Doug Wilson on “bed-wetting evangelicals”

Doug Wilson comments on the effects of McCain’s VP choice. In the process he has some hard-hitting words for “evangelicals” willing to vote for Obama:

‘All the early returns indicate that this has moved discontented evangelicals from “stay at home mad” voters or “hold your nose” voters to enthusiasts. I am not counting here the bedwetting evangelicals who were willing to support Obama, the most radical pro-death candidate to ever reach the national stage. I am not counting them because they don’t count. Among real evangelicals, the kind who read their Bibles, the response to Palin has been striking. As I read the responses from various directions, I can only describe it, in terms of its impact, as an electrifying choice. Think about it. McCain has picked a stridently pro-life, devout Christian evangelical as his running mate. There is nothing else he could have done to mobilize conservative Christians for this election, and he decided to do it.’

Wilson says that “evangelicals” who are willing to vote for Obama are immature (“bed-wetters”), they don’t read their Bibles, and they aren’t really evangelical. I know that many will dispute Wilson’s analysis, but I think he’s right in at least one respect. There is a great worldview difference between “evangelicals” who think overturning Roe is a transcendent moral issue and those that don’t. I wish more were in the first category rather than the latter.

103 Responses to Doug Wilson on “bed-wetting evangelicals”

  1. Dan September 1, 2008 at 12:07 am #

    Denny,

    Glad you didn’t agree that so-called “bed-wetting” evangelicals don’t read their Bibles. That’s an unfortunate way for Doug Wilson to describe his brothers and sisters in Christ. And I agree that there is a great worldview difference on this issue which is why it is so divisive.

  2. Nick September 1, 2008 at 12:57 am #

    I’m not sure he’s overstating his case, as long as the rhetorical effect is understood. He surely doesn’t mean they don’t read their bibles literally, but in the sense that they don’t take the bible seriously. If he made the statement about Christian in Germany who supported (or at least stayed quiet about) the holocaust, no one would disagree–even though such people no doubt read their Bibles, they clearly did not take it seriously. The question is whether abortion is in that same category morally. I think it clearly is.

  3. J. Barrett September 1, 2008 at 1:17 am #

    Since when did voting for a president hang on abortion? I’m not saying that the issue isn’t a big deal – it’s very important. But why vote a person in just because he/she is in line with your particular stance on abortion? What about all the rest of their positions on many other important issues? If we reduce presidential voting to abortion (i.e. as the only reason why we would vote/not vote for someone) then I think we show ourselves to be quite immature as well.

  4. Ethan September 1, 2008 at 1:43 am #

    Reading an old book by David Chilton now called “Progressive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators” which was a response to a book by Ron Sider called “Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger”. Basically Ron represents the modern Left’s view of the Bible, the poor and economic justice… Have not finished the book but I get the sense that Chilton destroys Sider’s arguments. I have listened to folks like Tony C., Wallis and others try to make the case for a politically left interpretation of scripture and the exegesis is just obviously off in my opinion. So put abortion aside and you still get the sense that anyone that votes Dem. and endorses the bulk of the platform is not reading their Bible, in the same sense that churches with Mrs. Pastor are not reading their Bibles. By the way the book by Chilton is online for free. Google it.

  5. Tyler September 1, 2008 at 6:15 am #

    Ethan et al,

    I’ve read Sider and Chilton. For the record, Chilton is a Christian reconstructionist–hardly a reputable theological perspective (and his economics are equally dubious, in my opinion). Most evangelicals that I know who are considering Obama are doing so because of concern for the poor–a concern found repeatedly in those parts of the Bible that most Christians regardless of political persuasion fail to read carefully, and most pastors fail to preach on entirely (i.e. the other books besides the epistles).

    I would never go so far as to say that a vote for McCain is a vote for endless war and unbridled greed, and I would certainly never accuse McCain voters of not reading their Bibles–perhaps they don’t read the whole counsel of God on some key issues.

    Of course conservatives would disagree on whose interpretation of “biblical” economics is correct. But please spare me the ad-hominem attacks on those who disagree with you. Wilson is a logician, and I think we should expect more class from him and those who share his views.

  6. Don September 1, 2008 at 8:43 am #

    I can assure you that SOME churches with a woman pastor ARE reading their Bibles. It is true that they are not reading them in a masculinist way like some here choose to do.

    (I imagine some other churches do not care what the Bible does say and so might do anything, but I am talking about Bible-believing churches.)

  7. Don September 1, 2008 at 8:43 am #

    I can assure you that SOME churches with a woman pastor ARE reading their Bibles. It is true that they are not reading them in a masculinist way like some here choose to do.

    (I imagine some other churches do not care what the Bible does say and so might do anything, but I am talking about Bible-believing churches.)

  8. Scott September 1, 2008 at 9:10 am #

    So in other words, simply because she’s a pro-life evangelical, she’s fit to run this country. Really? Oh wait, she headed the local PTA. This is so incredibly myopic and disturbing. You guys honestly think that simpy being pro-life makes one fit to be commander-in-chief should the unlikely happen? Are you that misguided, backward, and messed up?

  9. Lydia September 1, 2008 at 9:54 am #

    DW is a shock jock. It sells books.

  10. Ethan September 1, 2008 at 9:58 am #

    Even more shocking is that he gives plenty of books away for free!

    http://books.google.com/books?lr=&uid=16175322771154266644&sa=N&start=20

    Some very good reads. You will be blessed.

  11. Truth Unites... and Divides September 1, 2008 at 9:58 am #

    “I am not counting here the bedwetting evangelicals who were willing to support Obama, the most radical pro-death candidate to ever reach the national stage. I am not counting them because they don’t count.”

    Of course these “bedwetting” evangelical supporters of radical pro-death candidate Obama shouldn’t count. They weren’t enthused about issues of unborn life to begin with, and they, as purported followers of Christ, didn’t consider it a transcendent moral issue for society and culture to correct. So they knowingly default without ignorance and without excuse to become tacit enablers of an abortion holocaust, much like those “bedwetting” Christians in Germany who, via cowardly silence, aided and abetted and enabled Hitler in his evil holocaust.

    Shame.

    And shame for blinding oneself to one’s own shame.

    Amen to Doug Wilson. Amen to Denny Burk for locating Doug’s article and posting it on his blog.

  12. Ferg September 1, 2008 at 10:38 am #

    TUAD,
    don’t forget the ‘bedwetting’ (what an awful awful term with no regard for people) christians who sit back and ignore the poor and ignore the girl who’s been kicked out of her home by her christian parents because she’s just had an abortion, and the bedwetting christians who preach and preach and preach and NEVER get their hands dirty by actually practically loving people in an INCONVENIENT way.

  13. Scott September 1, 2008 at 12:14 pm #

    TUAD,

    You disgust me. Your posts smack of ignorance and near-sightedness. Do you understand the issues? Can you actually engage in intelligent discussion instead of throwing daggers?

    I despise abortion. Sometimes you have to balance concerns across multiple fronts. Simply making abortion illegal does not stop it. Ask the thousands of social workers across the country about that. Help the poor. Counsel and advise those with unwanted pregnancies. As Ferg mentioned, get your own hands dirty for once. Passionate conservatism can be nothing more than disinterested morality.

    How dare you compare an Obama supporter with a Hitler supporter? Can you really in good conscience make that comparison? It reeks of the ignorance so stereotypical of a fundamentalists. And you want to know why the academy doesn’t take evangelical scholarship seriously? You want to know why evangelicals are ridiculed by the media? Engage the issues intelligently and with an ounce of compassion and we can talk.

  14. Nick September 1, 2008 at 12:22 pm #

    Without wanting to defend TUAD’s tone in his various replies, one huge blind spot far too many Americans have is an inability to recognize left-wing fundamentalism as being as repugnant and intellectually/morally bankrupt as right-wing fundys. Too many posts here display that profound ignorance.

  15. Nick September 1, 2008 at 12:23 pm #

    P.S. And display a phenomenal lack of civility. It stuns me that fundys from both sides on this blog are so consistently mean to each other, and call the others out for repentance regularly and yet feel so self-justified when they themselves are total jerks. May the Lord have mercy on us all.

  16. Scott September 1, 2008 at 12:30 pm #

    Nick,

    If I said you were “supposedly” a Christian, how would you respond?

    I wouldn’t call myself a left-wing fundy. I certainly hope my posts do not come across that way. If they do, then I hope it’s a product of my extreme, and perhaps unjustified, response to TUAD’s posts. I apologize if I was or have been a “jerk.” Perhaps I need to learn more temperance.

  17. Lydia September 1, 2008 at 12:34 pm #

    Friends, If you read DW long enough, you will see that he promotes imprecatory prayers.

  18. Ethan September 1, 2008 at 12:53 pm #

    Lydia,

    Wilson does promote the idea of reading all of the Psalms, including the imprecatory ones. What’s your beef?

  19. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 1, 2008 at 8:11 pm #

    Amen to Doug Wilson. Amen to Denny Burk for locating Doug’s article and giving prominence to the term “bedwetting evangelicals” in titling this blog post.

    And amen to this Catholic priest for his recent homily to his parish about the sinful practice of abortion.

    Here are excerpts (and please note that I made modifications to the original article to sub in “liberal protestant” or “liberal evangelical” or to that effect whereas the original term used was Catholic):

    “Are these pro-abortionist liberal Protestant politicians “ardent practicing evangelicals”?

    No, they are not.

    And neither is a person who ardently supports and votes to fund killing 1 to 1.5 million unborn babies every single year. Especially if that person is in a position of great power trying to get others to follow her or him. Someone, for example, like a Catholic Speaker of the House, or a Protestant candidate for President of the United States, or a Catholic senior Senator who is stands as the leading icon his political party. Like the proud and unrepentant murderer or drug dealer, they are not ardent Christians. They are, in very plain terms, very bad Christians.

    But the reason I say all this is not because I want to embarrass them or even correct them — they’re not even here. It’s because of you. Because back in the 1850’s when Protestant leaders, pastors, and politicians were either silent or on the wrong side of the slavery debate, they risked not only their souls, but the souls of every other Protestant they influenced. I cannot do that, and I won’t do that.

    Some would say, well pastor, what about those people who support the war in Iraq, or the death penalty, or oppose undocumented aliens, Aren’t those just as important, and aren’t Protestant politicians who support those “bad Protestants” too?

    Simple answer: no. Not one of those issues, or any other similar issues, except for the attack on traditional marriage is a matter of absolute intrinsic evil in itself. Not all wars are unjust — and good Protestants and Catholics can disagree on facts and judgments. Same thing with the other issues: facts are debatable, as are solutions to problems.

    But some things leave no room for debate. One of these is that it is always gravely evil to enslave human beings as if they were animals. And another is that it is always gravely evil to kill an innocent human life being — particularly the unborn.

    From: What Ardent Practicing Catholics Do.

  20. Tyler September 2, 2008 at 1:36 am #

    TUAD,

    Please explain to me who gave you the moral authority to determine which sins are so “gravely evil” that anyone who refuses to narrow their focus to that one type of evil is putting their very souls at risk. If that is indeed the case, then you share more with the Catholic faith than just being against abortion, my friend. Need I remind you, and others here, that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, not through politics. Thus, we are Christians are free to disagree on which candidate will best push the country towards a more just and righteous future.

    Obama’s public statements on abortion make me cringe, but no less so than many Republicans’ public statements on immigration, war, health care, and economics. Can’t we just agree to disagree whether than name-calling and putting other evangelicals outside the bounds of salvation?

  21. Nathan September 2, 2008 at 7:55 am #

    Tyler,

    If there are no sins that can be determined to be “gravely evil” how can we tolerate any laws on the books in this country.

    Also, if abortion is not the single most gravely evil sin of the last 30 years, then are you saying that the embryos aborted are without souls? If that is your argument fine, but if not, then souls are going into eternity by the hand of humans who have decided to be judge, jury, and executioner.

    Christians are free to disagree on candidates, but if Obama makes you cringe, why would you vote for him. To parlay that with other Republicans is to try and escape the argument.

    Does McCain make you cringe? If yes, then say so, but don’t play Obama off on the Republican party, he is running against McCain.

    TUAD: I stand with you that the abortion divide between Obama (the most pro-death candidate ever) and McCain (not the greatest, but at least not pro-death) is the single most important aspect of this election.

  22. Jason September 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm #

    Scott,

    First, I hope you see the hypocrisy of your post as you start of your critique of someone’s rhetoric with the phrase “you disgust me”. It really strikes a blow at your credibility.

    Second, let’s deal with the issues. You stated that you despise abortion, then you added an invisible “but” and the statement that “sometimes you have to balance concerns across multiple fronts”. That is an odd statement to me, but one that I see a lot from liberals. It is the ultimate in democratic double speak…or having your cake and eating it too. But in actuality it makes me realize that it is YOU that do not understand this issue. Because IF you truly despised abortion as a moral evil, you would not let philosophy of means of provision for the poor trump it. Life of millions of children vs. how to feed/care for the poor?? Seriously? This is the irony of the “one issue voter” critique…everyone allows some issues to trump others. The question is: which issues are moral issues and which are policy issues. I would say that environmental and welfare issues are policy issues…because no one denies the need to care for the environment and the need to care for the poor (despite the rhetoric from one side)…the question is HOW do we do it and WHO is responsible. The issue of abortion is a moral issue because some are adamantly opposed to protection of these unborn children, not based on policy but morality. There are those that “despise” it, but then do everything they can to insure it stays legal. Legislation of killing….talk about legislating morality.
    For a believer, moral issues trump policy issues. Not that policy issues are unimportant…..but it matters less to me about our policy for drilling oil off the coast than it does if we kill another million or so babies.
    Scot, you fail to understand THIS issue….and like it or not, this is, has been, and will be THE key issue.

    Third, let’s talk policy issues. I love talking about those things. But again, it is policy, not moral. (BTW, before you try and say feeding the poor is moral…I know, but if we all agree that it needs to be done and the disagreement is HOW, it becomes a moral agreement and a policy debate.)

    Fourth, you may not like Sarah Palin. That’s fine. But let’s not pretend that she is less qualified for VP by her lack of experience any more than Obama is for Pres. His record is unimpressive. He gives a good speech..that’s all. Actually, he was entirely unimpressive in the Saddleback forum when he had no speechwriter preparing his answers.

    Let’s continue the conversation…but cut the rhetoric, especially when it is simply doubletalk.

  23. Darius September 2, 2008 at 12:19 pm #

    Jason, that was an excellent defense of the conservative position and rebuttal of the liberal one. I commend you for getting to the heart of the matter.

  24. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 2, 2008 at 12:35 pm #

    “Please explain to me who gave you the moral authority to determine which sins are so “gravely evil” that anyone who refuses to narrow their focus to that one type of evil is putting their very souls at risk.”

    Tyler, please explain to me why you made this false accusation and also why you’re bearing false witness through your false accusation.

    I stand firm with Doug Wilson, Denny Burk, Nathan, Darius, the Catholic priest cited in #18, my previous comment in #10, but most of all, standing firm upon the Word of God regarding the willful killing of unborn life. This is a transcendental physical, biological, moral, spiritual, social, political, biblical issue of life and death.

  25. Scott September 2, 2008 at 1:54 pm #

    Jason,

    Very good post! My apologies for the heavy rhetoric. I came across to strongly against TUAD. Your challenge is well received and truly appreciated.

    I’m running out of time before a meeting, so I hope I can give an abbreviated answer to your well conceived post.

    In short, I think we have to do whatever we can to cu down on abortion. I do think it’s horrendous, and I spent years in loving debtae with my mother who had an abortion several years after my birth (sorry to be too personal!). My future wife is a social worker, whose heart bleeds daily for the unborn. We also have discussed this issue ad nauseum.

    The heart of the issue is how do we cut down on something we will never be able to control. Where we disagree is on the best means to do that. I DO NOT put feeding the poor on par with the unborn. One can and should be responsible and the other is wholy incapabale of protecting itself. However, if we take care of the poor on a wholistic level, then we can reduce abortions significantly. If we educate and counsel, w can and will reduce abortions even more. If we seek moral legislation, we’ll only cause more problems. Again, I’d love to discuss this more in depth, but this is just an outline (Obama rhetoric – promise not substance, right 🙂
    I’m looking at a means to an end, certainly not trying to elevate the poor above the unborn! I have not been careful enough to verbalize the difference.

    In terms of the political issues, I’d love to discuss those when I get more time. Again, I apologiaze for the heavy rhetoric which was not in the uniting spirit of our Savior.

  26. D.J. Williams September 2, 2008 at 2:10 pm #

    Jason,

    Excellent post. We need more like that.

  27. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 2, 2008 at 2:21 pm #

    Scott,

    First, I hope you see the hypocrisy of your post as you start of your critique of someone’s rhetoric with the phrase “you disgust me”. It really strikes a blow at your credibility.”

    DJ Williams: “Jason,

    Excellent post.”

    I agree. Jason, that was an excellent post.

  28. Ferg September 2, 2008 at 2:56 pm #

    As well as Jasons good post, I think Scott has to be commended for his humility which is evident in his post #24.
    It’s nice to see someone respond like you did Scott.

  29. D.J. Williams September 2, 2008 at 3:25 pm #

    I’ll second Ferg’s comment as well.

  30. Adam Omelianchuk September 2, 2008 at 3:34 pm #

    What do you all think of Wilson’s line about the “propriety of electing a woman?” Do you die hard complementarians think a Palin nomination legitimizes feminist ideology and further blurs the differences between men and women?

  31. Jason September 2, 2008 at 4:03 pm #

    Scott,

    I appreciate your response. I know how easy it is to post more harshly than you wish and then you’re stuck with a bad post that you cannot fix. I think it is a helpful reminder to all of us to think and maybe even take a break before we hit the “submit comment” button.

    I also did not mean to make you say something you did not say (re: caring for the poor over abortion), I was using your post as a jumping off point to speak more generally about the position of people that perceive themselves as “multi-issue voters” as opposed to the narrow-minded one-issue evangelicals (as we are often perceived).
    I am NOT a one issue voter. My Bachelors degree is in Economics. I am very interested and concerned in a candidate’s economic policy. I am very interested in social programs and each candidate’s/party’s platform on those issues (social security/welfare/education/etc.). But as I said before, though those issues are important, they cannot and do not trump the moral issue of abortion. The other things are policy issues…important, we all agree, but not the most important.

    So, my vote gets cast based on many things, like everyone else. But the issues are placed in priority. I believe the moral issue is the most important. Frankly, abortion is THE moral issue for our generation. I am actually offended when people try and make it a policy issue (which I believe is what the whole “reduction” as opposed to “elimination” discussion is about). This goes tot he core of what we believe about life and death…and Obama knows it (look at his response to Rick Warren). That is why his position is so vile. He personally believes that abortion is wrong (so he says) but then will fight against anyone trying to stop it. Huh?!?!

    This is a key issue…and one that has steered our nation (and will continue to do so for many years, despite the downplaying of the issue from Democrats)…and as believers we need to be very clear that this is THE crucial issue and that all the other very important issues are secondary to the issue of will we legislate/support/promote the killing of babies. OKing it while saying we hate does not work. Is it wrong or not? If so, we need to stop it.

    I look forward to continuing the discussion on secondary policy issues.

  32. Jason September 2, 2008 at 4:04 pm #

    “Do you die hard complementarians think a Palin nomination legitimizes feminist ideology and further blurs the differences between men and women?”

    No. 🙂

  33. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 2, 2008 at 5:11 pm #

    Adam O.: “Do you die hard complementarians think a Palin nomination legitimizes feminist ideology and further blurs the differences between men and women?”

    No. Not at all.

    Do you die hard egalitarians who bleat equality ever contemplate that there should be an equal right to life between the unborn and the already-born?

    Do die-hard egalitarians ever wonder why complementarians are almost always pro-life, but that egalitarians are noticeably less so?

  34. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 2, 2008 at 5:13 pm #

    Jason: “I look forward to continuing the discussion on secondary policy issues.”

    The key word is “secondary”.

  35. Don September 2, 2008 at 5:39 pm #

    I am egal and pro-life, I am both because that is my understanding of what the Bible teaches.

    For those that are one or the other, if their reasons are not based on Scripture, what do they matter for MY determination?

  36. John September 2, 2008 at 5:54 pm #

    TUAD, why do you always have to be a jerk and a smart-alec? Even when people post in a non-harsh way in an attempt to discuss with others about it, you turn around and throw an ad-hominem and sweeping generalization back at them.

    Listen brother, I haven’t always been the kindest person on this blog, but at least I fess up to it and admit when i am wrong. It would be good to see the same from you every now and then, especially when people of your own kind even tell you that you need to tone it down a notch. That’s the difference between me and you, I actually listen to others when they rebuke me (even my conservative brothers), but you don’t. As much as you hate some of our beliefs and convictions, you can at least be civil and irenic with your tone and content.

    On another note, I find it interesting that so many conservative complementarians are saying they have no problem at all with Palin being the VP pick (look at TUAD’s latest point, as well as Al Mohler’s blog for today). While there may be no “proof-text” in the Bible to point to as far as men being in political leadership, that is certainly the case throughout all of Scripture. When arguments are made against women being leaders in the church because of their creation role and the way they were made (more nurturing, not as strong, etc), then the only natural extrapolation is to include this for all roles of leadership (government, church, home, business, etc), not just the church and home. Personally, I find it a wee bit inconsistent and only think comments such as “no, not at all” (basically, without any shadow of a doubt) are used to confirm your full-fledged 100% support for McCain (or full-fledged 100% opposition to Obama).

    If the ticket were between two Republicans, one ticket consisting of 2 pro-life males and the other 1 pro-life male and 1 pro-life female, then I guarantee you that these arguments would surely be made by many who are saying Palin being a female doesn’t bother them at all.

    That being said, Palin having a downs baby that is 4 months old does worry me a bit should her and McCain get elected. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but her first priority has to be for her child/family and not as the VP. This goes for both candidates, but having a child with DS heightens her case just a bit. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if many mothers don’t frown on this quite a bit, possibly effecting a few votes in the process.

  37. Darius September 2, 2008 at 6:00 pm #

    John, what about Deborah in Judges?

    Also, regarding Palin and her baby: her husband is a full-time stay-at-home father, so your point is invalid. If they both were working outside of the home, then I would see the argument. But since Mr. Palin is choosing to stay at home with the kids, where’s the problem with Sarah Palin going all out in her career?

  38. Paul September 2, 2008 at 6:15 pm #

    Darius in #36,

    Are you sure about the hubby being a stay at home dad?

    Last I read, he worked for one of the big oil companies full time.

  39. John September 2, 2008 at 6:21 pm #

    Darius,

    The same argument (Deborah in Judges) is used in favor of egalitarianism. I assume you’re not doing that here, but I do find it odd that when it’s convenient for you, you use it. Also, there may be one or two exceptions, but as a whole the political leadership in the Bible is all males….period.

  40. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 2, 2008 at 6:25 pm #

    Ferg: “TUAD,
    don’t forget the ‘bedwetting’ (what an awful awful term with no regard for people)…

    Let’s attribute the term “bedwetting” to Doug Wilson and to also thank Denny Burk for highlighting it in his blog title.

    “christians who sit back and ignore the poor …

    If I recall correctly, conservative Christians give more to the poor than do liberal Protestants.

    “and ignore the girl who’s been kicked out of her home by her christian parents because she’s just had an abortion,”

    Are you thinking of a family in particular?

    “… and the bedwetting christians who preach and preach and preach and NEVER get their hands dirty by actually practically loving people in an INCONVENIENT way.”

    Since you apparently don’t mind using the term “bedwetting” to describe some Christians, what are you really trying to say? Are you trying to say something about Doug Wilson? Denny Burk? What? Who?

    BTW, by the general tone of your post it seems that Christians should excuse or overlook those German Christians for knowingly participating in and enabling the holocaust of WWII.

    A Christian woman who did registration paperwork for the long line of Jews being sent to the camps.

    A Christian who reported Jews who were in hiding or who reported their neighbors who were hiding Jews.

    These Christians didn’t speak up in the face of gravely immoral evil. They may have even voted for Hitler and knew what he would do. Moral culpability?

    We have Christians who will tacitly enable abortion with their vote if their pro-abortion candidate Obama gets into office. Moral culpability?

  41. Paul September 2, 2008 at 6:37 pm #

    “We have Christians who will tacitly enable abortion with their vote if their pro-abortion candidate Obama gets into office. Moral culpability?”

    Abortion is already enabled, and I would bet the farm that if McCain gets to pick Supreme Court justices that he’s going to pick Kennedies and O’Connors, not Alitos and Robertses.

    I am amused beyond belief when people start thinking that this is a debate about whether or not anything major will happen to abortion law.

    If Bush couldn’t get it done in 6 years of rule controlling all three branches of the federal government, what makes you think that McCain will get any farther? Sure, McCain will get SC picks, but do you think that a democratic senate will actually confirm another Alito?

  42. Adam Omelianchuk September 2, 2008 at 6:51 pm #

    Interesting. So much is made of women being stay-at-home moms and men being sole providers in the complementarian camp that I am surprised that there isn’t more discussion about how Palin utterly breaks these God-assigned roles. Would CBMW endorse the idea of stay-at-home dads? If so, they have no right to criticize egalitarians for erasing gender differences between the sexes.

    I only asked because for complementarians it would seem reasonable to infer from the order of authority set over Creation, the home, and the church that it would extend society.

  43. Brian (Another) September 2, 2008 at 6:59 pm #

    John (and I’m sure others will chime in as well),

    Complementarians do not first found the biblical teaching of complementarianism in historical examples. First is the actual biblical commands (1 Peter, Ephesians, 1 Timothy). Paul roots his foundation in the creation order (which, on an aside is also why 1 Timothy is not seen as addressing a specific heresy.).

    There is far more than what tidbit of tidbits I offer. Just an observation I didn’t want to go without. And it is not out of order or hypocrisy to endorse Palin as the teaching is most often wrt church. There is more to it (as others have alluded), though. And yes, there are plenty of folks who take Eph, 1 Tim, 1 Peter as limiting all (including state) authority positions.

  44. Tyler September 2, 2008 at 7:12 pm #

    Nathan, TUAD:

    I have no problem labeling abortion as gravely evil. I was referring to TUAD’s apparent belief that those who vote for Obama are putting their souls (read: salvation) at risk. TUAD, if you claim that I lied about you, please explain what you meant by this line:

    “[Protestants who remained silent on slavery] risked not only their souls, but the souls of every other Protestant they influenced,” thus implying that those who vote for Obama are in the same boat.

    Even those who opposed abolition lived in a historical context. While it may be easy to condemn them today to win an argument on a blog thread, it is helpful to remember that both sides claimed to be faithful to Scripture. Only time will tell what the wisest approach to ending the abotion tragedy is. Most conservatives argue that the Supreme Court is the answer (thus a vote for Obama is completely out of the question). Others, like myself, believe that wholistic social reform is a better approach (thus McCain is not the only option).

    Now if you excuse me, I need to go change my bedding.

  45. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 2, 2008 at 7:16 pm #

    Paul: “McCain will get SC picks, but do you think that a democratic senate will actually confirm another Alito?”

    I would like to find out.

    Adam O: “I only asked because for complementarians it would seem reasonable to infer from the order of authority set over Creation, the home, and the church that it would extend society.”

    Denny’s not in favor of trajectory hermeneutics, nor am I.

    And speaking for myself only, I’m not in favor of making the trajectory that you’re attempting to attribute to complementarians Adam O.

    Lastly, I’m in favor of not allowing this thread to get hi-jacked into discussions of the aberrant doctrine of egalitarianism. This thread is about the “great worldview difference between “evangelicals” who think overturning Roe is a transcendent moral issue and those that don’t.”

  46. Paul September 2, 2008 at 7:20 pm #

    “Now if you excuse me, I need to go change my bedding.”

    You should have seen me the last time I was at Bed Bath and Beyond, trying to explain the reason for needing queen sized rubber sheets.

    “no, ma’am, it’s not that I’m incontinent. You see, I’m a Christian AND a liberal. It’s just part of my make up. I think about social justice or single payer healthcare, and all of the sudden, I have this uncontrollable need to run to the bedroom and pee on my bed. It was just my secret until Dennis Wilson came along and outed us. Man, you should’ve been at THAT meetup.com group. It was WILD!”

  47. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 2, 2008 at 7:24 pm #

    Tyler,

    The original sermon came from a Catholic priest to his flock. I substituted other terms to see whether his sermon might not also be equally applicable to Protestants as well.

    So please don’t over-react.

    Now if you excuse me, I need to go change my bedding.

    You’re excused.

  48. Don September 2, 2008 at 7:49 pm #

    2Co 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.

    Non-egals based on gender sure seem like they regard the flesh to me.

  49. Jason September 2, 2008 at 8:01 pm #

    Complementarianism does not disallow women from serving in government or in leadership in the business world.

    Scriptural passages about women’s roles are specifically discussed in the home and in the church.

    The fact that some people use those same arguments against women in leadership roles in businesses is a shame, as is those that deny that the roles in the home and the church are clearly taught.

    To extrapolate arguments is quite unfair. Why don’t we stick with what is actually said.

  50. Jason September 2, 2008 at 8:06 pm #

    Don said: “2Co 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.

    Non-egals based on gender sure seem like they regard the flesh to me.”

    Come on.

    First, consider who wrote the passage you are quoting. The same one who also prohibited women from being elders or teaching/having authority over men. Do you honestly think the Word of God is contradictory?

    Second, that is a horrible understanding of that passage to go to gender roles and “see, no more gender”…it’s like the repeated egal abuse of Gal 3:28

    Third, you need to brush up on your exegesis and hermeneutics. Paul clearly explains what v16 means by v17.

  51. Jason September 2, 2008 at 8:08 pm #

    Paul,

    Are social justice and single payer healthcare equal issues in your mind?

  52. Scott September 2, 2008 at 8:14 pm #

    Jason,

    Again, a great post! Thanks for the generous tone and humility.

    Here’s a purely hypothetical question, and I hope it doesn’t come across as sarcasm. Do you think a moral issue should be the priority in electing the president? Is that more of a priority (strictly in terms of a president’s qualifications) than say foreign policy & or short-term defense plans? Additionally, how do you leverage the other issues to reduce abortions? Is that even possible?

    I’ll agree that abortion might be the most discussed and pressing moral issue of our generation, one that has given off far more heat than light.

  53. Paul September 2, 2008 at 9:01 pm #

    Jason,

    are they equal?

    No.

    are they both important issues?

    Absolutely.

    Are either being looked at realistically by either candidate?

    Nope.

    Green Party, here I come.

  54. Don September 2, 2008 at 10:09 pm #

    Jason,

    Paul did not prohibit women from being elders or teaching men. So Paul IS being consistent.

  55. Adam Omelianchuk September 2, 2008 at 11:29 pm #

    To extrapolate arguments is quite unfair. Why don’t we stick with what is actually said.

    Why is it unfair? When it is said that women are made subordinate to men by virtue of the order of creation it stands to reason that this would apply to all realms of life. Paul’s appeal to creation order to prohibit female leadership in the church is a greater to lesser argument: man was made to be above woman in rank via the chronology of creation. This state of affairs was note merely the marriage relationship, but the dominion over creation within the Garden of Eden. The first, unfallen society was subject to male headship. Why wouldn’t it be now? Why would a woman be allowed to make the “final decision” with regard to sending troops into harms way, but not with regard to where to send the kids to school?

    This is precisely the problem complementarians have when citing Deborah in support of their views, because she transgressed the same creation order differences/boundaries by taking on a role of authority.

    Sorry, there needs to more argument and less assertion if you are going to defend the view that church and marriage are off limits, but society is fair game.

  56. John September 2, 2008 at 11:34 pm #

    Amen to that Adam

  57. Don September 3, 2008 at 8:56 am #

    The solution is that there are no limits, a woman can do anything a man spiritually can do if she is gifted by the Spirit to do it.

  58. Brian (Another) September 3, 2008 at 11:20 am #

    Don:

    I understand the novel translation you use*. But the prohibition of women as elders/overseers and deacons is described in 1 Timothy and Titus both. The solution you propose is to ignore scripture and the authority of the bible to substitute a syncretist (sic) revision pleasing to culture. Men and women are complementary, not the same on all matters. One is not better than the other (the way egalitarian will incorrectly characterize a complementarians position). One thing in particular that you advocate is that if I don’t get to use gifts the way I want means that God must have made a mistake.

    As far as diakonos goes, Phoebe was in service to the church. If I understand correctly, that is a proper application of the Greek word (a Greek scholar I am not, though).

    * – Time may prove that we have been translating incorrectly for the last 1800 or 1900 years, but we should also test and approve the spirits, not being blown about by every doctrine (though, to note, the egalitarian view itself is not novel).

  59. Don September 3, 2008 at 11:23 am #

    There is no general prohibition in 1 Tim and Titus for women being elders. I agree that some masculinists may understand it that way, but they are incorrect.

  60. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 3, 2008 at 11:38 am #

    Jason: “The fact that some people use those same arguments against women in leadership roles in businesses is a shame, as is those that deny that the roles in the home and the church are clearly taught.”

    Thank you Jason for continuing your series of excellent posts on this thread.

  61. Jason September 3, 2008 at 1:21 pm #

    Scott said: “Here’s a purely hypothetical question, and I hope it doesn’t come across as sarcasm. Do you think a moral issue should be the priority in electing the president? Is that more of a priority (strictly in terms of a president’s qualifications) than say foreign policy & or short-term defense plans? Additionally, how do you leverage the other issues to reduce abortions? Is that even possible?”

    Scott,

    I think it’s a fair question, I did not take it sarcastically at all.

    I think THIS moral issue takes priority. Why? Because it is a moral issue that has to do with millions of deaths every year. How you answer the question “when does life begin?” ends up answering this issue and making this a crucial discussion.
    That is why Obama’s view on this issue is so vile. Because he knows that life begins at conception (though he’d never publicly give up that comment…he’d lose ground with the Democrats) that is why he says he is personally against abortion. If he didn’t believe those were actual children, then why would he be personally against abortion? So to know that this is the taking of human life, and then do everything you can to protect it…and even provide funds for it…is so vile I don’t even have words for it.
    At least a pro-choicer who says that they aren’t alive (even though most of them are lying to themselves) is consistent (to some degree). It’s just a procedure to them, morally. They’re wrong, but at least they aren’t two-faced like Obama.

    So, this is THE issue. Why? Because if we say that those babies are alive (which most people cannot honestly deny)…then we have to admit we are killing them…and we are killing them for convenience.
    My question for pro-choice Christians is: are these babies alive or not? If they are, then how can we ever justify abortion? If they are not, why not? What excludes them? That opens up further issues, nd seems to be terribly inconsistent.

    Can a Christian honestly vote in favor of killing babies? Can they honestly vote for a candidate that seeks to protect that practice and even fund it through taxpayer money??

    For all the left wing talk of social justice….where is the social justice on this issue?

    So does this issue take priority? Yes. Because if it is killing millions a year, how can we support it? The other issues are social policy issues. Important, yes, but not more so than this issue.

  62. Jason September 3, 2008 at 1:26 pm #

    Don says: “Paul did not prohibit women from being elders or teaching men. So Paul IS being consistent.”

    Now, Don, that just simply isn’t being fair to the text.

    He clearly says he does not permit a women to teach or to have authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12).
    Now you may be able to explain it away in your head, but he clearly said exactly what you said he didn’t say.

    I know it flies in the face of American sensibility…but so does the Gospel.

    I think the text is clear on this issue. It takes some serious work (as we have seen on hundreds of posts on other topics on Denny’s blog) to get around this issue.

  63. Jason September 3, 2008 at 1:42 pm #

    Adam said: “Why is it unfair? When it is said that women are made subordinate to men by virtue of the order of creation it stands to reason that this would apply to all realms of life. Paul’s appeal to creation order to prohibit female leadership in the church is a greater to lesser argument: man was made to be above woman in rank via the chronology of creation. This state of affairs was note merely the marriage relationship, but the dominion over creation within the Garden of Eden. The first, unfallen society was subject to male headship. Why wouldn’t it be now? Why would a woman be allowed to make the “final decision” with regard to sending troops into harms way, but not with regard to where to send the kids to school?”

    But Paul didn’t extrapolate his argument into the societal realm. The church is the community of redeemed people, where the leadership structure is to reflect a pre-fall structure with men lovingly leading in the home and in the church. Society remains unredeemed (for now) and we cannot mandate that they submit to God’s order…well, we can, but we shouldn’t be shocked when it is laughed out of town in the name of “progress”.
    Paul never prohibited women from leadership in society, government, or business…so I see no reason to conclude that they are prohibited from those roles. I don’t think complementarianism goes to that end because we are upholding what is clearly taught: male leadership in the home and in the church.
    So I see no reason why women cannot be Presidents of companies or VPs or even Pres of the USA.

    Adam said: “This is precisely the problem complementarians have when citing Deborah in support of their views, because she transgressed the same creation order differences/boundaries by taking on a role of authority.”

    Deborah is an odd situation, wouldn’t you agree? It seems that her leadership was almost a sign of judgment on the men for failing to lead. I would not however go so far as she sets a precedent. I think her case is probably a lot more complicated than either side admits. I wouldn’t say she transgressed creation order…but the author makes it very clear that this is not the norm and it needs to be noted by its rarity.

    Adam said: “Sorry, there needs to more argument and less assertion if you are going to defend the view that church and marriage are off limits, but society is fair game.”

    Adam, my argument is that Scripture is quite clear about female roles in leadership inside the church and in the home. Even if you deny it, they are quite clearly stated. However, since there is nothing said about the prohibition of women in leadership in society or in business, I see no reason to invent a prohibition. Just because YOU draw straight line between the 2 realms does not mean there needs to be one or that Scripture draws that line.

  64. Adam Omelianchuk September 3, 2008 at 2:12 pm #

    Jason,

    Fair enough. But I don’t think anything in the text reveals that Deborah’s leadership was evidence of God’s judgment or somehow an unfavorable state of affairs. It is true that her military leadership was a judgment against Barak (whoa!), but there really isn’t anything there about it being against the nation.

    I’m thankful you believe women can be in leadership in society. I’m just not sure complementarianism can make the argument from silence it does considering the full scope of its teachings (I’m in agreement with Wayne Grudem who once said that gender issue is bigger than we realize, because it touches all of life). But we’ll see what Denny has to say. Thanks for the reply.

  65. Don September 3, 2008 at 2:19 pm #

    Jason,

    Paul did not write in English so what you wrote cannot be what he wrote. He wrote in Greek. What you are doing is choosing to take one translation of many choices and deciding to use that one. If you decide to trust masculinist translators, that is your choice; but it is not mine and I do not recommend it.

    1 Tim 2:12 is a very challenging verse to translate and there are multiple choices that need to be made by the translator, and if you make all masculinist choices, you end up restricting women. But this is far from being required or even advisable.

  66. Lydia September 3, 2008 at 2:34 pm #

    “Complementarianism does not disallow women from serving in government or in leadership in the business world.

    Scriptural passages about women’s roles are specifically discussed in the home and in the church.

    The fact that some people use those same arguments against women in leadership roles in businesses is a shame, as is those that deny that the roles in the home and the church are clearly taught.

    To extrapolate arguments is quite unfair. Why don’t we stick with what is actually said.”

    Let me see if I understand your position. A wife is allowed to her husband’s civil authority when elected but is not allowed to be his equal in ‘role’ (whatever that is) in church and home.

    But, she is allowed to have ‘civil’ authority over him? Correct?

  67. Lydia September 3, 2008 at 2:39 pm #

    “Deborah is an odd situation, wouldn’t you agree? It seems that her leadership was almost a sign of judgment on the men for failing to lead. I would not however go so far as she sets a precedent. I think her case is probably a lot more complicated than either side admits. I wouldn’t say she transgressed creation order…but the author makes it very clear that this is not the norm and it needs to be noted by its rarity.”

    Would you care to show me exactly where the Author makes it clear that Deborah was a ‘judgement’ upon Israel? In actuality, if it was a sin for a woman to be a judge, then why wasn’t that made clear whether it was rare or not? You are making a ‘law’ where there is none.

  68. Jason September 3, 2008 at 2:40 pm #

    Don,

    Honestly, I can’t tell if you are being serious about the English comment or not.

    Of course the NT was written in Greek…if it wasn’t all those classes I took in seminary were a waste of time.
    Thanks for the advice, but I know Greek and I am able to translate. But I also believe that what I typed, was a fair translation of the middle part of v12.

    The funny thing is, my comment was a response to your exact statement that (and I quote): “Paul did not prohibit women from being elders or teaching men”. My response was: that is exactly what he did in 1 Tim 2:12. That is a prohibition to teach (clearly stated) and to be elders (specifically “exercise authority” or if you prefer “authentein”).

    Now if your argument is that Paul never said that because he didn’t use English…that might be a better argument than denying he was trying to communicate that point to his audience. 🙂

  69. Lydia September 3, 2008 at 2:40 pm #

    “Adam, my argument is that Scripture is quite clear about female roles in leadership inside the church and in the home. Even if you deny it, they are quite clearly stated.”

    Actually, they aren’t or we would not have all these blogs discussing the interpretations of Greek words such as authenteo and kephale. :o)

  70. Ethan September 3, 2008 at 2:43 pm #

    Lydia,

    There is no govt. in the world that in some way does not exercise authority over the home and church, some worse (China) than others. President of the homeowners association is not the same as President of the most powerful nation on the planet. Well not true, they are both totalitarian in nature, but other than that there is nothing in common.

  71. Jason September 3, 2008 at 3:05 pm #

    Lydia wrote: “Would you care to show me exactly where the Author makes it clear that Deborah was a ‘judgement’ upon Israel? In actuality, if it was a sin for a woman to be a judge, then why wasn’t that made clear whether it was rare or not? You are making a ‘law’ where there is none.”

    First, you might want to check your tone and accusations. Nowhere in my statement did I say she was in sin, and I certainly have not made a new law. I would request that you be careful to not read your own view into what someone is actually saying.

    Second, I prefaced my previous statement by saying this is a difficult text because I don’t think you can take this as a precedent for women in ministry. Why not? It wasn’t even a precedent for future women judges, despite Deborah’s success and giftedness. It definitely didn’t cause there to be future female priestesses. And if we are using this for precedent, God could have raised one up anytime He wanted IF He wanted. true?
    Even within this account Deborah repeatedly tries to give priority to man, Barak. The fact that he is weak and refuses to do what God tells him to do without Deborah shows this as a rebuke to Barak (the military leader of Israel). In fact because of this judgment, glory goes to a woman (is that not a judgment for disobedience?)..but the woman that gets the glory isn’t even Deborah.
    Moreoever, there are quite a few oddities about Deborah. This is the only instance of a female judge, making the case that this is an odd event, not a common one. She is not involved with military rule, like all the other judges. She has to be coerced into going.

    I don’t think this account sets a precedent that allows us to wipe away all the other evidence throughout Scripture. It is simply not a prescriptive passage. but it is fascinating nonetheless.

    Finally, I’m not making a “law” (whatever that means). I am simply saying this passage is not conclusive and definitely not prescriptive. For you to make it so is quite unfair to the passage and a straight up denial of clear prescriptive passages elsewhere.

  72. Jason September 3, 2008 at 3:07 pm #

    In a representative democracy, the authority actually lies in the hands of the people. 🙂

  73. Jason September 3, 2008 at 3:09 pm #

    I said: “Adam, my argument is that Scripture is quite clear about female roles in leadership inside the church and in the home. Even if you deny it, they are quite clearly stated.”

    Lydia said: “Actually, they aren’t or we would not have all these blogs discussing the interpretations of Greek words such as authenteo and kephale. :o)”

    Just because people discuss it doesn’t mean it isn’t clearly stated.

    There are lots of reasons we may misunderstand or straight up reject what is clearly stated.

  74. Don September 3, 2008 at 4:25 pm #

    It is a fantasy of non-egals that it is clearly stated. This is part of their incorrect argument and they are sticking to it.

    There are actually a few possible meanings of the verse, only one of which restricts women.

  75. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 3, 2008 at 5:53 pm #

    GoooOOOOOOO Jason!!!

    Michael Phelps cheering on the anchor leg, Jason Lezak of the 400 freestyle relay.

    Passing on the “baton” to Jason and rooting for him to take it home for the win.

    GooooooooOOOOOOO Jason!!!

  76. John September 3, 2008 at 6:02 pm #

    Oh my gosh, you’ve got to be kidding me!!!!!!!

    🙂

  77. Paul September 3, 2008 at 6:02 pm #

    Jason,

    Look! You have a cheering section!

    I am fairly certain at this point that if you said, “I like Cheerios” that TUAD would be busy typing away about how he loves cheerios too!

    Still wetting the bed,

    Paul

  78. Scott September 3, 2008 at 6:22 pm #

    Paul,

    Are you in the race? How bout you John?

  79. John September 3, 2008 at 6:28 pm #

    I didn’t know this was a race 😉

    Go Paul!!!

  80. Paul September 3, 2008 at 6:31 pm #

    Scott,

    nope, not in the race. But according to Doug Wilson, I am actively involved in making the puddle for TUAD to swim in.

  81. Adam Omelianchuk September 3, 2008 at 6:47 pm #

    Paul,

    Dirty, but funny 😆

  82. Ferg September 3, 2008 at 6:53 pm #

    TUAD where on earth did you get the impression from my post that “Christians should excuse or overlook those German Christians for knowingly participating in and enabling the holocaust of WWII.”
    I genuinely have no idea where you got that conclusion from.

    you said “If I recall correctly, conservative Christians give more to the poor than do liberal Protestants.”
    why does it always come down to labels? I wasn’t getting at a certain ‘side’, i was just making a point. Where does one draw the line of a “bedwetter”, if someone is pro-life but doesn’t care for the poor is he mature because of his stance on the ‘bigger moral issue’?

  83. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 3, 2008 at 6:59 pm #

    Doug Wilson: “I am not counting here the bedwetting evangelicals who were willing to support Obama, the most radical pro-death candidate to ever reach the national stage. I am not counting them because they don’t count.”

  84. Lydia September 3, 2008 at 7:53 pm #

    “Lydia said: “Actually, they aren’t or we would not have all these blogs discussing the interpretations of Greek words such as authenteo and kephale. :o)”

    Just because people discuss it doesn’t mean it isn’t clearly stated.

    There are lots of reasons we may misunderstand or straight up reject what is clearly stated.”

    Jason, Do you believe that translations are inerrant?

  85. Scott September 3, 2008 at 8:25 pm #

    Ferg,

    You’re touching on the point I’m discussing with Jason. Where does one draw the line between elevating certain moral concerns and downplaying others? I would hope none of us on this board support abortion, though the rhetoric of the labels used on here makes this implication. As I mentioned to Jason, and as he echoed in his charitable response, I don’t think any of us would espouse feeding the poor above protecting the unborn. Should we? I do think some moral issues are more paramount than others. But, on what basis? Is it the quantity of abortions that so shocks us or is it the nature of the offense, or both? If only 1,000 abortions occurred in a given year, would the debate take center stage over the mounting death toll of world poverty or the African Aids crisis? Or what about exerting greater pressures on China as a global influence in human rights and religious freedom? These are purely hypothetical question and, as much as possible, are being asked from a position of neutrality to advance the discussion. On another note, as I asked Jason, should we place a moral concern, even one as delicate as abortion, above national security & foreign policy when electing the president of a non-theocratic country?

  86. Don September 3, 2008 at 9:52 pm #

    On 1 Tim 2:12 one point is that disdaskein is used with both a positive and negative connotation in the NT. Authentein certainly has a negative connotation and might have a positive one.

    Paul’s verb “permit” is in the present tense, this means it is possible to be understood as a present but not necessarily continuing injunction, as in “I am not now permitting…”.

    Paul is known to use generic terms when he is referring to individuals but does not want to name them, this may be the case here.

    With so much uncertainty, how can anyone claim to be certain about what 1 Tim 2:12 means? How can anyone claim the injunction is clear? Who can claim to be inside Paul’s or Timothy’s head today and know for sure?

    There are just too many ways it can be understood by FAITHFUL people to make that claim about clarity and it should be withdrawn for the sake of intellectual honesty. The honest thing to say is that what the ESV claims it to mean is A possible translation, but that there are other possibilities.

  87. Jason September 4, 2008 at 2:18 am #

    Lydia,

    No, I do not believe translations are inerrant, but I believe that we can truly understand God’s Word. Do you?

    Do you believe it is so convoluted that we cannot understand it? Do you really think God communicaed with us only to cloud it?

    I think that most of the “debate” is because people want to explain away what is taught because they don’t like it. People do that with almost every doctrine in the Word.

    There are many issues that you and I would agree are clearly taught (I would think)..but yet people deny clearly taught doctrines all the time. Deity of Christ. Salvation by grace through faith. Clearly taught? Yep. Denied by some? Yep. Would they say it is clear? Nope. Is it clear? Yep.

    I stand by original comment: There are lots of reasons people misunderstand or reject what Scripture clearly teaches.

  88. Jason September 4, 2008 at 2:32 am #

    Scott,

    I think you have asked very fair questions in #84.

    That is the great divide.

    A large segment of our population tries to make abortion an issue of choice, when it is really a matter of recognition of life/personhood in need of protection.
    If we could agree that abortion is a moral evil, then we could take steps to stamp it out…but many do not admit the truth about the moral evil that is abortion.

    That is what separates that issue from the issue of Darfur or AIDS or other genocides happening around the world (includng Iraq under Hussein). We ALL agree these are moral evils. So those debates have moved into the policy realm where we debate the question: HOW doe we fix this? So there is disagreement over how to help…as long as we all agree we should help, I don’t see how policy (the HOW) should be elevated to top level priority.

    IF these things were not accepted as moral evils, then they would be top-level issues.

    IF abortion were ever accepted as the moral evil it is, then we could move to the question of how to get it eradicated. But until then we must continue to fight to make sure people see it for what it is.

    I find it ironic that the people screaming the loudest against China for human-right abuse and the people screaming the loudest for us to stop genocides around the world are the same ones who overlook (at best) or fully support (at worst) abortion.

    Why can’t we be consistent and see abortion as a moral evil worthy of fighting?

    To answer your last question…we always place moral issues higher, its just a question of what are the moral issues. To homosexuals, they see their issues as moral…so that is highest in their mind. For those concerned with global poverty, they view it as a moral issue and place it in priority.
    I just want to reiterate that when we all agree on a moral issue, it then becomes a matter of HOW to fix it….and it drops in importance. (And of course some issues are not moral, just policy – government spending, etc.)

    (BTW, why can’t we focus on this issue instead of re-hashing the comp/egal debate that has happened on here ad nauseum?)

  89. Don September 4, 2008 at 9:35 am #

    Jason,

    Just as there are lots of reasons to claim Scripture clearly teaches something that it may not clearly teach.

  90. Brian (Another) September 4, 2008 at 11:19 am #

    To bring it back to topic (that’s a good “BTW”, Jason, in addition to the cogent thoughts on the rabbit trail.), I think that examples like this are those to whom politically liberal will point:

    This story is a very sad.

    To me, this example demonstrates two glaring points. First, this kind of example would send a clear message of denial of taking care of the poor (which puts it into a moral consideration categorically) if those opposing are Christians (the story doesn’t say so, but I would venture a guess there are some who profess Christ, but oppose the tent city). Second, this program is directly impacting the problem. A big government solution wouldn’t touch this kind of impact. The point being that forced philanthropy is a poor solution (in my view). And to me highlights even further the chasm between social justice and abortion (I told you I’d bring it back). Elevating the former (as many have done and is the focus of this thread…….originally) shows the same immaturity of applying righteous living as those who would deny reaching out to the impoverished as in the article.

  91. Jason September 4, 2008 at 12:14 pm #

    Isn’t that the irony of “social justice”?

  92. Lydia September 4, 2008 at 5:45 pm #

    “No, I do not believe translations are inerrant, but I believe that we can truly understand God’s Word. Do you?”

    Of course, the Holy Spirit is our Counselor and illuminates truth to us through the Word. The Holy Spirit is much better than a seminary professor. :o)

    “Do you believe it is so convoluted that we cannot understand it? Do you really think God communicaed with us only to cloud it?”

    No, I think MAN did that.

    “I think that most of the “debate” is because people want to explain away what is taught because they don’t like it. People do that with almost every doctrine in the Word.”

    I agree. Some people want to rule others so badly and not be real servants with fleshly authority over those in the Body that they will do anything…including develop bad translations…in order to gain power.

    “There are many issues that you and I would agree are clearly taught (I would think)..but yet people deny clearly taught doctrines all the time. Deity of Christ. Salvation by grace through faith. Clearly taught? Yep. Denied by some? Yep. Would they say it is clear? Nope. Is it clear? Yep.”

    We must stand for the Gospel against everything thrown at us. That IS a hill to die on.

    “I stand by original comment: There are lots of reasons people misunderstand or reject what Scripture clearly teaches.”

    And I stand by mine that sinful man wants power and authority INSTEAD of servanthood that is CLEARLY taught all through the NT… that they will stop at nothing to get it.

  93. Jason September 4, 2008 at 7:31 pm #

    So would you also agree that sinful woman wants power and authority INSTEAD of servanthood that is CLEARLY taught all through the NT…they will stop at nothing to get it??

    Neither side is free from that accusation as far as I can tell.

    In fact it seems that the curse in Gen 3 tells us that women will see to usurp/overpower men and men will beat them down.

    As much as you think men (males) alone are guilty of the power struggle…you are sadly mistaken.

  94. Don September 4, 2008 at 8:31 pm #

    Gen 3 has noting about women usurping men, that is a man-made invention. Take off the blue glasses and see what it says for yourself.

  95. Jason September 4, 2008 at 8:35 pm #

    LOL

    Thanks for the lesson, prof. And yor qualifications to tell me this are….?

    Maybe your position blinds you to the truth. Hmm.

  96. Don September 4, 2008 at 9:45 pm #

    Any interlinear will show you the truth, but you need to take off the blue glasses that paint everything blue.

  97. Jason September 4, 2008 at 10:03 pm #

    And put on glasses that paint everything egalitarian??

    Come on, brother…speck/log.

  98. Don September 4, 2008 at 10:14 pm #

    Clear glasses are clear, I favor no gender.

  99. Jason September 4, 2008 at 10:16 pm #

    You may favor no gender, but you favor a conclusion.

  100. Don September 5, 2008 at 10:11 am #

    I have studied both sides. I avoided the temptation to interpret verses to my advantage, which some seem to not be able to avoid.

  101. Jason September 5, 2008 at 12:46 pm #

    Amazingly…I did the same thing.

  102. Brian (Another) September 5, 2008 at 3:11 pm #

    Is blue supposed to be a shot at Republicans?

  103. Don September 5, 2008 at 3:59 pm #

    Jason,

    If you are a male and you claim males are on top of others in the new covenant, then you failed to avoid the temptation.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes