Mohler’s Remarks about the Election on ABC News

ABC World News Tonight visited the campus of Southern Seminary this week and interviewed our president, Dr. Albert Mohler, about the results of the presidential election. Among other things, Dr. Mohler said this:

“The fight for the dignity and sanctity of unborn human beings has been set back by a great loss. . . We’re going to have some setbacks here. . . We’re going to have some real days of disappointment. I think we need to be prepared for that. We’re going to find ourselves in a situation where our voice is not going to have the kind of resonance that it once had in Washington.

“I think there’s a real threat here that the Republican Party could decide to say to conservative Christians, ‘there’s the door, we’re going to move in a different direction. . . It just ought to remind many Christians we have placed too much confidence in the political process in the first place.”

You can watch the rest of the video here.

14 Responses to Mohler’s Remarks about the Election on ABC News

  1. John Holmberg November 7, 2008 at 1:56 pm #

    “placed too much confidence in the political process in the first place.”

    Is he talking about himself here? Because nearly every radio show and blog post he does is political in nature. The evidence of how political he has gotten can be seen in ABC news coming to interview HIM about the election. Maybe he’ll change some things in his rhetoric and approach about issues he feels strongly about. Christians being so vocal about political ideologies is not nor has it ever been a good thing.

  2. Don Johnson November 7, 2008 at 1:58 pm #

    My take is we should never think that one political party or another is Christian, thinking this way is a category mistake as they operate in different realms.

    A Christian might be a member of any political party, for example.

  3. Paul November 7, 2008 at 3:10 pm #

    1) Mohler looks drunk in the screen capture that Denny did.

    2) “The fight for the dignity and sanctity of unborn human beings has been set back by a great loss…”

    Not necessarily. Hopefully now, those of us who are pro-life can quit trying to use the government as a crutch (where have I heard THAT before?) and start working on real world scenarios that will start cutting away at the numbers of abortions had each year.

    Let’s face it, when SOUTH DAKOTA and COLORADO can’t pass laws that would shore up the pro-life base, it’s time to re-evaluate the way that business is done! No longer can this discussion be about how sex ed isn’t needed or wanted. No longer can this discussion skirt the issue of why we don’t see crisis pregnancy centers in low income areas. The narrative now HAS TO BE…

    a) if you don’t want to get pregnant, here’s your list of things to do to lower your risk. Abstinence is #1.

    b) if you do get pregnant, here’s where they’ll be just as nice to the poor black girls as they are to the rich white ones (and don’t tell me there’s no inequality there; I’ll have a field day with you)

    This doesn’t have to be a crushing blow to the religious right. And I hope it’s not. Even as a member of the evangelical left, I’ll say that we need the religious right to keep the abortion issue front and center, opening crisis pregnancy centers, and fighting to put up laws that make sure that women know their options and know what they’re doing.

    We also need you for comic relief re: gay marriage and purple teletubbies, but that’s another conversation entirely…

  4. Darius Teichroew November 7, 2008 at 3:23 pm #

    “why we don’t see crisis pregnancy centers in low income areas”

    This is so not true. The two centers I know of are both in low income areas. That’s where they need them most, after all.

  5. Nathan Mayfield November 7, 2008 at 3:53 pm #

    Paul,

    You are so sure of yourself and the ability to lower abortion without Roe being in the limelight, then why are you not running for your local council and convincing your area of the country to set thie example you always tout but never put any teeth behind.

    I’ll implement the same in my area after you show us all the way.

  6. Paul November 7, 2008 at 4:49 pm #

    Darius,

    Then that’s a great start, and I agree, that IS where they are needed after all.

    However, I will say this:

    a) when I lived in Chicago proper, there was a planned parenthood around the corner from my house, and not anything even remotely close to a crisis pregnancy center anywhere near there.

    b) in my time in the suburbs, I’ve volunteered at two different “adoption farms” where they take care of every single whim for the rich white girls from good gene pools. Knowing what we know about single and teen mother rates in urban areas, the absence of those, ahem, urban mothers, is all too telling.

    Nathan,

    Let me pose to you a different question, which YOU have never addressed: if you can’t pass an abortion ban in S. Dakota and you can’t pass a personhood amendment in Colorado*, what makes you think that any politician (save for someone like Huckabee) is going to give anything more than lip service to an abortion ban?

    No matter what you think at this point, there needs to be a new game plan.

    *as I stated elsewhere, passage of this would have been so detrimental to the pro-life cause that EVERYONE, James Dobson included, needs to be happy that it didn’t pass.

  7. Brian Krieger November 7, 2008 at 4:54 pm #

    I think that the other life-protection bills not passing in other states is directly a result of the continued willful rejection of seeing a fetus as a human. With RvW, people have a crutch to say it won’t matter. Many use it as a definition (meaning, RvW defines it and it means that life is defined as at least not some time in the womb). It’s too easy for opposition to promote the idea that with a federal case on the books, props such as the SD ban or California’s notification law would just get struck down by a higher court (well, there’s really only one higher than the state constitutions, right?). It’s simply a continuation of the ease of sliding it out of our minds. The specific outworking on this was the OK law recently. Out of sight, out of mind.

    But when it comes down to it, I think what we see is just what Dr. Mohler, et al have been saying. Abortion is being minimized. It’s tossed into a bucket of “concerns” and it’s far easier to just not care as much. And that’s reflected in voting. SD saw the restrictions as too much. It’s a fundamental shift that life no longer begins in the womb. We vote the way our consciences allow us. And it’s not popular enough to see this as a transcendent value. It’s not cool to be a one-issue voter*. And if they don’t care, why should I?

    Paul is right about acting. We should act out our convictions. But that doesn’t mean a new game plan. It has never been vote this way or work at a crisis prengnancy center. That’s an unfair caricature (and if it’s what you’ve witnessed, then shame on those around you). Justin Taylor had an interview with Scott Klusendorf. I think it speaks well to the issue overall. Plus there are a couple of other really good guest blog posts on there about the election. Worth checking it out!

    * – See the recent boundless article on Cool Compassion

  8. Brian Krieger November 7, 2008 at 5:04 pm #

    Just to continually beat the proverbial dead horse, I liked this thought out of Klusendorf’s interview:

    The moral logic in play here is baffling. First, if abortion does not unjustly kill an innocent human being, why is Obama worried about reducing it? But if it does unjustly kill a human being, isn’t that good reason to legislate against it? Second, laws which allow—indeed, promote—the killing of unborn human beings are unjust even if no one has abortions. Imagine a candidate who said he was personally opposed to spousal abuse while he had a 100% voting record in favor of men having a right to beat their wives. Suppose he told the public the underlying cause of spousal abuse is psychological, so instead of making it illegal for husbands to beat their wives, the solution is to provide federally funded counseling for men.

  9. Paul November 7, 2008 at 5:55 pm #

    Brian,

    your link gives a 404 error.

  10. Brian Krieger November 7, 2008 at 6:07 pm #

    Odd. It added a quote.

    http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/11/stayin-alive-pro-life-advocacy-in-obama.html

    But Taylor has a few guest-blog-post-people-writer-humans that are worth reading (specifically on the election).

    As King Tut would say, that’s a wrap. Have a good weekend.

  11. L. D. Winchester November 7, 2008 at 7:19 pm #

    “why we don’t see crisis pregnancy centers in low income areas”

    This is so not true. The two centers I know of are both in low income areas. That’s where they need them most, after all.”

    We put them right beside the 5 abortion mills we had in our medium sized city. After 10 years, we are down to 1 abortion mill.

  12. Darius Teichroew November 8, 2008 at 10:40 am #

    Exactly, that’s where they usually go.

  13. J. Swanson November 8, 2008 at 7:51 pm #

    “It just ought to remind many Christians we have placed too much confidence in the political process in the first place.”

    Haven’t read all the comments before mine, don’t really need to do so. However, the comment I copied above says it all to me.

  14. Paul November 9, 2008 at 12:15 pm #

    Darius,

    how convenient that you don’t respond to my example then…

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes