Faster Unto Thee

John MacArthur's Reasons to Not Sign the Manhattan Declaration

John MacArthur has posted his reasons for not signing the Manhattan Declaration. He does address the lack of clear gospel presentation in the document, but is that enough reason not to sign? Maybe so. Here is what MacArthur wrote:

Grace to You :: Unleashing God's Truth One Verse at a Time

The Manhattan Declaration

John MacArthur

Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:

• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature.

Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.

• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.

• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”;“As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.

• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.

• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those

spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless  Faith. I stand by what I wrote then. In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would

also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.

Available online at: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A390

COPYRIGHT (C) 2009 Grace to You

You may reproduce this Grace to You content for non-commerical purposes in accordance with Grace to You's Copyright Policy (http://www.gty.org/MeetGTY/Copyright).

Rick Warren Did Not Disappoint

Of all the events of yesterday's inauguration of Barak Obama as our new president, many evangelicals were wondering just what Pastor Rick Warren would say in the inaugural prayer (see text here). Would he close the prayer with the very Christian ending, "In Jesus' name," or would he omit that due to pressure from theological liberals and the "try to represent every religion" crowd that is pluralistic and relativistic in outlook? He indicated beforehand that he would pray as any good evangelical pastor would. How would he pray for a president he so strongly disagrees with on substantive issues like abortion? And overall, would the formerly Hawaiian shirt-wearing pastor make us evangelical smile with satisfaction (and far more importantly, God) or frown with disapproval?

Rick Warren did very well on all accounts and made us smile. While his phrasing lacked rhetorical thrill and a lofty tone that ofen is a part of inaugural prayers, more importantly he prayed sincerly, passionately, and biblically.

He hit the key theological points of God's sovereingty, glory, mercy, and love. He thanked God for the peaceful transfer of power that we enjoy, even amidst strong rivalry, and appropriately noted the significance of our nation electing its first African-American president. Warren also prayed for

    the wisdom to lead us with humility,

    the courage to lead us with integrity,

    the compassion to lead us with generosity.

How did Warren handle the "In Jesus' name" issue? Like this:

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life—Yeshua, 'Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus—who taught us to pray:

This was a smooth move. By inserting the pronoun "I" instead of "We" in his closing, Warren allowed listeners who do not pray "In Jesus' name" to not feel pushed into it (a very big offense in our cultural that rejects authority, especially God's), while maintaining his own theological integrity as a Christian. The drawback of this, of course, is that in choosing this wording Warren moved from praying on behalf of the people in a priestly manner to praying individually; that is, he was not gathering up the prayers of the people and expressing them to God as a pastor does in a worship service, but offered something for others to watch and join with if they so chose. This, I think, is appropriate to the context of an inaugural prayer in a country that is hostile to Christianity, but definitly not appropriate in a context such as a Christian service of worship. And by speaking the name of Jesus in several different languages, he implicitly preached that Jesus is for everyone and is not the Lord of only white evangelicals in America. A wise, evangelistic, and beautiful move.

My one disappointment in this prayer? I was hoping for some gentle, but clear line in the prayer that would plead for God to guide President Obama morally. It is abundantly clear that Obama's moral compass is broken, abhorrantly so, and without even mentioning abortion or other issues a line could have been tastefully inserted to address the issue.

Good work Pastor Rick Warren. May your influence overshadow Bishop Gene Robinson for the glory of God.

A Prayer for Inauguration Day

Heavenly Father, to You alone belongs the kingdom and all honor and glory and power. There is no authority above You, and you rule in perfect wisdom, grace, power, and love.

On this historic day in our nation, a nation which must answer to You for everything we say, do, and think, we plead with You on behalf of our new President, Barack Obama. We pray that You will use him to accomplish Your purposes in this world. We pray that You will use him to keep this nation secure and to promote justice in this country which You have blessed so richly.

We pray that You will turn his heart to seek Your ways. We pray that the truth of Your word would become the driving force in his thinking, and that his heart would desire to protect the weakest among us, especially the unborn. Give him courage to change his mind in any way that would please You. We pray that any policy or legislation that he supports that does not please You would fail; we also pray that any policy or legislation that does please You would succeed. We pray for unity in our country and among our politicians, but not at the expense of truth and wisdom. Help him and those now in power not to misuse their authority in arrogance, but to take on the mindset of a servant.

We pray that You would bless President Obama's family. Through all the pressures that come to a presidential family, we pray that Your grace would sustain them, protect them, and always lead them to You.

Help us all to remember that You guide history, and thus to look for Your hand in all events. Help those of us who did not vote for President Obama to show him the best of Christian love while calling him to repentance. And help us to be in regular prayer for our new President, that Your blessings might be upon him and upon us all to Your glory.

Lastly, we pray that You would send true revival to America. Our problems and not primarily political, psychological, financial, or otherwise, but are at their core rebellion, indifference, and ignorance of You. Stir your people to seek holiness and to share the good news of Christ with all. Draw the wayward home to You. Draw the lost to You. Renew a passion for the absolute truth of Your Holy Scriptures.

We know, Father, that any blessing we receive from You we do not deserve. But we seek Your blessings anyway, for Your nature is love. May each and every blessing You give bring us to humble gratitude and passionate worship and service to You.

In the strong name of Jesus Christ we pray, AMEN.

 

Sermon Synopsis: Post-Election Sermon

Sunday I preached a sermon entitled, "Living Under the Authorities," from Romans 13:1-7 and 1  Timonthy 2:1-7.  Below is a short synopsis of the sermon, omitting illustrations, transitions, most applications, the conclusion, many subpoints, etc., giving you just enough to gain a bird's eye view of the sermon.

In the introduction, I began by talking about the turnover that happened last Tuesday in our government and the very serious concerns a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage presidential and congressional leadership raise for us evangelical Christians.  I also talked about how the Apostle Paul understood far better than we do what it meant to live among and under the authority of heathen people and to have little or no political power.  It was to Christians in that kind of world that the Apostle Paul wrote the letters to the Romans and 1 Timothy.

My thesis was in the form of a question: "How must we Christians live under our governmental leaders?"  This is a question to ask whether one likes the present leaders or does not like them.  I made three points.

I.  We must obey the authorities (Romans 13:1-2).

The command to be subject to the authorities is based on the truth that God himself institutes ruling authorities, therefore to disobey them can amount to disobeying God.

This is quite a hard pill to swallow for us evangelicals who find Sen. Obama's stances on abortion and marriage to be repugnant and downright evil.  How could God put someone like him in office?  Well, God often puts people who are at odds with Him in office for various reasons.  For example, the great King of Assyria that destroyed the northern Kingdom of Israel was a wicked ruler who was given military and political success by God himself, Isaiah says, because God willed to use that King to raise some nations up and take others down as He steered history and accomplished His purposes in the world.  So by putting someone in office God is not necessarily endorsing that person's beliefs, positions, behavior, etc.  God is simply using that person or persons to steer history the way He wants it to go for his purposes, to discipline people, and more.  But the fact remains, if I have interpreted this passage from Romans correctly, that God has put Obama in the office of President of the USA.

So we must obey the governing authorities because God is the one who puts them in power.  Any exceptions to this rule?  Of course.  For example, we learn from Acts 5 that if governing authorities order believers to do something that is clearly contrary to God's will, they should obey God and not man, as Peter and John concluded.  But in the everyday course of life, obedience is God's mandate.

The other reason given in Romans 13 for obeying the government is simple self-preservation. You can read the text yourself for this point; it is quite clear.

II.  We must pay the authorities (Romans 13:6-7).

Pay in two ways (1) taxes, (2) respect and honor.

The issue of paying taxes all came to a head for me when I read about Senator Obama's promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act if elected president.  The FOCA would sweep away all of the restrictions on abortion - from parental consent to late-term restrictions, partial-birth abortion, and more.  Plus, Obama has said things that indicate he is for using taxpayer money to pay for some abortions.  The thought hit me, "Would this make me an accomplice in murder?  Can I sleep at night knowing that some of my money might be going to tear apart a child in his or her mother's womb?  I think I'm going to be sick."  And then another thought hit me: "It it does come to this, should I not pay my taxes?  I mean, I get upset when the government wastes money, etc., but if it uses it to slaughter the weakest and most vulnerable, babies, I see red and want to vomit at the same time."

But there is Romans 13:8.  And Paul wrote this to believers who lived under a government that most certainly committed unspeakable acts with the money it took up in taxes form its citizens.  And Paul tells those citizens who are believers to pay their taxes.  Sure, it is vital for us to work for reform in our country, but in the meantime, pay your taxes.

Paying respect is another challenge for us, possibly a greater one.  Because those who are power are placed there by God, appropriate honor and respect must be shown to them.  To be sure, this does not mean that we should not advocate for a change in abortion law and more, and that we should not push for life to be cherished in our society.  But we must do it with a tone and with words that demonstrate respect.  This goes for my talk around the water cooler and will be tested each time President Obama signs, if he does, something wicked into law.  Learning to disagree and work for change while doing it in ways that show respect and honor will be a big challenge in the years ahead for Christians.

III.  We must pray for the authorities (1 Timothy 2:1-4).

Paul urges prayer for the authorities in this passage.  He does so for two reasons, (1) that the believers may lead a quiet and peaceful life, and (2) because God desires that all people be saved.

We are to pray for our leaders so that they will let us live out a proper Christian life characterized by peace, quietness, godliness and dignity.  To be sure, the Church can thrive under persecution as well, but that is not what Paul instructs us to pray for. 

But the other reason given is a good shock to the system for those of us who are accustomed to demonizing our political enemies.  Paul goes on to explain in this passage that God desires all men to be saved, this comment being placed in the context of God desiring all men to pray for their governmental authorities. 

I do not know if Barack Obama is a genuine Christian.  But I do know this: God loves Barack Obama and wants him in heaven.  And so I plan to pray like this on a regular basis, "God, if President Obama is not saved, I pray that you will make the gospel crystal clear to him and that you will bring him to repentance so that your grace and love will bring about the new birth.  And if he is saved, I pray that you will fix his moral compass so that he will come to love what you love and hate what you hate."

Jesus died for our political enemies just as much as he died for you and me.  Here is a challenge to us believers: for your own spiritual well-being, pray more for God's blessing on the politicians you do not like than for the ones you do. 

After the Election

Justin Taylor has posted a series of guest blogs at his Between Two Worlds site regarding yesterday's election.  They are all worth reading.

This morning I went to Romans 13 for my devotions, as I needed some biblical help after the election. This passage is particularly good for Christians who did not get their way in the general election.

Let every person p be subject to the governing authorities. For q there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you r will receive his approval, 4 for s he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, t an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also u for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 v Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed [Romans 13:1-7, ESV].

The study notes on these verses from the ESV Study Bible are very helpful here:

Rom. 13:1–7 This passage addresses the responsibility of Christians to governing authorities. They are to “be subject to” (which generally means to obey, cf. 1 Pet. 3:5–6) the government because it has been ordained by God. Paul is speaking here of the general principle of submission to government. Several other passages show that God approves of Christians disobeying government, but More »

Rom. 13:1 It is true that those governing authorities that exist have been instituted by God, but sometimes God gives good authorities as a blessing, and sometimes he institutes evil rulers as a means of trial or judgment (2 Chron. 25:20; 32:24–25). On God's rule over earthly authorities, see Ps. 75:7 and Dan. 2:21. These earthly “authorities” will ultimately be superseded by the rule of Christ (Dan. 2:44; Rev. 22:1–5). « Less

Rom. 13:1 It is true that those governing authorities that exist have been instituted by God, but sometimes God gives good authorities as a blessing, and sometimes he institutes evil rulers as a means of trial or judgment (2 Chron. 25:20; 32:24–25). On God's rule over earthly authorities, see Ps. 75:7 and Dan. 2:21. These earthly “authorities” will ultimately be superseded by the rule More »

Rom. 13:3 Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad means that civil government in general is a great blessing from God for which we should be thankful. Without civil government there would be anarchy, a horrible alternative in which evil runs rampant.

Rom. 13:4 Governing authorities are God's servants and carry out his wrath on evildoers, and they do so for your good. Even though Christians must not take personal revenge (12:17–20), it is right for them to turn punishment over to the civil authorities, who have the responsibility to punish evil. The reference to the sword most likely refers to the penalty of capital punishment (cf. Gen. 9:6).

Rom. 13:5 Christians should obey the civil authorities not only to avoid God's wrath (coming through those authorities, v. 4) but also because their conscience tells them that submitting to the government is right (see note on vv. 1–7).

Rom. 13:6–7 Christians must not refuse to pay taxes simply because they think some of the money is used unjustly, for the Roman Empire surely did not use all of its money for godly purposes! So, too, believers are to honor their leaders, even if they are not fully admirable.

What do I gather from this?

1.  I must show appropriate honor to the president-elect, even if I do not agree with him on major issues.  This does not mean I do not voice my opinion or work against him in legitimate ways in the political process, but I must be careful about how I speak of him, for God has had a hand in him attaining office. 

2.  Even though our president-elect may sign legislation someday that uses my tax dollars for abortion, I must pay my taxes.  Certainly the Roman government under which Paul lived used tax dollars for horrific deeds, and yet he counseled his readers to continue paying taxes.  This does not mean, though, that I will be silent about my money being used to kill babies, if it comes to that.

3. Sometimes God does establish a ruler to bring judgment on a nation.  Our nation, with its continued push for abortion, sexual immorality, and general rebellion against God deserves it.  Maybe we are getting what we deserve.  It is important to remember that when God places a person in an office it not necessarily follow that God is endorsing that person's political views, morality, etc., but that God simply intends to use that person to accomplish His will.

4.  I have an obligation to pray for our new leaders.  1 Timothy 2:1-7 instructs believers to pray for leaders, particularly so that they will come to faith in Christ.  Will I do that for leaders I don't like? 

Dr. Everett Piper on Single-Issue Voting

The liberal critique of Christian single-issue voters always catches my eye when reading periodicals, blogs, etc., so Dr. Everett Piper's thoughts on this topic grabbed my attention at Crosswalk.  Piper is president of Oaklahoma Wesleyan University.

How to respond to the claims that Christians are single issue voters

As a university president I was recently engaged in a Facebook exchange with some young scholars now attending a evangelical seminary on the east coast who argue that the Christian community needs to move beyond its “fixation” on abortion and gay marriage and become more concerned about the “breadth” and “complexity” of global justice, human rights, etc.  Here are some responses that you may find helpful and interesting.

Seminary Student:  “As Christians, we have more issues that we can vote on than just abortion! Why not consider the over 1 million innocent civilians killed as a result of the Iraq war? Or how about the millions living in poverty in the United States? Or perhaps you'd like to vote for wise stewardship of God's creation with tougher environmental standards, etc?  I don't know about your theology, but I believe each and every one of the "40 million" babies killed [by abortion] has gone to heaven! Can we say the same thing about Muslim civilians killed in Iraq, innocent women and children killed in Darfur, those killed in Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, North Korea, etc? For me, these deaths are much harder to reconcile!”

Piper Response: I am going to respond with some basic rhetorical questions.  Sometimes this is the most effective tool in trying to resolve deep seated differences.  When we strongly disagree we at times just talk past each other and a well placed question can be of much greater value than dozens of well worn arguments – So here goes:  

 

First, when you say that Christians should vote on more than just two issues (i.e. abortion and gay marriage) aren’t you being rather presumptuous in implying somehow that this is really what "All Christians" do? Isn't this very close to an Ad populum falacy where you are implicitly lumping "all” conservative Christians who believe abortion and gay marriage are morally wrong into one big false category?  I know - I know... you are now likely going to say that you didn't mean "all" Christians but go back and look at the emotion, tone and content of your comments. This all inclusive critique of anyone who disagrees with you does come through loud and clear and, dare I say it, your implication just isn't valid or logical or (I would argue) factual.  This broad casting of the net of criticism falls on some very shallow intellectual waters in my opinion and as Christian thinkers we need to be more vigorous and disciplined in our logic and argumentation.

Second, when you suggest that Christian voters have a narrow fixation and you mention the issue of abortion in making your point aren’t you implicitly diminishing the moral weight of the lives of millions of children who have died at the hand of “choice” vs. those who have died under the banner of war? The way you pose your question presupposes that war is wrong and that the lives lost in Iraq are a moral tragedy but on what premise do you make this argument? Is it on the grounds of the value of human life? All human life? If so, then aren’t you admitting that the definition of “humanness” is an objective standard and never up to any one individual or group of people to grant or reject?  You see, this matter of ontology and epistemology as much as anything. Does life exist and if so how do we know (or define) such life? If we believe that God's creation includes the objective reality of life and that he is the provider of the "knowledge" or "definition" of such life then we must never presume to wrestle such definitions away from Him and onto ourselves. If the definition of an infant's life is "beyond my pay grade" then would the definition of other important maters likewise be beyond human reason and beyond the responsibilities of my job ... maters such as the end of life and who has the right to define it or the quality of life and who has the right to judge it? Can you see where the momentum of your idea takes you?  Your ontological assumptions not only diminish the value of millions of lives but also minimize the very standards you assume as a basis for your own set of priorities.  You are sawing of the very branch that you must sit on to make your case in the first place.  I think I have made my point so I will stop.... But one last thing:  If you are going to argue that the victims of abortion are "in heaven" (and I must say I found the callousness of this position very shocking) then you must realize that you just admitted that theses children were/are human in the first place - Right?? And if so, then the entire argument of "choice" must now be abandoned as vacuous and empty because at no time in legal or ethical history has one person's choice ever been rightly elevated above another person's right to live - Has it??

Third – On the issue of gay marriage, aren’t you just a bit cavalier regarding the principles of physical health, personal responsibility, selfless respect, and social accountability that have served as the underpinnings of socially acceptable sexual behavior for literally thousands of years?  By the way –This is a debate about behavior pure and simple.  The argument that this is about human rights, personal genetics, human physiology, etc. etc. is nothing but a post-modern Orwellian ruse and a Non sequitur fallacy that any first year philosophy student should recognize. It is behavior that is in dispute not one’s proclivities, instincts, or desires.   But back to my point: Human sexual expression has always been weighed on the scales of morality and virtue.  Sexual behavior, in all its manifestations, has never been considered to be ethically or legally neutral, even within a secular culture.  Agnostic, atheists, Christians and Jews all agree that the use of another person’s body for your own sexual fulfillment is wrong - selfish at best and criminal in its extreme.  The history of civilization is replete with arguments against bigamy, polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality just to offer a short list of understandable restrictions.   Minimizing the moral weight of such traditional sexual standards doesn’t seem to be the best way to elevate your argument for social justice and civil rights.  To the contrary, you might actually find that the time tested values of sexual restraint as represented in the Judeo-Christian ethic might have actually provided the framework for unprecedented justice for women and children and all others who were in danger of being subjugated to the passions of the powerful and the prominent.  Without such rules and standards is it possible to envision human exploitation and depravity without boundaries (By the way – If you don’t find this image easy to conjure up then just consider the hundreds of thousands of boys and girls now sold into sexual slavery who are not protected by the assumptions of biblical sexual piety).   So – my point is this: If, indeed, you want to argue for “other issues” then isn’t the rock of tradition, reason, experience and revelation worth considering over and above the shifting sands of political fads and popular opinion?  On one foundation you find the house of justice, dignity and freedom.  On the other you find jealousy, depravity, fear and oppression.

Fourth - Back to the issue of war:  Are you saying that all war is wrong and that total pacifism is your position? If so, then great as long as you are consistent. But if not and you, like Augustine, believe in a "just war" theology then perhaps it is erroneous to equate the killing of 40 million innocent children with the casualties of war. The argument here must start with a debate on what is “just” and who determines its definition? Man or God? Political power or divine revelation? Is the killing of 40 million children under the banner of “choice” of any different moral weight than the loss of lives suffered in war?  If you equate the two and say they are both equally evil then you by default should be working as hard to stop one as the other (or maybe harder to stop the one that results in greater quantitative loss??).  If you minimize one evil to justify your attention given to the other then your subjectivity betrays your entire argument as nothing but a personal construct that is no better or worse than the “war monger” you protest against. 

 

 Finally - I want to say a word on the issue of social justice... It is possible that those on the right might actually treasure justice as much as those on the left and that it is not really a matter of debating values (such as justice, mercy, love, compassion) as much as it is a debate of methods (i.e. how does a culture or an individual best achieve such goals)? Conservatives might actually cherish freedom, liberty and justice as much as their liberal brothers and sisters. They might just have a different perspective on how to obtain these things. Isn't the tactic of implying that "you are a conservative and therefore you don't care as much as me about people" rather thin logic and in fact a fallacy of false induction?

Now a personal note... I was once much more "progressive" than I appear to be now. I was pro-choice and I used to be a lead voice for the "you can't legislate morality" crowd. But I don't hold this position anymore for several reasons, first and foremost, It doesn't make any sense. I mean this literally.  There is no sense - no logic - no integrity- no intellectual or moral consistency - in this argument.  Legislation if it is nothing else is always based on morality. Otherwise there is nothing to legislate and the entire process would be meaningless. Wilberforce, Wesley and a host of others recognized this. At times these great leaders were indeed dangerously close to "one issue voters.” John Wesley famously declared that “you must be singular or be damned” and Wilberforce, in like manner, argued for decades with near tunnel vision to abolish slavery (because he, too, agreed that the definition of personhood was not his to make and was therefore not "above his pay grade'). Oh and by the way - Wilberforce also felt that his call was the "restoration of manners" and return his culture to the humility and modesty that came from considering God’s way and others’ dignity as higher and better than the baser proclivities of the human desire, animal instinct and personal passion.

 

Abortion and Obama

Justin Taylor has pulled together some excellent posts on Sen. Obama, abortion, and the upcoming election on his blog, Between Two Worlds. 

You should go read them today.

Some excerpts from several different posts:

Robert George and Yuval Levin, in a new article on Obama and Infanticide, argue that Obama's response during the third debate regarding the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act "followed the pattern of his approach to this subject throughout the campaign: deny the facts and confuse the issue."

-----------------------------------

In Southern Seminary’s chapel today, Russell Moore delivered one of the most prophetic pro-life messages I have ever heard ...

-----------------------------

... FOCA [Freedom of Choice Act], if passed, will accomplish two things:

1. it would invalidate all current and future statutes, ordinances, regulations, administrative orders, decisions, policies, or practices--at any level of government--that regulate or restrict abortion in any way;
2. it would mandate taxpayer funds to be used at the state and federal level for abortion services (not to do so would discriminate against the "rights" of abortion set forth in the bill).

----------------------------

I am utterly baffled how any Christian could support a candidate who so strongly supports the killing of children. 

Obama, Pro-Abortion, and Confused Evangelicals

A couple weeks ago I was at our local grocery store picking up a precription from the pharmacy counter.  Waiting in line was a very tired, yet very joyful, woman sitting on one of those self-propelled electric shopping carts for the disabled.  She was young and obviously was not disabled, so why was she using one those carts?  Well, on the cart with her was the reason: a newborn baby girl.  How new?  Born the day before, she told me. The tiny baby and her mom were on their way home from the hospital and had stopped to pick up some medicine for mom, some diapers for baby, etc.

I think of that one-day-old baby and think what will happen to many babies if Obama is elected president and does indeed sign the FOCA act - the Freedom of Choice Act.  This act would allow women to abort babies for all nine months of pregnancy for any reason.  Unders such an act, that little baby I saw in store could have been killed in the moments just before her natural birth and it would be totally legal.  That beautiful child, who would have been no different had she been born one day earlier, could have been killed.

Robert P. George has written a logically compelling article on Senator Obama's strong pro-abortion stance called, "Obama's Abortion Extremism." This is a must-read for any Christian who supports Obama in the presidential election and for anyone who does not.

Obama is not merely pro-choice, but he is pro-abortion, as his political voting record and political promises clearly demonstrate.  He is the most extreme pro-abortion sentator we currently have and electing him will most likely result in an increase of abortions in our country.

Al Mohler has noted a "fetus fatigue" among evangelicals, meaning that many conservative Christians have become weary of the abortion fight and have let other issues so eclipse the abortion issue that it appears we will accept the death of babies to get other things done.  The moral outrage over abortion among evangelicals has indeeded faded in some quarters, and apathy may qualify us as accomplices of sorts if believers do not return abortion to a central, but not solitary, place on their political agendas.

Read Mohler's recent blog post on "The Abortion Question and the Future" and his good summary of George's article and see if it helps you clear away any apathy about the plight of the unborn.

Clarifying Thoughts #1

From time to time I will post a list of quotations from the things I am reading that have proved helpful in clarifying my thinking on various topics.  Here is the first.

Evangelicals shouldn't be embarrassed to say boldly and clearly: Abortion and same-sex marriage are uniquely heinous sins. They rattle the foundations of a civilized society. They take a culture in a dreadful direction. We haven't been wrong to say so. We aren't fanatics....

But here's the core of the matter. To be robustly and consistently anti-abortion is at the very same time to cast your vote for environmental sensitivity, against racism, and for economic justice. These are not independent, isolated packages.
       - Joel Belz

It is the broader task of Christian apologetics , including natural theology, to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women.  It thereby gives permission to believe when their hearts are moved.

       - William Lane Craig, "God Is Not Dead Yet", Christianity Today, July 2008, page 27

The dissolution of the family as the basic unit of society means that all of its authority, powers, and responsibilities go, instead, to the government.

The state is increasingly assuming the role of the father, functioning as the provider, the protector, and the disciplinarian.  The state is also assuming the role of the mother, concerned about our health, nagging us about eating right and avoiding bad habits, and forcing us to be sensitive, well-mannered, and nice.

       - Gene Edward Veith, "Uncommon Bond," World, July 12/19, 2008, page 29.

The almighty, all-wise God sees and knows, from everlasting to everlasting, all that is, that was, and that is to come, through one eternal now.  With him nothing is either past or future, but all things equally present.

       - John Wesley, "On Predestination", Sermon # LVIII.

As my friend Jennifer Roback Morse notes in the National Catholic Register, “Legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a stand-alone policy . . . Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes.”

       - Charles Colson, "The Coming Persecution," BreakPoint

Colson on Marriage and Persecution

I always enjoy reading Chuck Colson's BreakPoint commentaries.  They are typically models of sound evangelical theology engaging contemporary issues. 

Two recent commentaries sum up well some of the issues regarding same-sex "marriage" and its threat to our society:  What He Could Have Said and The Coming Persecution.

Pastors need to understand and teach that the legalization of same-sex marriages will have painful implications for Christians and for the rest of society. Sin always leads to suffering, and same-sex marriage illustrates this well.

Parsing the "Obamination"

I came across this picture at The Way of the Master, and wanted to share it with you.

Senator Obama, who has gained some traction with some church people, is unflinching in his dedication to abortion rights. 

A Christian student of mine recently wrote a paper in which he glowingly endorsed Obama for president, due mainly to Obama's use of Isaiah 61:1-2 in an interview in a magazine.  The passage, cited by Jesus as being fulfilled in himself in Luke 4:18-19, speaks of good news to the poor, release of the captives, etc.  Obama used this passage to speak of the kind of government he would build, one that would fulfill the ideals of liberation by promoting racial, gender, economic, homosexual, etc., equality. He believes that the ideals of this passage, seen through the lens not of biblical faith but of liberalism, can and should be attained through government action.

As I read the magazine article, I could feel the mandibles of manipulation grabbing at me.  Obama hopes that by using biblical passages and imagery he can appeal to Christians like me, even though he fills the words with meaning and ideology that is certainly not biblical.  And for my student, it seemed that all he could hear in the article was a promise of freedom and a man he could not help but consider a true Christian brother.  For him, like many Christians who are against the war in Iraq and against Bush, the issues of abortion, homosexual "marriage", the role of government, foreign policy, etc., were no where in sight as the promise of governmental deliverance from social ills took the center stage of their minds.

For me, though, being pretty much a single-issue voter (something that I am unapologetic about), the issue of abortion trumps virtually every other consideration.  Even if I agreed with Obama's view that we should look to government as our savior, which I do not, the issue of abortion would immediately eliminate me from voting for Obama.  For a man who quotes Scripture in speeches and makes much of his church life, he avoids being even remotely biblical when it comes to abortion.  He disregards the Image of God in humankind, the fact that unborn children are human (Psalm 139:13-16), and consequently promotes preying on the weakest and most vulnerable in the world: the unborn.

Apparently, those yet in the womb are not among the captives that Obama wants to set free.

To parse out the quote on the poster, let's begin with the fuller quote:

"But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old," he added.

"I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," Obama said.

First, note that Obama refers to the cause of an unwanted pregnancy as a "mistake."  The context could be an extramarital relationship or a marital one.  In either context, sex is not a mistake.  A mistake occurs when you intend to do the right thing, but accidentaly make an error, such as making a math error in your checkbook register.  You fully intended to calculate the correct balance, but you messed up the math and ended up with an incorrect balance.  Sex is never a "mistake" - it is intentional.  And, if it is outside of a marriage relationship, it is always sin.  No one accidentally has sex.

Second, the conception and birth of a child is never a punishment.  It is indeed a consequence of sex, but children are viewed in the Bible as gifts of God, bearing the image of God, never as punishments.  In his quote, Obama is saying that it would be better for his daughters to abort an unwanted child then to accept the consequences of their actions.  He puts a higher value on their autonomy than on the baby.  Mind-boggling as it is, the implication of his position is that it would be better for his grandchild to die than for his daughter to bear the consequences of her sin. 

And this is a man that some Christians are willing to vote for?  Is not the abomination of abortion enough to immediately disqualify him?  Apparently, some believers are willing to accept this particular "Obomination."

The Culture Project

My friend Dean has noted on his blog a new thing called The Culture Project.  I just spent a few moments checking it out and found the content and idea behind it fascinating and immediately decided to be a regular visitor to the site. I even added the site to my Choice Blogs & Sites list.

The Cultural Project is about changing our left-tilting society to a right-tilting one (that actually has more liberty!) by helping sharp conservatives get involved four crucial areas:

• Hollywood, entertainment, and the arts;
• academia and education;
• law the legal profession, and the courts; and
• Journalism and media.

The Goal? "The goal of The Culture Project is to populate each of these areas with a growing number of informed and influential conservatives who over time will help change the worldview of the American people."

The idea is simple: change the worldview of the populace to a more conservative one and the whole country will improve as they work, live, and vote.

This reminds me a bit of what John Wesley did to England through the spread of Methodism.  So many people were impacted by the gospel that English society was significantly changed and England did not have to go through a revolution like France did. 

Sounds like being salt and light to me.