Orginally published on Monday, August 18, 2008 at 7:10 AM
by Todd Rhoades
OK... how many of you got to watch the Saddleback Civil Forum on Saturday night? I watched as 'my good friend' Rick Warren gathered the candidates, and I have to tell you... I really was surprised.
No offense, Rick... but I really thought you would ask some pretty boring, safe questions. But I was very encouraged to hear him ask questions like, "What was your biggest moral failure; what Supreme Court justice would you NOT have appointed; and a straight-up question about abortion.
I came across feeling differently after watching both candidates, and I'm wondering what your take is... what did you think of the forum? Who was the real winner? (My personal take: the real winner was Rick Warren). And how does this change the way you think of each candidate? I'd love to hear your comments...
Leave your comments here…
Thanks!
This post has been viewed 1983 times so far.
Share the Love... Twitter this Post!
There are 81 Comments:
Wendi:
With all due respect back at ya ...
But most abortions are not even closely related to the absurd one in a million scneario you point out. Stats in the USA 2 million abortions per year. Russia 10-20 million per year. China 50-100 million per year. It is used as birth control. Jesus would forgive then say “sin no more.” He would not explain it away.
Jesus also said if your eyes causes you to sin that you’re better off without the eye then to burn in hell. So let’s at least get as nuanced a picture of Jesus as you would have us have on abortion.
But lets for the sake of this discussion say we have that rarer case where someone was raped and now carrying a child. R U saying that abortion is even a possible avenue you would counsel her towards as one potential solution?
Leonard,
Simply this. Did Obama give you an answer to any questions you did NOT already know?
fishon
Wendi:
I realize that our conversation has diverged in this thread slightly from the original purpose of the story, but your last post was so interesting that it gave me a few thoughts. I am putting these here in the hope of understanding from where you are coming.
“I just got back from Swaziland where the Aids/HIV rate is the highest in the world. Even though the crisis would turn around immediately if people would simply stop having multiple sex partners – to offer this as the one and only answer would be completely ‘unbiblical.’”
What is the “biblical” answer to solving this problem? Does the answer endorse or condone the practice of sin? If so, why would that be right?
“We could tell a young woman that considering an abortion that it is murder, plain and simple. Or we could acknowledge that she is the daughter of a prostitute, drug using mother who has had several abortions herself; that she is 22 and didn’t complete 8th grade; that she grew up in 5 different foster homes and has lived on the street herself since she was 15.”
It is truly horrible that that woman has had such a life. Are you saying, in this instance, that due to her environment and history, that it is okay to have an abortion due to these circumstances?
“BTW – it is interesting that we never get to know ‘the end of the story’ whenever Jesus rescued someone from their sin. Wonder why? “
I would say that while we never see the end of the story, in most cases we are given a complete enough picture of what they did. The rich young ruler, for instance, walked away in sorrow when Jesus asked him to give up his wealth. In contrast, we have Mary Magdalene washing His feet with her hair and tears. Only one of the healed ten lepers stopped and turned around to praise Jesus. God gave us enough information in the Bible to understand what, “Go and sin no more,” meant, even if we don’t have all of the details through the end of the person’s life.
--
CS
Fishon wrote:
“Just my humble point of view.”
Thought I’d point out that there is nothing humble in your remarks. On the contrary…
A visitor to this forum commented on the civility, but that disappeared as soon as someone saw an opportunity to bash Rick Warren. Sad.
Dave
My goodness, Dave Z,
I just have a different perspective and understanding of what Warren did; I voice it, and now am called a “bash[er].”
It is truely sad that the tolerant are now calling those who disagree with them bashers. Or maybe you are one that doesn’t mind that I may disagree with Warren, but I don’t say and state my opinion with enough sensitivity?
I guess that is kinda like the famous smiling preacher calling sin a mistake instead of sin, cause he doesn’t want to offend.
Lack of civility, I don’t think so. Radical Muslims who don’t like what someone says displays a lack of civility---ask Salomin Rushdie----or maybe some of the guys who have lost their heads. Now that is a lack of civility.
Thanks for bashing my opinion and how I state it.
I’m just thankful that this type of open forum was not only done but that it was televised - if only the major networks had picked it up so that those without digital TV could see it. It was so refreshing to see the candidates speak for themselves about issues rather than commentators speaking what they think about the candidates. This was a good step toward choosing a president based on the issues and the person rather than the soundbyte.
I think the forum was OK, the candidates are both politicians and they both answered about like politicians. I didn’t really learn anything new, both candidates have positives and negatives. It was nice that they kept it civil.
Civil, as opposed to some of the comments here. Some people just can’t seem to pass up an opportunity to take shots at other Christians. Me included. :-(
As for how the discussion has devolved, I’ve always found it disturbing how some people claim that the are no nuances or any factors to consider in the abortion question, that it’s black and white always wrong and should be illegal.
The fact is there are nuances and considerations; the age of the girl/woman, incest, rape, the health and life of the mother-to-be. I’ve seen several different assessments of when life begins based on different scriptures; from at conception, first heartbeat, presence of brain activity, fetal viability, at birth, to not until the baby’s first breath. Who’s right?
If we make abortion illegal based on Christian morals and bible scripture should that law apply to non-christians? Is it right that in many Islamic countries Muslims apply Shariyah law to non-muslims when it is based solely on their interpretation of their holy writings?
I don’t know if it’s that some people really don’t understand that there are factors and considerations that cause some women to consider and choose abortion, or if they just don’t care. I fear that for many it is just that they don’t care; not about the reasons, not about the circumstances, and not about the women.
Daniel I luv ya but you’ve got to show me where in scripture it says life:
- is dependent on the age of the mother
- is at conception
- is at the first heartbeat
- presence of brain activity
- the beginning of fetal viability
- at birth
- baby’s first breath
????? What are u referring to? You said that they’re all in scripture so please inform me where they are.
Thanks
Phil
Phil, if you’re really interested, research it for yourself. Google is great.
This isn’t about abortion, it’s about Warren and the candidates.
What if we spent as much time and energy into living faithful lives as we do bickering and playing kingmaker?
I am not sure the intent of your question Fishon. I would say not really, neither did McCain. What I noticed was the body language, the speed at which questions were answered, the confidence in each candidate as they answered. I saw stumping on both candidates parts.
The issue here is not what I learned or did not learn. Follow-up questions would not have taught me something new either. The issue is that some did not like the format so they use their dislike to bash Warren. Someone might say, I did not like the way this format was set so Rick warren should be ashamed. That is a big jump.
If RW does not do it like you want, does that make Christianity the loser… It could be just me but when you post here at MMI it comes across combatively. That is not just me but other people think that way too.
I am all for you not liking the format, wishing Warren asked other questions, even feeling like as a pastor he had a responsibility to do so. I am all for you thinking and believing that RW did not seize a moment. But does that require words like disgrace, travesty, Christianity was the loser… Does it require you to say that require you to say I don’t get it because I don’t agree with you? Does it require you to be bombastic in your words and tone?
You seem to have a problem with those who disagree with you or who suggest your tone is too much.
Leonard,
I asked you the question because one of your defenses for the forum was that it was about information. I just wondered if you learned anything new?
I am truely sorry that I come across as combative. I real am. But if I believe something is a “disgrace,” I just don’t know what other word to use. I just checked the thesaurus and found other words: Shame, dishonor, scandal, etc; which one of those words would you suggest I use?? I am not being facetious; I am serious. I suppose the other option is not to post anything.
My lord man, if I had a problem with people disagreeing with me, I as a Church of Christ “Christian,” pastor would run out the Baptists and Pentecostals in the church I pastor.
Leonard, my biggest problem with the RW forum is that weak and new Christians tuned in and heard Obama give his answers and did not hear Warren, a Christian pastor, with the forum being held in a Christian church challenge Obama’s points, and then become confused because he let it go. They very well could take his silence for affirmation for Obama’s points. ---------That is a very possible outcome for some. My goodness, look at the confusion and differences right on this small forum.
Enough; I don’t want to come off a being too defensive or combative--I am just stating my thoughts and opinions.
fishon
Fishon, thanks for the reply, I understand the question. I did not learn any new information from the words but I did gather information from what was seen. my understanding of the purpose of the forum was to let each candidate speak openly without ratcheting up the rhetoric in debate. To let them respond to Ricks questions with their opinions.
I don’t think the best option is to not post but rather to own your thoughts as your. Word like I think, I feel, in my opinion, I was frustrated, it came across to me… This is much less combative than words that are statements like disgrace. I fully support you right to the opinion that you felt it was a disgrace, but you did not say that, you simply called it a disgrace. I fully support your frustration that people could get the wrong idea based upon Rick not asking follow-up questions, but you said the church was the loser. I respect your right to say your opinions but when opinions are given as fact… it feels like the rest of us who might not agree with you are locked into being wrong.
I liked the forum, understand that the follow-up questions were simply not in the cards as a part of the format, but when I said that I was told I just don’t get it.
Please hear me when I say, I hope you keep posting, but when we start a post with blanket statements that are almost vitriolic in their tone it leave little room for dialog.
This place is not necessarily for preaching but for dialog. Wendi and I agree on some very big things but we also disagree on some issues. I am sure that would be true for you and I, for others here as well. but we can dialog. We can even disagree and dialog.
I honestly do not care if I convince you of my “rightness” in most any situation, but I do care what you think, how you got to those thoughts, I respect your right to those thoughts and your process. It does not matter if you end up agreeing with me and I feel no need to have you and I be in uniformity. I do however feel a great need for you and I to be in unity.
If you had posted this I would have felt entirely different about your posts.
I did not like the forum, it left no room for RW to dialog and follow-up important questions to both candidates. Case in point was Obama’s answer to the abortion question.
I would not be bothered if you said it felt to me like the church lost because RW passed the opportunity to…
I hope this makes sense. I work primarily from passion so rarely does my first post actually get posted. I have had to learn that passion often comes across as anger. In our interactions here at MMI I gather you work from passion too. It has often come across as anger.
Have a great day and I hope you keep posting,
Leonard
Wow, I am so discouraged reading these comments. Are most evangelicals really going to make this decision based on abortion only? (And by the way, Phil, show me the scripture that answers the question about when life begins....) I am pro-life and it saddens me that this position is not better understood in our country, but after the last seven-plus years, I am further saddened that voters who follow Jesus would not be equally as concerned about continuing a war that was begun under false pretenses, about electing a president who personifies evil as “them” and pursues evil only militarily(!), and would not see through the smokescreen of telling voters exactly what they want to hear, in short, simple phrases, when the other candidate took his time and gave thoughtful answers. I’m really saddened by all this commentary.
Phil – I can’t speak for him, but I don’t think DanielR was really commenting on when life begins, rather he was commenting on many factors and issues influence women’s decisions about abortion. He makes the point I was trying to make better than I made it. You state that my example is “absurd.” Actually, in the para-church organization in which I serve, we work with this exact woman every day. The girls we work with in Juvenile Hall (several hundred every year) almost ALL have this story, or a version of it. Sometimes she chooses to have an abortion, sometimes a baby. Of course I know that thousands of women choose abortion as a form of birth control, but even these women have a story. What I appreciate about Obama is that he at least recognizes that it is important to examine all the factors which influence the abortion numbers in our country. To deny that there the issue is multifaceted and complicated is, as I said earlier, naïve at best, or perhaps just arrogant.
CS – you ask in response to my comment about the Aids crisis in Swaziland [What is the “biblical” answer to solving this problem? Does the answer endorse or condone the practice of sin? If so, why would that be right?]
I’ll answer your question, but first let me pose one to you that is based on a very real situation. Nomsa is a beautiful young mother of 3. She loves Jesus. At this moment, she is the only wife of her husband. She hopes and prays that he will not take more wives, but that is very unlikely. He is leaving in this fall to study in South Africa for two years (so he can keep his teaching job). She hopes and prays that he will be faithful during his long periods away from his family. This is also very unlikely. Swazi men believe that they will go mad if they do not have sex every few days. When Nomsa’s husband comes home with a new wife, how will you counsel her? When her husband returns from South Africa and she knows in her gut that he has had numerous sex partners (prostitutes)
while away, what will you tell her to do to protect her life and stay alive to raise her children? To be safe she must leave, but if she does, how will she feed and educate her children?
Sadly, the biblical advice I give to my friend Nomsa comes from 1 Cor. 7: “Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. . . . Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.” For Nomsa’s children, I believe the biblical solution is to chip away at the oppressive patriarchal culture by helping young women find their voice and young men to view women as equal partners, based on Gal. 3:28.
Certainly women in America have more choices than Nomsa, but when they have had no biblical role models, only familial dysfunction and patterns of sexual promiscuity, we must acknowledge that these circumstances influence their decisions. We can agree about where life begins, but that fact makes absolutely no difference to the young women I describe . . . and there are thousands of them in our country.
And you bring up a good reference from Luke 7 which I believe makes my point about not knowing “the rest of the story.” The sinful woman (no evidence this is Magdalene) indeed washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and hair. Certainly she was repentant and understood, as Jesus said, that she was forgiven much. But did she leave that room and walk away from her life of sin? Go get a job at the local Walmart? Become accepted by society and find a good man? Really now? You cannot possibly believe, knowing what I’m sure you know about the culture of first century Israel, that she was able to leave Simon’s dinner party and begin a wonderful new life. Just like America today, there are many factors that influence how people “work out their salvation.” For each woman who manages to find her way to Simon’s party, there are hundreds who are still outside the door. Many things influence their ability to walk into the party and shed their tears on Jesus’ feet. Understanding and acknowledging those circumstances doesn’t in any way deny her need to walk through the door, it just shows her love her regardless of which side of the door she’s standing on.
Wendi
PS - One can stay up late to blog when one is waiting to see Shawn Johnson win gold.
Wendi:
Thanks for taking the time to reply. And I know how the Olympics can keep me awake and wired, too, like watching Phelp’s eighth a few nights back.
The answer you gave for poor Nomsa’s condition is exactly where I would have gone, too, with 1 Corinthians 7. And that is unfortunate that the social climate there causes such problems. That is why the Gospel should be preached wherever we go.
I didn’t see the answer to my question about abortion, so forgive me if I missed it, but could you please provide me with your insights about my query?
Concerning the, “rest of the story,” subject…
“Certainly she was repentant and understood, as Jesus said, that she was forgiven much. But did she leave that room and walk away from her life of sin? Go get a job at the local Walmart? Become accepted by society and find a good man? Really now? You cannot possibly believe, knowing what I’m sure you know about the culture of first century Israel, that she was able to leave Simon’s dinner party and begin a wonderful new life.”
I think that this underlines a great problem in modern-day Christianity--the notion that because someone becomes a Christian that that will give them a wonderful new life. If by, “wonderful,” you mean, “a life of ease and comfort,” then, no. If by, “wonderful,” you mean, “one where there is reassurance through Jesus Christ’s atoning work on the cross,” then, yes.
But to most people who identify themselves as Christian in America, they look to the fruits of the Spirit as the reason to come to the faith itself. This is why preachers like Joel Osteen have such huge followings. And this sets up false expectations for the faith.
I sincerely believe that those who came to Christ in repentance, such as Mary Magdalene, were repentant for the remainder of their lives, and that the rest of the story didn’t show divergence or wasn’t important enough because God did not include it. As opposed to the rich young ruler who walked away in sorrow, who I doubt came to repentance. Then again, I am totally proud to say that I could be completely wrong on both sides of this.
--
CS
CS – sorry that I didn’t respond to your question: [It is truly horrible that that woman has had such a life. Are you saying, in this instance, that due to her environment and history, that it is okay to have an abortion due to these circumstances?]
Of course it’s not okay. Abortion is never okay, but neither does it create an unredeemable circumstance. The “abortion is killing, plain and simple, end of story” is not a redemptive posture, but I believe it is the posture many outside of Christ sense from Christians. Acknowledging that many circumstances of one’s life lead us to the choices we make, right and wrong, does not mean that we condone the wrong choices. Such acknowledgment opens the doors for redemptive conversations, whereas, telling her that if she has an abortion she will be a murderer slams those doors closed. That may be a statement of “truth,” but her circumstances are also “truths.”
That is why I brought up Nomsa’s situation. Stating that polygamy is a sin against the sanctity of marriage doesn’t help me serve Nomsa, anymore than stating that abortion is murder helps me serve the young lady I wrote about.
Does that explain better?
Wendi
Wendi:
Nothing I’ve said or meant to say would deny that everyone has a “circumstance” ... even the overwhelming majority of abortion receipients who use them as means of birth control.
That said, there is NO circumstance which can justify the killing of almost 1,000,000,000 (that’s billion!) babies in the past 40 years alone, of which over 90% were due to birth control (either personal decision or government controls.)
Now if you want to empathize with those who have unfortunate situations I am appreciative. However, I believe that your stance basically excuses the killing of 1 billion innocent babies.
Even worse, and what I didn’t like about Obama’s response, is that by focusing on ladies circumstances rather than the actual murder of babies, you elevate the circumstance of poverty, rape, emotional stress, et. al over the plight of the defenseless baby. That’s my opinion and I apologize if you think that it’s too harsh.
I’m dismayed by your passionate plea to consider ladies circumstances without any plea to defend the over 900,000,000 babies that were killed solely because they weren’t wanted ... period. And it had nothing to do with rape, adultery, or incest. My Lord who is speaking up for them? At least on this board ... you’re not.
I am the first person to claim that politicians believe that the only thing that matter to Christians is Abortion and Homosexuality and that’s a shame. But when Christians cannot agree that Abortion is Murder ... regardless of the circumstance ... then the communities and nations where God’s body is placed will pay the tab.
When we speak to un-believers of course we should be nuanced. When Obama speaks to Christians at a church then he needed to state when life exists (in his opinion.)
When Daniel states that scripture can be interpreted that life begins at 7 possible stages and I ask him to enlighten me on those passages I get “if you’re really interested look them up yourself!” Ugh ... no ... you stated something that scripture said that it does not say so I cannot look up what doesn’t exist.
I really hate politics but I understand Obama and McCain being inconsistent and sometimes incoherent ... that’s what those who enter that arena do.
On the other hand it’s truly sad that those who profess faith in Jesus and believe that God’s Word is infallible exhibit the same lack of unity, consistency, and coherence that politicians display.
Oh well .... I’ve said all I can say for this blog. You’ve got my personal email here if you want to contact me.
I agree that abortion is wrong and I think that Wendi has stated such as well. But the answer to abortion is not merely saying it is wrong, the answer is multifaceted. Factors in abortion are many. Age, education, economics, ethnicity and understanding cultural mores, faith… These factors go into how we approach the issue.
Our approach must have a preventative component. We must figure out something beyond the “it is murder” “it is wrong” “baby killer” approach many in the church have used and still posses. To figure this out we must understand the components that make up the real life issues.
Those are the stories of the 14 year old who had sex once and ended up pregnant, the 19 year old whose choices led to pregnancy and her perceived choice of college or a baby… We have to take into account these and the many more scenarios in order to become more holistically preventative.
We also must become more effectively redemptive as well. We must reach out to those whose lives have been interrupted by pregnancy so that we can give other choices than abortion. Government must help reduce the cost of adoption, raise the value of adoption, even dare I say assist in adoption. Churches must find a way to de-stigmatize themselves and become a place where sinners run to not away from.
We must become redemptive for those who lives have not only become interrupted by pregnancy but also scarred by their choice of abortion as a means of dealing with that interruption. The church must find more effective ways to help women and some men heal from the aborting of an unwanted child. Some churches do this, most do not.
IMO until we (pastors and leaders) see the complexity of both prevention and redemption we will always send the message that we are only a one trick pony when it comes to abortion.
Obama’s answer was mostly weak, wrong and kind of stupid. But the part of his answer I did appreciate was his attempt to say we need to understand the complexity of issues that go into a woman making this choice.
I appreciate the nuanced conversation now happening here on the issue of abortion. What troubles me about the comments I have heard about the forum is that the issue of abortion seems to have become a kind of shortcut for people - a way to avoid the hard work of thinking, reflecting and evaluating the difficult choices before us as voters. No candidate will be perfect, holy or righteous enough for us - as participants in a civil discourse with people who aren’t believers, we are required as members of the kingdom of God to represent righteousness as voters. The problem is that we’d rather think that if a candidate says the “right” thing about abortion, we know all about him. The truth is much murkier. Many candidates have gone on to be president but little has changed about abortion; at the same time, much has been done - even in the name of Christ - by these same officeholders that is shameful. Those outside the church can see that clear as day, and when we are lazy and look for that one right answer to the abortion question and allow that to be the filter for who we vote for, we confirm their opinion that we aren’t righteous at all, but rather self-righteous. And under those circumstances, I’m not sure they’re wrong. Doesn’t that make us, then, just like the Pharisees that Jesus called whitewashed sepulchres?
I know how many babies have died and that is a grievous sin, but it is NOTTHE ONLY ONE. Will we hold officeholders and party powerbrokers responsible for the other ones, too? Will we take up the solemn responsibility of voting after doing real critical thinking, reflection, homework and prayer? or will we just let “the right answer” to the abortion question decide for us?
Phil, you responded to me:
[I’m dismayed by your passionate plea to consider ladies circumstances without any plea to defend the over 900,000,000 babies that were killed solely because they weren’t wanted ... period. And it had nothing to do with rape, adultery, or incest. My Lord who is speaking up for them? At least on this board ... you’re not.]
I’m dismayed Phil, that your passion seems to imply that Jesus cares more about the innocent babies than for their mothers. He loves equally. The women (and men) who are faced with or have chosen abortion are in need of redemptive relationships, which they won’t find with people holding “murder” signs.
Phil, we are all impassioned by different issues. Here is how my passion for the sanctity for human life plays out (if you’ve read me much on this blog you already know what I’m going to say). Half a million children are infected with AIDS every month. Most will not reach adulthood. Most are newborns. Several million innocent children die every year from indirect affects of the Aids/HIV pandemic; poverty, starvation, very treatable illnesses. Nearly all of these deaths are preventable.
I am saddened that for most American evangelicals, the sanctity of life means ONLY “lets stop the baby killing abortionists” when there is SOOOOOO much more that advocating for the sanctity of life should mean to us, because it means SOOOOO much to the one who died to give us life.
This is why, as sgillasp says, I will consider many more issues when deciding who to vote for. I will certainly consider where the stands on sanctity of life issues when I head to the polls, but where he stands on abortion is just one factor in his position on the sanctity of life.
Thanks Leonard, you’ve pegged my feelings well. You offer such great advice about focusing on prevention. That can only happen however, when we admit to ourselves that the issue is very complex.
Wendi
Sgillesp,
I think you might be misunderstanding some people here. First because something is important does not mean it is the only grid. Abortion is hugely important to me, but so is gun control… I am against it. so are taxes, so is the handling of war, marriage, education and how we handle the environment, the way we deal with sickness and disease, health care, and much more but that is not what this covnersation is about.
This conversation is about abortion based upon Obama’s “above my pay grade answer” not because all the people here are only one issue people who are “lazy” and looking for the right answer.
About several issues we would probably disagree but to assume we do so because of a “short-cut” or lazy” approach, not wanting to do the much harder work of thinking… Well that is just silly.
If Obama said he was pro-life, this would be more consistent with his faith leanings but then he could not get elected by the Dem’s since they are also one trick ponys.
To your point about the ineffectiveness of pro-life presidents. I think you are mostly correct, except for partial birth abortions and the appointing of Justices.
The issue of the war is for another time.
OK Wendi I’m drawn back in and although I know we do not think alike let me try once again.
I agree with you that there are many different circumstances that people find themselves in. I agree that they need the redemption offered by Jesus.
I agree with you that we should try to do whatever we can to end poverty, under education, sexist practices around the world, slavery, etc. etc. I’m all on board and I believe Jesus would want us to participate in any way possible that does not run contrary to scripture.
I agree that we should offer more adoptive avenues, cheaper adoptive avenues, and even less costly adoptive services. I agree with you.
I agree with you that holding signs saying “Murderer” is not the most effective way (and may even in fact damage our outreach efforts) to reach those who need redemption. I’m on board.
I agree with you that so many people are in so many horrible life circumstances that we need to consider their circumstances as we love them, counsel them, and assist them. I empathize, I really do and just so you know ... so many people have thanked me that our church is now a place where broken people can find love and redemption through Jesus regardless of how awful they think their life was and is. I hope you trust that and believe that.
All of what I just said I live out every single day.
HOWEVER, women in Jesus’ day experienced persecution and oppression in ways that women in the USA cannot even fathom. Jesus’ words to the adulterous woman? “Your forgiven now let that forgiveness be the precipitating factor for you to stop doing what you were doing.”
Women in Jesus’ day faced tremendous poverty, oppression, irrelevance, and I know that if someone would ask Jesus what they should do with this ‘unwanted’ pregnancy Jesus would have loved them BUT NEVER WOULD HAVE COUNSELED THEM THAT IT WAS OK TO ABORT THE BABY.
If we cannot agree on that point, without condition or any other nuancing, then I guess we have a different view on Jesus’ call to obedience, holiness, seperation from sin and the values of this world. And if that’s the case no amount of blogging will bridge that difference. But as God is my witness I am trying to lovingly share my view of how I believe Jesus would have us balance our views on the validity of abortion vs. the need for redemption of EVERY SINNER regardless of their particular struggle.
Since I promised to stop responding on this blog and didn’t keep my word I guess I won’t make any more promises. However, if you can honestly evaluate what I’m about to say in the manner in which I’m going to say it then I invite you to do so.
It seems to me that your tendency is to believe that if someone takes a stance against something that you quickly associate them with radical, non-loving, non-understanding, hypocritical, and non-Christlike (Pharisees?) people. I receive that from comments like “holding signs calling others murderers” etc.
Those type of comments contradict your own stance of continued nuance, understanding other’s circumstances, open dialog, hearing everyone out, etc. etc.
I haven’t called you a “flaming liberal”, “phony Christian”, “sinner going to hell”, or any other tag that someone may use so please don’t use that type of dialog with others. See their comments for what they are and don’t read anything else into them. Your points will be better made and more easily grasped.
That’s JMHO and not meant to insult but meant to further openess, love, civility, truth, and most of all His Gospel.
God’s peace!
Phil –
No, you haven’t called me a flaming liberal or a phony Christian or a sinner going to hell. I apologize if my dialogue with you seemed to peg you as a non-loving, radical Pharisee. I really don’t see you that way.
Reading this site regularly, sometimes it is easy to get mixed up between threads, especially when several in the same week wander to the issue of abortion or some other political hot topic for evangelicals. I read through all 72 posts on this thread. These are the comments I’ve reacted to:
“Our pretzel logic in killing millions of innocent children comes from ignoring simple medical facts”
“Why would you then even consider a candidate who would be in favor of abortion?”
“Notice, however, that he [Obama] never references his favorite verse when “the least of these” is referring to unborn babies.”
And you said: “Either it’s killing a person or it’s not. Period. If it is then we should stop the practice immediately and if it’s not then let us continue with the law as it stands on the books.”
This is the comment that prompted me to write about the multifaceted circumstances that influence people’s decisions. You make it sound so simple, so black and white, and I think it is anything but.
Then in your last reply to me you say: “Jesus would have loved them BUT NEVER WOULD HAVE COUNSELED THEM THAT IT WAS OK TO ABORT THE BABY.”
What did I ever say that would lead you to believe I would personal counsel a person that it is okay to get an abortion? Of course I would not. But we are not talking about how we counsel a pregnant girl if the Holy Spirit opens the door to a conversation. We are talking about making laws for all Americans, whose constitution insures, if they so choose, they have the unalienable right NOT to submit to the authority of scripture.
Phil, I have read so many comments here, and heard so much from American Christians out there that seems to imply (and sometimes say outright) that if I’d ever consider a candidate who is not against abortion and the gay/lesbian agenda, my Christianity is actually in question. I realize that you didn’t say that, but you have to admit to reading that tone from many who post here. Fact is, I do believe abortion is wrong, and I am considering Obama, and though it may be difficult to believe, I’m a pretty theologically conservative Christ follower. Repealing R v Wade is not my soapbox. There are other issues that rile me up (guess you’ve figured out what those are). At the end of the day, informed by our faith and our biblical worldview, our vote will be guided by the candidate’s position on what matters most to each of us, and that will not be the same for every Christian in America. That needs to be okay.
Wendi
Wendi:
I agree with you that there are a bevy of issues confronting us as a nation. My ‘soapboxes’ are what are we going to do about our debt, which leads to our over printing of money and inflation, also I would like to see every child have a FULL VOUCHER to go to the school of their choice. I believe our Education system would be transformed overnight ...
I am not an Abortion or Gay Marriage Protestor. However, when I think about 1,000,000,000 killed babies and rising each day I’m not sure that this shouldn’t be my #1 concern.
At the end of the day all of us will stand in front of God and I’m certain He will review how we put our talents to use and I want to be able to stand in front of Him knowing I put my concerns in alignment with His.
I’m just so saddened that we’re killing babies - that God has wonderfully formed in the womb - and at such an astounding rate.
Let me propsoe something to you to consider (because I’m just developing these views.) We will never be able to have concern for women and their plight while we are killing the very least of these (killing Jesus?) We will never be able to consider women as equal partners in this world while we are killing babies.
We will never get our spending under control while we are killing babies. We will never get our education system under control if we are killing babies.
Could it be (and I’m just asking) that as long as we make it law that we can kill babies and it’s just another valid legal choice that God will make sure that the one country that supposedly stuck up for Him would never go back to their previous position or heights again? Is it possible?
Phil, I did not say dependency on the age of the mother was in scripture. As for the others I said I’ve seen arguments that cited scriptures. Some of the scriptures I’ve seen used are below:
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood and Leviticus 17:14 …for the life of all flesh is its blood. (This would seem to indicate that life begins, not at conception, but at the point that blood begins to form or flow.)
Psalm 22:10 I was thrust into your arms at my birth. You have been my God from the moment I was born. (This scripture seems to indicate life begins at birth.)
Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person. (This seems to indicate life begins with first breath.)
Acts 17:25 He himself gives life and breath to everything, and he satisfies every need. (Does this indicate life begins with first breath?)
Luke 1:44 When I heard your greeting, the baby in my womb jumped for joy. (Seems to indicate a baby in the womb is a person if he/she can feel joy).
Many argue that life begins at the moment of conception and an embryo is a person at that moment. However, questions have been raised about that line of thinking as we are now discovering that an embryo can divide into two separate persons up until about 14 days after conception
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m simply saying that I don’t think it is as cut and dry as you seem to think it is. You can continue to argue that abortion is wrong and should be illegal, but that will continue to be an argument and not a conversation. According to a report by the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-choice research group) the abortion rate in the U.S. has been dropping since about 1990 and the areas where it is dropping the most are the areas where pro-life forces have shifted their focus from simply making it illegal to combating the underlying causes and reasons that some women choose abortion.
Abortion is a topic over which Christians are bitterly divided. Many Christians, hearing good arguments from both sides, are paralyzed by conflicting beliefs. Many other Christians come to a position of such certainty about the issue that they can no longer engage in constructive dialog with the other side. Yet, despite these difficulties, talk about it we must. And if we are to discuss it in a way that honors the weightier matters of the law, “justice, mercy, and faith” (Matt. 23:23) we must be willing to hear all sides of the issue with open ears and humility.
And as for Obama’s answer that he’s not sure exactly when life begins (that’s above my pay grade) I’m OK with that, as long as it’s something he does think about when making decisions. What disturbs me is when McCain says he’s a Christian but that his faith does not influence his policies or decisions. How can you BE a Christ follower and it NOT affect your decision making process?
Page 3 of 4 pages
« First < 1 2 3 4 >