First, check out Jennifer Senior's article in the New Yorker here.
Second, check out Abby Johnson's story by Bonnie Pritchett in the Baptist Press here.
In the Library: Scott Swain
1 week ago
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Manhattan Declaration - Pro or Con?
Since the signing of the Manhattan Declaration, it has been getting all the buzz in the Christian blogosphere and news outlets. Even Bill O'Reilly makes it the focus of his Talking Points one day last week (Talking Points: 11/24).
What is the Manhattan Declaration? It is a Christian manifesto that addresses the moral issues of sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage and religious liberty and how they have been and continue to be issues that "are being subverted under our eyes" to quote Al Mohler. It is a joint statement between Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
You can read the declaration here and read the names of the signatories here.
A quick perusal through the signatories will reveal many well-respected and sound thinkers within the Evangelical community. Yet, for as many sound thinkers who have signed this document we have just as many respected theologians against it including Alistair Begg and John McArthur.
The argument for being part of this declaration is basically these issues are part of our call to a justice ministry.
The argument against is that when Evangelicals join the ranks of support for the Manhattan Declaration we are de facto subverting the gospel and raising a contrary gospel in its place. This is especially obvious through Dan Phillips' 19 questions he asks of all who sign this document, which can be read here.
The most cogent argument I found pro the Manhattan Declaration was from Al Mohler. I found three arguments against the Manhattan Declaration worth reading. They are by John Stackhouse, James White and Frank Turk.
The issue of difference is a place of emphasis. Al Mohler, and the other sound Evangelical leaders who signed the MD, clearly do not see the integrity of the gospel message at risk. They clearly believe they can, with integrity, continue to preach the gospel of Christ while supporting this initiative. Those against question, at best, this ability.
Of all those against I think John Stackhouse raises the primary issue, which really is a "what now" issue? Okay, okay - you've signed the declaration. But now what? Where do we go from here? Have we not already been saying these things as a collective whole from our individual positions of influence? Coming along side each other will make what impact? Until I would be satisfied with answers given to these specific issues I see no reason to sign this document.
However, I don't think that the signing of the MD is a compromise of conscience for those who signed. Their track record says different. They are men and women of faith who have been exemplary in the past and we should do well to remember that as we raise our own concerns.
On a closing thought concerning the compromise of the gospel by signing this document - the issue has been raised that Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses were not invited to sign the document because it is meant to be a Christian document. This is proof, says the argument, that we are comprising the gospel message because we are aligning ourselves with Roman Catholics and The Eastern Orthodox Church and agreeing that they are Christian de facto. But the very heart of our break from Catholicism is Soli Fide - by faith alone. This comes to the very heart of the gospel. If we agree that they preach a different gospel, why are we excluding others who claim to preach the Christian message but who in fact subvert it? This is a good question and deserves its own attention in many respects. However, let me point out that general evangelical consensus would say (and I agree) that there are Christians who are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox but not Mormon or Jehovah Witness. So some distinction is made already. Also, many evangelical churches believe that faith is a work of oneself including the possibility of loss of salvation engaging in a similar theology as both Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church. These churches are far from their reformation roots. If we are not prepared to cast out our synergistic brothers and sisters in Evangelical circles than we have no leg to stand on to do so based on the same ground to RC and EO. I am not saying the differences are precisely the same, but that faith alone is a topic of disagreement even within the Evangelical community. I admit I lament this, but that is not the point of the charges raised against evangelicals signing the document when it comes to gospel integrity. The charge is one of Salvation by faith alone. If Soli Fide is the real issue not to sign the Manhattan Declaration then we should not only not sign because of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxians, but also because of Evangelical Christians who do not have a consistent faith system of faith alone.
What is the Manhattan Declaration? It is a Christian manifesto that addresses the moral issues of sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage and religious liberty and how they have been and continue to be issues that "are being subverted under our eyes" to quote Al Mohler. It is a joint statement between Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
You can read the declaration here and read the names of the signatories here.
A quick perusal through the signatories will reveal many well-respected and sound thinkers within the Evangelical community. Yet, for as many sound thinkers who have signed this document we have just as many respected theologians against it including Alistair Begg and John McArthur.
The argument for being part of this declaration is basically these issues are part of our call to a justice ministry.
The argument against is that when Evangelicals join the ranks of support for the Manhattan Declaration we are de facto subverting the gospel and raising a contrary gospel in its place. This is especially obvious through Dan Phillips' 19 questions he asks of all who sign this document, which can be read here.
The most cogent argument I found pro the Manhattan Declaration was from Al Mohler. I found three arguments against the Manhattan Declaration worth reading. They are by John Stackhouse, James White and Frank Turk.
The issue of difference is a place of emphasis. Al Mohler, and the other sound Evangelical leaders who signed the MD, clearly do not see the integrity of the gospel message at risk. They clearly believe they can, with integrity, continue to preach the gospel of Christ while supporting this initiative. Those against question, at best, this ability.
Of all those against I think John Stackhouse raises the primary issue, which really is a "what now" issue? Okay, okay - you've signed the declaration. But now what? Where do we go from here? Have we not already been saying these things as a collective whole from our individual positions of influence? Coming along side each other will make what impact? Until I would be satisfied with answers given to these specific issues I see no reason to sign this document.
However, I don't think that the signing of the MD is a compromise of conscience for those who signed. Their track record says different. They are men and women of faith who have been exemplary in the past and we should do well to remember that as we raise our own concerns.
On a closing thought concerning the compromise of the gospel by signing this document - the issue has been raised that Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses were not invited to sign the document because it is meant to be a Christian document. This is proof, says the argument, that we are comprising the gospel message because we are aligning ourselves with Roman Catholics and The Eastern Orthodox Church and agreeing that they are Christian de facto. But the very heart of our break from Catholicism is Soli Fide - by faith alone. This comes to the very heart of the gospel. If we agree that they preach a different gospel, why are we excluding others who claim to preach the Christian message but who in fact subvert it? This is a good question and deserves its own attention in many respects. However, let me point out that general evangelical consensus would say (and I agree) that there are Christians who are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox but not Mormon or Jehovah Witness. So some distinction is made already. Also, many evangelical churches believe that faith is a work of oneself including the possibility of loss of salvation engaging in a similar theology as both Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church. These churches are far from their reformation roots. If we are not prepared to cast out our synergistic brothers and sisters in Evangelical circles than we have no leg to stand on to do so based on the same ground to RC and EO. I am not saying the differences are precisely the same, but that faith alone is a topic of disagreement even within the Evangelical community. I admit I lament this, but that is not the point of the charges raised against evangelicals signing the document when it comes to gospel integrity. The charge is one of Salvation by faith alone. If Soli Fide is the real issue not to sign the Manhattan Declaration then we should not only not sign because of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxians, but also because of Evangelical Christians who do not have a consistent faith system of faith alone.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Bill O'Reilly and Human Rights Hypocrisy
I found this talking memos by Bill O'Reilly compelling. Of the most interest is the discussion that ensues afterwards with his guests. I wish this video contained that section as well, but it does not and I can't find that video on his site, but it is worth a shot if you can because it brings out the differences in philosophy concerning the issues. So, what is Bill's point?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Wrong Again
It is not hard to find articles on Barack Obama’s visit to Notre Dame on Sunday, May 17, 2009. But there was an article by the Associated Press that caught my attention. Julie Pace noted that President Obama sought some common ground between the two sides on abortion.
What common ground do these two sides have? "We can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.” Obama said.
Really? This is the common ground that both sides share. I am in utter disbelief that anyone can come to the conclusion that a human embryo, zygote, or fetus can be killed primarily for the convenience of a mother and simultaneously call it a heart-wrenching decision. This statement tells us two things, at least.
First, it tells us that the pro-choice view is utterly intellectually bankrupt if it finds moral qualms with its stance and yet seeks to further its cause. We have laws that protect animals to varying degrees that are not granted to a human child still in her mother’s uterus. Laws that address, funny enough, humane treatment.[1]So inhumane is the way abortion is actually carried out that the FDA has a higher code of requirements when it inspects slaughter houses then government does on abortion clinics.[2]
Second, the very fact that President Obama admits this is a heart-wrenching decision admits to the reality that it is wrong. Why else would it be heart wrenching? Why else is there moral and spiritual implications? If it is merely a matter of choice then why fret? If you are pro-choice then giving up this ground means admitting that abortion is wrong. If this issue is one of relative perspective then it can only be a situation of position, power and perspective.
The mother is in a position with the support of her government to carry out the abortion. They give her means through access to abortion clinics, funds, engage in laws splitting the home in half so that now neither father of child or grandparents (if the mother is young ) have access, input or knowledge.
The mother has power of life and death in her hand. Think of those words – “life and death.” She does not have “convenience and happiness” within the grasp of her hands. What a lie that has been propagated to believe what you are deciding over is anything other than life and death. Since a primary concern that gives rise to abortion is one of provision why is it that we don’t have stiffer sentences for murders committed against the wealthy? If money is such a clear answer, and someone’s happiness is intrinsic to having means then why does it not surface in other areas of justice when we are making grandiose statements on the value (or lack thereof) of human life. However, Nietzsche would be proud. Give me a better example of a human rising above the herd and doing as she wishes than abortion.
The mother has perspective. Our culture has been fixated on giving multiple reasons for why abortion is the right choice. From the overused example of rape resulting in pregnancy with inflated statistics to the pursuit of happiness someone needs to remind the media that the right to life comes before either liberty or the pursuit of happiness. To take life away is to undermine the foundation of the guiding principles of this country.
Congratulations on your honorary doctorate from Notre Dame Mr. President – now please give us the intellectual integrity that should come with it.
[1] John Piper gives a short discussion on this logic here.
[2] http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Key_Facts_Humane_Slaughter/index.asp
What common ground do these two sides have? "We can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.” Obama said.
Really? This is the common ground that both sides share. I am in utter disbelief that anyone can come to the conclusion that a human embryo, zygote, or fetus can be killed primarily for the convenience of a mother and simultaneously call it a heart-wrenching decision. This statement tells us two things, at least.
First, it tells us that the pro-choice view is utterly intellectually bankrupt if it finds moral qualms with its stance and yet seeks to further its cause. We have laws that protect animals to varying degrees that are not granted to a human child still in her mother’s uterus. Laws that address, funny enough, humane treatment.[1]So inhumane is the way abortion is actually carried out that the FDA has a higher code of requirements when it inspects slaughter houses then government does on abortion clinics.[2]
Second, the very fact that President Obama admits this is a heart-wrenching decision admits to the reality that it is wrong. Why else would it be heart wrenching? Why else is there moral and spiritual implications? If it is merely a matter of choice then why fret? If you are pro-choice then giving up this ground means admitting that abortion is wrong. If this issue is one of relative perspective then it can only be a situation of position, power and perspective.
The mother is in a position with the support of her government to carry out the abortion. They give her means through access to abortion clinics, funds, engage in laws splitting the home in half so that now neither father of child or grandparents (if the mother is young ) have access, input or knowledge.
The mother has power of life and death in her hand. Think of those words – “life and death.” She does not have “convenience and happiness” within the grasp of her hands. What a lie that has been propagated to believe what you are deciding over is anything other than life and death. Since a primary concern that gives rise to abortion is one of provision why is it that we don’t have stiffer sentences for murders committed against the wealthy? If money is such a clear answer, and someone’s happiness is intrinsic to having means then why does it not surface in other areas of justice when we are making grandiose statements on the value (or lack thereof) of human life. However, Nietzsche would be proud. Give me a better example of a human rising above the herd and doing as she wishes than abortion.
The mother has perspective. Our culture has been fixated on giving multiple reasons for why abortion is the right choice. From the overused example of rape resulting in pregnancy with inflated statistics to the pursuit of happiness someone needs to remind the media that the right to life comes before either liberty or the pursuit of happiness. To take life away is to undermine the foundation of the guiding principles of this country.
Congratulations on your honorary doctorate from Notre Dame Mr. President – now please give us the intellectual integrity that should come with it.
[1] John Piper gives a short discussion on this logic here.
[2] http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Key_Facts_Humane_Slaughter/index.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
