unnecessary deaths to convince the church that their attitude toward others who, indeed, had “gotten themselves into their own mess”, needed to be Christ-like in caring for them.
If nothing else, Roe v. Wade forced the church to man-up and act like the body of Christ, if it was going to claim to be like him.
What Then and What Now?
As part of business planning in my professional life, I often get pulled into “future-ing” exercises of “if X happens, what will we do?” In these, the biggest question is “What then?” - What then, will we do in response to X?
If the Supreme Court tomorrow outlawed abortion, I would rejoice at the innocent lives saved in such a ruling. I would probably rejoice for days on end.
But.
But then I would wake up, and I would worry. I would worry about the church and its response. Would our response be like our response when the government took over in caring for the poor in the early 20th Century, where the church rather quickly pulled out of wholesale ministration to the poor, the widow and the orphan because the government would do their job for them. Would the church go back to despising those young women and leaving them to the consequences of their sin? Would the church be prepared to triple or quadruple its giving and serving to women who - prior to its abolishment - would have received abortions?
If history is our guide, I do not think I would like the answer to those questions. Having seen the church’s pitifully slow response to the AIDS crisis today, I think the church would fail. Not for lack of “orthodoxy” - we’ve got more of that than we’ll ever need, despite what the ODM shriekers shout at us. No - it is because we generally fail to love our neighbor beyond prostelyzation.
Case in point: Last year, Rick Warren lined up numerous leaders - religious, political and industrial - pledging monetary support to fight AIDS in Africa, where the death toll to this disease overshadows our own abortion death toll. One of those leaders was a politician who supports the Roe v. Wade ruling. After witnessing the hand-wringing, wailing, gnashing of teeth and the calls of Warren being the “False Prophet of the Antichrist” for allowing this person to speak (not at a meeting of the church, mind you, but at a mid-week event on property owned by the church), I have absolutly no doubt that the church in America does not have what it takes to be Christ in a post-Roe society.
The church is too lazy to give the manpower, too stingy to give the money, and it is too proud to partner with the agencies with the manpower required to provide this care. The church I recognize in much of America - primarily from the right - would be content standing on the sidelines while government agencies, Mormons and atheists did its work for them, all the while sniping “you’re doing it wrong!”
Maybe I’m just a pessimist, and the church really would rise to the occasion and be the salt and light required if Roe was overturned.
But maybe I’m right and the church isn’t ready.
Maybe that’s why it hasn’t happened yet…
November 20th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Amen!
The loss of Roe v. Wade would not mean the end of abortion rights.
It would just mean states would get to decide.
So even that celebration would not mean what some folks think it will.
I have a friend in SD where they tried to force the issue with a ballot measure eliminating all abortions with no exceptions. The measure failed, but my friend stuck it to people who were all for the ballot measure and angry about it.
He said: If it passes, will you open your home to the single mom, or adopt her baby? Because if you codify your theology into law you better be ready to deal with the reality that still will be there no matter what you push through the ballot box.
Good thoughts today!
November 20th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
plus…
the ultimate hypocrisy is christians who blindly vote republican because of the abortion issue and have yet to see their precious party of “god” actually do anything about it in almost 20 years of control…
they should feel used.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
God wants R v W overturned one by one in the heart of each sinner. For what does it profit if we affect moral change and people still lose their souls.
I admire Warren’s AIDS effort except that he joins with unbelievers whcih waters down any gospel effort which should be the primary motivation to bind up their wounds. It is so difficult to remain on point with the gospel, and criticizing is so easy. The African AIDS mission field is the greatest mission opportunity in history.
Besides some money and materials, why isn’t God calling many Americans to leave their homes and go permanently to that field? Or is He calling and we are not listening?
Voting conservatively is the single most unproductive but conscience soothing act in my lifetime. How we ever became embroiled with the politics of morality within the darkness of this world is the deception of the ages. Only American Christians could partake of a system that allowed them to vote and think they were serving Christ.
And between the Novembers it affords a nice platform to criticize, murmur, complain, and generally be prideful about our moral issues all of which came by the graciousness of God’s Spirit and not our intellectual prowess. Keep voting, the dying babies thank us for a job well done.
How about a revival that strips us off our couches, anoints us with power not of ourselves, and sends us to preach the good news to the girls who need Him, like the Hannah Montana group that some bloggers smugly demean. Critizing the world’s sins, talk about your fish in a barrel!
It is time to criticize ourselves!!!
November 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I think this happens to the church in a lot of areas.
The church fights against abortion laws instead of helping out unwed pregnant women, as you said. However even if abortion laws are reversed, illegial abortions will still happen, so obviously helping the women would make more of a difference.
Same with same-sex marriage laws. It’s good that the church rallies up supporters to vote against same-sex marriage, but there will still be homosexuals living together, even Christian homosexuals. The church needs to reach out with the gospel message to these people (which I don’t see happening very much).
As for the AIDS/STD issue, the church needs to teach about abstinence (sp?). I have seen this, but not enough. (That would also help the abortion issue).
Obviously the church (or just Christians in general) needs to do a better job of reaching out to the community and helping people instead of just voting “no” on laws (which won’t solve the problem, just make it illegal). Church for me is about loving God and loving people, and ignoring certain groups of people is not showing much love for God. This is something that needs a lot of prayer.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Greatcomment Merry. But teaching abstinence doesn’t work. The church needs top preach the gospel to the lost, but in the church itself we need to disciple believers to study the Word, pray without ceasing, and generally how to be devoted to Christ every day. Most believers have no time with Christ and we wonder why the number of church youth promiscuity is basically the same as the world.
Good first two points!
November 20th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Rick, very true. Sharing the gospel is always the first we need to do. But I think abstinence still needs to be heard about.
Actually, none of the solutions I suggested are foolproof, as people will make their own choices. But they will I think make a much bigger difference than getting laws changed will.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I couldn’t agree more!
RvW is is an issue Republican polititians have used to fool well meaning Christians into voting for them for ~30 years. And for all those votes, for all those pro-lifers, not a thing has been done. And to be honest, not a thing ever will get done. Presidents and Legislatures have little to no influence on that law, other than voting in “conservative” judges, which as we all know aren’t allowed to speak about potential cases they might take were they to gain approval by congress.
It’s ridiculous (and I’m no Rudy fan) that people are really that upset about Rudy potentially gaining the republican nomination on nothing more than the fact that he is semi-pro-choice.
Puu…lease
For my part, abortion rights is the last thing on my list of qualifications for a President. His opinion on RvW is irrelevant, because he can’t do anything about it.
Under the guise of trying to protect Christianity from secular persecution, we’ve ended up pursuing the ratification of Christianity into American law.
And that, my friends, is dangerous.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
it’s good to see some concord here…
I don’t think churches should teach abstinence, etc.
I think the Church should teach people to love God with their whole being. From a hermeneutic of love will come applications.
Being obsessed with moral/ethical issues is putting the cart before the horse.
I remember hearing how one theologian said that when a people become moralistic it is the sign that they have forgotten the gospel.
That’s what belong, behave, believe or belong, believe, behave is all about in current ministry circles.
You show love, bring people in, invite them to live as you live…to see it is a better way, all the while, sharing the source of that life in the work of Christ….
November 20th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
ya know, on the whole AIDS Rick Warren thing?
I just don’t get how anyone can see this as concerning in any respect.
What good is the Gospel to a person who doesn’t believe you care about them?
Why should someone listen if the all consuming tragedy of their lives is trivialized by us and our appeals to “gutting it out until the next life”?
I’m not saying that’s what anyone here is claiming…but I’m kind over hearing people act like there’s something admirable, but still fundamentally wrong with Rick Warren lending his voice to the AIDS crisis.
And I’m no fan of PD.
although Chris P’s church obviously is…
(sorry, had to say it.)
right or wrong, people won’t listen if they think you’re just about feeling good that someone signed on to your way of thinking/believing no matter how much we protest to the contrary.
just sayin’…
November 20th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
–In the past few years, I wonder how wise I - and entire Christian organizations - have been in so blindly following this issue and electing politicians who a) promise to do something about - or to at least curb - abortion; and b) fail to accomplish anything regarding it.–
How much any one politician can do about it is debatable. Let any legislation come forward that may put any limits on abortion, and liberals will raise such a outcry that one would think it was the defaming of the sacred to them (and maybe it is).
–Instead, we have placed our hope in politicians and governments to correct this “wrong†- we have expected that the government will provide the justice that only God can provide. –
We have tried to work within the lawful system, of trying to influence our leaders and electing those who may be able to do something about it. If that is wrong, do you espouse open rebellion? Or quiet meek acceptance?
You know, I get really tired of the bashing of those who are trying to do something about it, even if it’s only trying to select the right leaders to make a difference. I expect it from the Planned Parenthood and Moveon.org types, but from people like you???
Give me a break.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Make a difference? Reagan had 6 years of a pro-life senate and NOT ONE BILL TO OUTLAW ABORTION WAS PUT FORWARD. Bush #1 had fours years with the same result. This president had four years of pro-life senate and representatives with NO BILLS PUT TO A VOTE.
Make a difference, Jazz? Let’s pray for revival in the church and leave the dirty business of politics with Satan who is its president. Well meaning but way off target.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I don’t think the OP was meant to bash those fighting RvW and abortion. I think the issue is the fact that American Evangelicalism has aligned itself too much with one party.
Neil S.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Rick,
I think your philosophy that politics is the business of Satan is swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction.
Neil S.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I think the church has the right and responsibility to critique it’s culture - and that includes calling the government on the carpet when it’s acting unjustly.
In that sense I think we have the right and responsibility to speak out.
On the other hand, the church has developed its “favorite” injustices and majored on those (while ignoring the others) as it snuggled up with the GOP.
Neil S
November 20th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Which is the issue:
1) that abortion should not be legal, or
2) that people should not kill their children
I would argue that much of the church will say that believe #2, but they will act like they believe #1.
Is the aim of pro-life to
1) influence public opinion to shift enough to outlaw abortion, or
2) provide the means to make keeping a child or giving it up for adoption the most attractive options for women with unwanted pregnancies
Once again, I would argue that we say #2, but we act like #1.
Did you not read the first 2 paragraphs? If I am “bashing”, then I am “bashing” myself, as well.
What I am saying is that the “solution” to abortion in America is not the government - it is the church! It is not “them” - it is “us”.
Certainly it matters which people we elect - but we shoot ourselves in the foot when we make abortion the ONLY issue, and when we attempt to ostracize anyone who has anything to do with a politician who is not anti-abortion. We become to the GOP what blacks are to the Democrats - a voting bloc that you throw bones to, but never have to deliver to.
Personally, there are few Republicans in the race I would vote for, and I would die before voting for Hillary. So, if the GOP choosed Romney or Guiliani, I will likely look for a third party candidate - and urge other Christians to do the same.
In 67 A.D., the Christian Jews saw the signs predicted by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse and, following his advice, 100,000+ left Jerusalem in the days before the siege. After the fall of Jerusalem, the remaining Jews blamed these Christians for not standing and fighting against Rome, creating the rift that historically cut off Jews from converting, en masse, to Christianity.
If the secular GOP wants to blame Christians for their loss in 2008, so be it. The church needs to be separate from the systems of this world, and perhaps it is time to demonstrate that independence - Charlie Brown never learned the lesson of playing football with Lucy. I’m hoping we’re smarter than that…
November 20th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Neil,
If we dealt directly with people and really engaged our culture then laws would follow.
We can be part of the process, but there has to be a sense of where our real mission is.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I agree that we need to preach the gospel to the nation so that there is no longer a demand for abortion, it won’t matter if the law says it’s okay. If they come to Christ, then there won’t be any abortions anyway.
However, do we think that voting Democrat would be any better. After all, they’re not promising to end abortion, they’re promising to make it even more available, and in some cases even provided at the tax payer’s expense.
If you truly believe that “abortion is clearly an injustice against the most innocent in our society.” then you must not vote for those who would make it even more available.
Perhaps the republican law makers have not tried hard enough to change the law, I think that you might be right. However, if the senate were 100% republican I’m sure the law would change in a heartbeat.
We can’t support those who want to make abortion more available. (for example, Obama and Clinton, just to name 2)
November 20th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Inquisitor - point me to the Emerald City!
Just kidding! I agree we shouldn’t vote for any pro-choice candidate, I just make sure I don’t by not voting and praying and fasting in November.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
nc,
I would agree that we need to keep the sense of our real mission - I think the issue at hand is how is that done, and has our recent past (being in bed w/the GOP) been that?
Laws will only follow if a critical mass is reached.
Neil S
November 20th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I personally don’t vote for someone merely on the stance that they are Republican or not. I look at the candidate as a whole. If he/she is qualified for the position…and if they happen to be pro-life..BONUS!
November 20th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
So, given the choice between Guiliani and Clinton, we all stay home. Pretty much secures a victory for the latter if enough feel that way.
Neil S
November 20th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
In politics I am a Calvinist, I do not seem to have a choice!
November 20th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I think we’ve lost track of the forest for our examination of the trees. The issue is not how individuals vote, or if they abstain… I think the greater issue that Chris L brought up was the reliance that Evangelicals have placed on one particular party.
Neil S.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I think it was Dobson who recently said: “The lesser of two evils is still evil.”
BTW what does ODM stand for?
November 20th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
ODM = Outdoor MimingÂ
Â
Actually it stands for Online Discernment Ministry. I believe Joe Martino coined the term.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Thanks - I figured the “M” was ministry, but could not fill in the rest…
November 20th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Mr. Frueh, do you really not vote?
I think that God has given us the privilege to take part in determining the direction of the country.
The democratic system is simply a way to make everyone in the nation elected officials with the ability to vote on the direction that the country takes. This is a privilege that should not be taken lightly or snubbed. Imagine if your senator never voted on issues that were brought before the senate. That would be almost unjust.
It’s the same for us as citizens.
Jimmy,
Don’t you think that pro-life is more than a “bonus” ?
What issues do you place on a higher level of importance than 50,000,000 deaths?
November 20th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
What, exactly, has voting for pro-life candidates gotten anyone?
November 21st, 2007 at 12:27 am
All this time I thought it was Odd Demeaning Maniacs…
J/K = )
iggy
November 21st, 2007 at 4:02 am
Giuliani or Clinton?
The only real difference is plumbing.
But it would be soooooooooo bad for Clinton to win?
Whatever.
I’d love to see her win, just to skewer evangelicals who worship Bush.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:54 am
–This president had four years of pro-life senate and representatives with NO BILLS PUT TO A VOTE.–
I would remind you of the of the nation-wide hissy-fit liberals threw when the President put forward constructionist judges for various courts. One reason the libs had apoplectic (or is that apocalyptic?) seizures is because they know that RvW is bad law, and constructionists have a view that can overturn it.
–Make a difference, Jazz? Let’s pray for revival in the church and leave the dirty business of politics with Satan who is its president. Well meaning but way off target.–
Whatever, Rick. You’re an ok guy, but checking out on the culture and those who lead it isn’t going to do much.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:56 am
NC,
I would disagree just a bit, as - once again - there’s a whole lot more than abortion to consider in a candidate.
If the purpose of government, according to the Bible, is for self-defense and maintaining a system of justice, I have little doubt - based on Guiliani’s time as a Federal Prosecutor and Hillary’s “first term” - that only one of the two is qualified to manage a justice system…
Here, the phrase “cutting off your nose to spite your face” seems to apply.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:05 am
Who cares about the liberal hissy fit, babies are dying. Politics are just that, we as Christians are called to preach Christ which brings morality as a residual effect. The only reason I am pro-life is because I got saved.
Another danger of moral politics is unscriptural alliances. Romeny espouses an anti-christ religion and yet he was endorsed by Bob Jones. When you get into the pig pen culture on their terms you get….well, you know. In 2012 the issues will still be the same, except the issues that Christians care about will be further and further on the back burner.
Politics = One liar calling another liar a liar.
Hilary will win and we are mandated to give her honor and not complain and criticize which is another downside to being political.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:44 am
Just to note - this thread has degenerated to proving the point of the original post -
Why is it that we see the “solution” to the problem of abortion as a political one, and not one to be solved by action - individual and corporate - on the part of the church?
Rick - I have to agree with Phil that you’re swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. There IS a place for government, Biblically, and to abstain from civic involvement is no better than mixing politics in religion…
November 21st, 2007 at 8:55 am
Overturn RvW and abortions will stop??????? Not exactly a quote from anybody here but that is the sense that I get.
Abortions will still happen whether it’s illegal or not.
For the hundreth time, POLITICIANS WILL NOT SAVE YOU! No law they pass will stop sin. No law they enact will change hearts. No decree they make will hold back the (preceived) descent of human morality.
Guillani, Clinton, Ron Paul, that actor dude, I really don’t care what puppet…err….I mean; politician gets elected. Unless of course James Dobson (which while telling me he can’t support a politician on his show, Focus on the Family, tells me why he’s not voting for a politician on his show) tells me otherwise.
Confused? Me too!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:00 am
Remember, Chris L., at the time the Scriptures were written it referred mostly to monarchies. Democracy was invented by the humanistic Greeks and was never God’s will. Pray for the leaders, even petition them (Paul), but to become entangled with a corrupt system and believe that God is in that while the church itself is corrupt in my opinion is very flawed.
I understand we are all on different planes but I pray the church will return to her first love and leave that which doesn’t profit alone.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:10 am
Chris L.,
Actually I think Neil said that, but I pretty much agree. I do vote most of the time, but I guess I’ve come to realize that politics really can affect very little. Also, I think that the genius of the US Constitution is that it really was written so that change comes pretty slowly.
It’s interesting to me that in the first century, Christians were martyred because the refused to bow to Caesar. Today many Christians are willing to look to Caesar as their hope.
In the Roman Empire, abortion wasn’t uncommon, and infanticide was practiced with regularity. Christians did not take political action to stop these practices, though. In the case of infanticide, where infants where literally left out to die, Christian would simply come and pick the child. They didn’t stop and condemn the parents, even if they deserved it. They simply cared for the helpless.
Just some food for thought.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:11 am
Wow, Phil, you’re on a roll today!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:17 am
Phil -
Darn you! You stole a topic I was going to bring in next - that being the practice in Ephesus of infant exposure, where 25,000 - 100,000 infants a year - from that city along - were left out to die at the east gate of Ephesus, and that slave traders would come through, examine them, and pick out the “good ones” to keep for their trade, and that Christians were known to come and pick up ones that they could care for, as well.
Christians couldn’t even speak at buliteriat (town council) meetings, because you had to burn incense to Caesar and/or Artemis (depending upon pre- or post- Domitian). Thus, instead of trying to make the government fix the problem, they did what they could - rescued the ones they were capable of rescuing…
November 21st, 2007 at 9:18 am
Oh - and sorry for misattributing your comment, Neil!
November 21st, 2007 at 10:20 am
–Who cares about the liberal hissy fit, babies are dying. –
You said that conservatives had done nothing about abortion, I was only pointing out one thing that has been done.
–Why is it that we see the “solution†to the problem of abortion as a political one,–
We don’t, Christ L, if you mean ‘only’ a political one, or if I may put it differently, a matter of changing the nation’s laws through the means provided to us. We do, however, see such means as being one way, and not a small one, of dealing with the problem.
–Overturn RvW and abortions will stop??????? Not exactly a quote from anybody here but that is the sense that I get.–
No, chris, it will not stop it, any more then traffic laws stop people from speeding, laws against theft keep people from stealing, and drug laws keep people from frying their brains on the narcotic of choice.
However, it would do away with a bad judicial decision, and would at least make it so that the nation doesn’t give legal consent to such a practice. Of course things would probably go to the state levels, but progress would have been made.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:39 am
Jazz - you’re chasing a ghost.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Hmmmm… democracy was never God’s will - that’s interesting.
So we should stay out of politics because the system is corrupt? Then we should stay out of business because it fosters unjust alliances as well…
In fact, applying that approach consistently would require us to abstain from any and all entanglements with anyone outside the faith - since ultimately they all would be corrupt.
Neil S.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
The “alliances” of business are provision driven and still must be entered into with care. Politics is joining with unbelievers to accomplish God’s moral will. God desired Godly judges while the people wanted a king like the heathen countries.
Democracy in America spends obscene amounts of money, lies through well crafted media commercials, criticizes opponents, makes promises that cannot be met, exagerates their own accomplishments, and is an exercize in manipulative bragadocia. And then after elected they continue to waste our money, get little done, and bend to the will of big money lobby.
Democracy, keep waiting, it will take us to the promised land!
November 21st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
I tend to agree with your assessment of Democracy - and the current alternatives are as bad or worse. As far a theocracy - hmmm… not if Dobson, Falwell, Robertson are at the helm.
As for business alliances being provision driven… your dichotomy between why we enter in with business vs. government is overstated. Your comment about lobbying makes that point.
What applies to the former applies to the latter as well. And I think you said it best when your said they should be entered with care.
I agree that Democracy will not take us to Nirvana… much less any one party…
Neil S.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:10 am
I’m still bothered by the fact that the “Party of Goldwater” somehow became the “Party of Falwell and Robertson”. At what point did an economic philosophy become the party of Theocrats. Read the new book “Invasion of the Party Snatchers”, I forgot the author’s name, but he was a long-time Barry Goldwater advisor. And that’s the question he poses in his book. As for the Republicans putting an end to abortion? Why would they, when they can play that card to mobilize the troops. Resolve that issue, and they’d have to deal with issues that they can’t be sure the social conservatives, or voters, will unite around. Better to keep that carrot on a stick. And besides, the Republicans have two things to consider with RvW. While the general public hardly embraces the idea of abortion, they’re even more uncomfortable with the idea of the government making reproductive decisions for them. As someone cleverly put it…Republicans believe in staying out of the Boardroom, but they’re more than willing to move into your bedroom. So in the end, the party that believes that we should have less government intrusion in our lives needs to tread very carefully around the RvW issue, because there are plenty of Dems who are right there to remind them of that little inconsistancy.
And besides, as I’ve posted before, what connection is there between a candidate’s position on RvW and their ability to run the most important country in the free world. For the life of me, I still don’t get it. I’m as bothered by the lock-step one issue voter voting for a pro-life candidate based on that alone, as I am by the wacky liberal radio talk show host I heard the other day that endorses Hillary simply because she’s a female, and its time we closed the door on the old white boy club for once and for all.
Scary stuff.
One more thing to think about…Look back at some of the great President’s we’ve had through the history of our country. I have no idea what FDR’s personal thoughts might have been on the hot button issues that dominate our list of criteria today, but how would the country have been served if we as a voters couldn’t see the “big picture”.
It’s late, I’m tired, and that’s probably a pretty clumsy example, but I think you probably understand what I’m getting at.
November 22nd, 2007 at 7:06 am
FDR failed to get us into the war earlier and avoid many more deaths, he was an isolationist and allowed the Japanese to catch us off guard. In the end he sold us down the river to the Russians at Yalta.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
…And your point Rick?
November 22nd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
He was no gem.
November 22nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
The early church avoided involvement with the government because the government represented prinicipalities and powers that were expressions of demons and the power of Satan against the rule of God.
To participate would “pollute” them, thus they would not participate. It cost them big time. It was the basis for much persecution.
I’m not saying that’s the way to go…but it’s not a foreign position in the Church. In fact it was the majority report for the first 300 years….
just food for thought…
November 22nd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
nc - You read my mail. I honestly believe God brought me to that view 7 years ago. We should not be proud or hostile toward others about it, but I think God is calling His people to Himself and away from the government.
We have been told a lie that this is a Christian nation. There is only one Christian nation and it is the peculiar people that make up Christ’s body.
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Just wondering Rick– who thinks this is a Christian nation? It’s pretty obvious that it isn’t. To have a “Christian” nation, obviously every single citizen would have to profess to be a Christian and follow through in their lifestyle. Whle almost 80% of Americans claim to be Christians a much smaller percentage follows through with their lifestyles. I do think Christians should vote and have some influence in government. However I agree it should not be our main focus.
Do leaders in countries such as Iran hate us because they think we are a Christian country? That would be an awful misconception. Or do they just hate us because we are free and want freedom for everyone?
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:06 am
speaking of “christian” nation. . .
everyone should go read “myth of a christian nation” by greg boyd.
brilliant book. he suggests much of what has been said here. that to participate in the kingdoms of the world is to align yourself with a power-over mentality. the kingdom of God is precisely the opposite. a power-under mentality. therefore, no nation is a christian nation, because to be a christian is to be a member of different type of kingdom entirely. and ultimately, our hope is not the kingdoms of the world solving the problems, but in bringing the kingdom of God here.
but he says it in many more words, and many references. and then, he even challenges his own arguments.
i think every christian in america needs to read it.
peace.
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 am
The whole idea that people in the middle east hate us because of freedom is just a talking point of the Bush administration.
They hate us because we lead the West. To them the West represents decadence, immorality, luxury and leisure acquired at the expense of others.
Some of them hate us simply because our soldiers (infidels) stepped foot on the sacred turf of Saudia Arabia where Islams holiest sites are.
Iran hates us because we supported the overthrow of a democratic government in the 50’s with the british and installed the shah…all to avoid the nationalization of their oil fields. It’s called Operation Ajax…it’s history. It’s fact.
The Shah was no friend to his people. He limited the press, rights, etc.
But we played a geo-political game at the expense of people whose lives we had no right to mess with. We belied our professed ideals.
Iran was a thriving democracy. My iranian friends here still speak of it with anger and frustration.
So much for the lie about the middle east not having a culture that sustains democracy.
We just helped ruin it and refuse to keep any kind of historical perspective.
Read the history of the middle east and you see a region oppressed by colonialism, imperialism and geo-political interference.
that’s something to be mad about, resent people for…
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:19 am
these people have real historic grievances.
We’re just so dumb and arrogant we don’t bother to wonder why?