An odious comparison: Evangelicalism's Baalam and Rome's Jeremiah...

"One day, please God, when the stranglehold on public opinion in the United States has been released by the extremists for whom abortion is the center of their political and moral life, our nation will, in my judgment, look back on what we have been doing to innocent human beings within their mothers as a crime no less heinous than what was approved by the Supreme Court in the "Dred Scott Case" in the 19th century, and no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin in the 20th."

You're way more optimistic than I am Pastor Bayly. I couldn't possibly see it getting better. In fact, in a few decades, I think we're going to look back at today as "the good old days," when births outnumbered abortions.

You know the reason more people won't get behind the efforts to ban abortion?

Blacks.

They see how awful our inner cities are now, and they think just how much worse they would be without legal abortion.

It's as simple as that.

I'm not justifying their decision.

I'm saying if you want to stop abortion, start getting black culture straightened out. Because until you do, you will never outlaw abortion.

Who? The people who won't support outlawing abortion? Inner city blacks? Your question isn't clear.

Mr. Reed,

I believe your comment is way off base. You really believe Blacks are the reason that more people won't get behind outlawing abortion? I hope you have some facts to support your assertion and that you are not simply speaking from prejudice and stereotype.

I, for one, am an African-American man who is vehemently opposed to abortion.

Tim,

I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that you would not take the opportunity to pray for God's guidance and will do be done with our leaders? If you were asked to pray and given liberty to pray in Christ's name, you would not?

I'm honestly asking, because while I agree completely about Obama and abortion, I think Romans 13 and 1 Timothy 2 might be applicable here.

I sincerely pray that the Lord will indeed bless our new President - bless him with wisdom from above, and change his heart (which is in the Lord's hand) to defend, not support the slaughter of, the little ones.

I guess also I can't really ever share your optimism about Rome either. I've been too deep in it, and have too many relatives whom Rome is shuffling off to hell. I also find it hard to praise an organization that purports to protect children - to do so in the womb, and then leave them unprotected from pedophiles and sodomites in their young age.

"Now, whether white liberals are for abortion with hopes of keeping the black community diminished and under control (which I think was Darren's initial point) is something I've never heard before."

Margret Sanger

Fred, I believe it would be a matter of conscience about praying at an event such as the inauguration of the President. If you believe your presence would be seen as a show of support for the stated or future policy, in this case abortion, then you should not go and pray. " Whatever is of not faith is sin."

1 Timothy 2 would be seen as first public prayers in the context of public worship and then private worship. The things which you have mentioned are some, but not all, of things which should and can be prayed for in regards to President-elect Obama.

What else are we to conclude when we consider that something like 95% of the black vote went for Obama.

-Bret McAtee

Bret, Dwight Eisenhower won around 60% of the black vote in 1956. Nixon's "Southern strategy" in 1968 as well as the 1960s civil rights movement have more to do with blacks voting democratic than almost anything else.

And --ironically-- the liberals are all up in arms about Rick Warren being invited.

Brett,

You better check your numbers. Eisenhower won nearly (but not quite) 40% of the black vote in '56.' Blacks had been voting Democratic since FDR cobbled them together in a new voting coalition starting in 1932. (Before '32' the Black vote had largely been in the pocket of Republicans due to the Republican party's work for them from 1861 forward.) Surely, civil rights was a lure for blacks but it was a lure that long predated 1968. (Consider Truman's victory in '48.')

Yet as we turn to post Roe vs. Wade almost universally it has been the case that Black national leadership have been stalwart defenders and promoters of abortion. Likewise it has been the case that the black community has consistently been a major supporter (through their vote) and consumer of abortion.

But if we'd like to dwell on civil rights one must wonder how pro civil rights the black community can be when it supports those who are committing genocide on their community?

Thanks for the conversation Brett.

Each Sunday for a few years now, at one point during the Prayers of the People, I speak these words:

We beseech thee also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all who bear the authority of government in this and every land, especially George, our President, and Rick, our Governor, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue.

Note that Cranmer's prayer is indiscriminate with respect to the character or moral agenda (or lack thereof) of the government officials named, as well as those those unnamed. Under the terms of this prayer, it amounts to a prayer for Muammar Qaddafi,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Robert Mugabe, Victor Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Kim Jong-il.

Last Sunday, I mentioned George Bush and Rick Perry because we reside in the USA and in Texas. And it is not a general prayer of endorsement, but appeals to the One in Whose hands a king's heart is like rivers of water, Who turns them whithersoever He pleases. And the specific petition tracks the language and intent of Romans 13:1ff and 1 Timothy 2:2.

So, in a few weeks, I must begin to pray "especially [for] Barak, our President, and Rick our Governor." And it sticks in my craw.

Why? There is no Biblical or theological reason to hinder such a prayer. Quite the contrary.

Beyond compliance with Apostolic teaching and our Lord's express commandment (Matt. 5:44), such prayers heap coals of fire on the heads of wicked rulers (Prov. 25:21-22; Rom. 12:17ff). At the Judgment, all such prayers, offered by untold numbers of faithful Christians for unrepentent, wicked rulers, will stoke the fires that consume all such unrepentent rulers who make it to the Judgment in their sins.

Prayers for Obama (and, implicitly, for all those other murderous tyrants) stick in my craw because my own understanding of the purpose of such prayers is confused. Like everyone else, I'm apt to think that "praying for someone" amounts to an endorsement of the one prayed for.

This is a false idea, and since it infects me (that sticky craw, you see), I will preach a homily on January 25 (our first worship service after Barak's inauguration) unpacking some of the ideas sketched above.

For all that, I am disgusted to see Rick Warren take this occasion to publicly pray for Obama. Precisely BECAUSE the vast majority of Christians and non-Christians alike will understand this act as one of endorsement, Warren harms Christ's body and lifts up the Lord's name to vanity. Whatever he prays (unless it is a sort of "miracle" prayer some above have daydreamed about), it were best prayed en famile, within the walls of the church assembled for worship, rather that on the world stage.

The world stage is the proper place for prophets to rebuke errant leaders. One of the greatest models for that was Mother Teresa's rebuke of President Clinton and all the other power-brokers at the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, when she contended for the life of the unborn in the face of a President and Vice-President who championed what she candidly called murder. I recommend Peggy Noonan's first-person account of that speech.

Fr. Bill,

Wow, I hadn't heard that story about Mother Teresa. So she and Cardinal Eagan turn out to be the real men, while Warren and the leaders of the Emergent Church and Obama are, what?

>Under the terms of this prayer, it amounts to a prayer for Muammar Qaddafi,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Robert Mugabe, Victor Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Kim Jong-il.

Under these men, as citizens under their authority, who would object to praying this prayer? I pray the same most weeks, although not using archaisms. But at their investiture as their personal chaplain?

No.

Ironically, African-Americans are more pro-life, at least in polls, than the rest of the country.

This is from life.com.

"In an August 2004 survey sponsored by Pace University and Rock the Vote, 54 percent of all Americans declared themselves pro-life while just 44 percent said they supported legal abortion. However, African-American voters took a pro-life position by a larger 59 to 42 percent margin.

When the NAACP took an official position in favor of abortion in early 2004, which it has since quietly rescinded, a poll conducted by Black Enterprise Magazine found that 60% of African Americans disapproved of the decision."

Thanks, Terry, for an excellent comment.

David Bayly

It's very easy to sell a message that involves taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. Nock called this "the political means." You provide goodies for a subset and disperse the costs among everyone. This is the predominant and always-popular message in every country in the world, including ours. It's popular in both major parties; this whole financial meltdown is really showing that there isn't really much difference between the parties in economic matters. Neither are calling for drastic cuts in spending. The real joke of all this economic liberalism is that it's all one big broken promise that looks like it is going to come crashing down with the rest of the Ponzi scheme economy. The trees will all be kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw.

The black community today is no friend of the slaughter of the oppressed nor fatherlessness nor matriarchy nor sodomy.

The continuance of the black community voting in the 90 percentile for the party that is unreservedly for and pushes slaughter of the oppressed, fatherlessness, matriarchy and sodomy testifies powerfully to the contrary of this assertion. I don't care what this that or the other poll says ... you can tell what a people believe by the way they vote and the black community in overwhelming numbers keeps pulling levers for the party that is most committed to perpetuating the very social ills that are killing them as a people.

Do individuals as anomalies exist? Absolutely and we praise God for the individuals (Walter Williams, Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, J. C. Watts, Michael Steele etc.) who are anomalies who are seeking to call their people back but the idea that black community isn't foursquare behind these social ills is belied by the voting track record.

No more hot air please. The facts are what they are. You can't argue with the voting records of the last few decades.

So Bret, what do you make of the overwhelming majority of Black voters voting against gay marriage in CA? They're suffering a backlash because of that, too, by the way. Being called traitors to civil rights and such.

The numbers were the same here on Amendment 2 in FL. And blacks voted overwhelmingly in favor of parental consent laws here in 2004.

What do you make of that?

So Bret, what do you make of the overwhelming majority of Black voters voting against gay marriage in CA? They're suffering a backlash because of that, too, by the way. Being called traitors to civil rights and such.

The numbers were the same here on Amendment 2 in FL. And blacks voted overwhelmingly in favor of parental consent laws here in 2004.

What do you make of that?

Terry,

Yours is a fair question. I would read it several ways.

First, as it stands now the black community, through different legislation, has been awarded a prioritized status. The more groups of people who are awarded that prioritized status the more watered down the prioritized status becomes, and the less the prioritized status is worth. It is in the interest of the black community's prioritized status to make sure other groups of people (gays) don't receive that prioritized status.

Second, Blacks are offended by the moral equivalence argument that gays raise comparing the current gay plight to the earlier black plight. My reading suggests that many in the black community, for this reason, are against gay civil rights.

Finally, I would say that there is a severe contradiction in a person or people who would pull Democratic levers for somebody who is going to advance gay rights legislation or abortion while at the same time voting against gay rights referendum or for parental consent laws. I could never presume to explain why people do contradictory things or hold contradictory beliefs.

I am pleased that the black community voted on prop 8 the way they did. I am sorry that they are facing a back lash from the pink brigade. In the end though I would say that if they keep voting Democratic they are going to get gay marriage even though they voted on the referendum the way they did.

Thanks for the conversation Terry,

"Blacks are offended by the moral equivalence argument that gays raise comparing the current gay plight to the earlier black plight. My reading suggests that many in the black community, for this reason, are against gay civil rights"...

And rightly so. The two issues are not morally equivalent, and shouldn't be treated as such.

As for your prioritized status argument, Bret, may I encourage you to step outside your comfort zone, if you've never done this, and attend services some week at a church with a predominantly black congregation? I invite you to do this because you express a very callous view of your black Christian brothers and sisters.

While I agree with you that for a few, this is viewed through a strategic political prism ( the Rev. Jackson and Sharpton types come to mind), this for many, really is about their values. And while I certainly and vehemently disgaree with the choice to vote for Democratic in the interest of social justice (I don't think the means provides the ends hope for and it certainly doesn't justify it), I don't believe that your cynical views are on target.

I speak here on the matter of black Christians voting Democrat, not the black community as a whole.

Well, into the fire I go..

I believe, the African-Americans who claim Christ and show at least some fruit to verify this, unfortunately show where their treasure and heart really is by voting the way they do so solidly for those who consistently and ardently support heinous evils. To what Kingdom you really call home and what really identifies who you are? By what name do you primarily answer to? Is it "Christian" or "African-American"?

African-Americans have always been a minority, and in the west, an oppressed one. The identity is one of being "black" and having more solidarity in that, rather than primarily being a son of God chosen by grace who's true citizenship lies in God's kingdom, not the city of man. They seek their redemption, not in the righteousness of Christ and his Kingdom, but in the cursed and futile city of man. This, in the vain hope that Christ will come, not to free his church from the bondage and the reign of sin and into life, but to "overthrow the Roman empire" so we can "have a King like all the nations" and usher in heaven on earth.

Therefore, African-American Christians have consistently chosen the party they believe that is an advocate (or at least better salesmen as advocates) for what they consider their main identity; not Christian, but African-American. They must find a rationalization in a good principal like "social justice" to couch the real trade that has taken place. Whether the Dems truly have been better advocates of this rather blinkered definition of "social justice" is irrelevant. To them, to vote anything other than Democratic is/has been "racist" and therefore YOU are sinning...and in the end...let's not dance around this shall we, for some racism, perceived or real, is considered a worse sin than the murder of innocents and certainly more than the promotion of sexual

abomination.

It is another trade of the Kingdoms and, in my opinion, an incredible short sale on one's royal birthright as well as blindness to the evils they do not support but end up endorsing.

"The black community today is no friend of the slaughter of the oppressed nor fatherlessness..."

You've got to be kidding, Tim.

They get abortions at about 4 or 5 times the rate of white women.

About seventy percent of their kids grow up without their father in the home.

If you're not kidding, and you're not just being PC, please square these well known facts with your statement.

Darren,

I wonder why you pit illegitimacy against opposition to homosexuality in your comments on conservativism?

By your reckoning, white Americans must be truer social conservatives because they have fewer illegitimate children and fewer abortions than black Americans, regardless of whether they're also more inclined to support homosexual marriage. And wealthier, better-educated whites are more socially conservative than poor whites because they have fewer abortions and illegitimate children, per capita, as well.

Never mind the fact that black Americans also have the highest live birth fertility rate in the country, or that all these arguments ignore the influence of contraception on such statistics. (And any argument on this issue which ignores the sin of contraception is mere propaganda, not biblical logic.)

In the end, you're content to limit your argument to those areas where black Americans appear less socially conservative than white Americans. But do you honestly think that white, upper-class, educated Americans are the sole social conservatives of our country?

To my mind this blinkered approach renders your argument not only false, but troubling. The reason I appreciate Terry's comments is precisely because she doesn't fall into the kind of weak-minded, prejudiced thinking you accuse her of. In the end, I think you misunderstand our goals. Tim and I are not concerned about establishing which group is more "socially conservative" than any other. That's a ploy for self-justifiers. The goal is godliness, plain and simple. The unmarried white woman who avoids illegitimacy and abortion through contraceptives is perhaps more "socially conservative" than the unmarried black woman who becomes pregnant out of wedlock, but she's no more godly.

In Christ,

David Bayly

This is not a comment about race and abortion.

This is a comment about the current climate in the PCA and hip evangelicalism at large, namely, that the chief value is conversation, not truth. It is far better for evangelicals and liberals to get along than it is to defend the rights of the unborn.

IT is preferable for Christians to behave well enough to have a seat at the great cultural table, and a voice, however bland, in the great cultural conversation, than it is to be prophetic.

What a sad day. We are losing our prophetic voice.

This is my last word in this utterly fascinating conversation because we will be doing some serious cookie baking aroud here over the next day or two. Which brings me to my first point:

1) I am female. I realize the spelling of my name would indicate otherwise, but you all wouldn't be the first to make that mistake. No offense taken. Can women comment here? If there is a policy of some sort, I apologize and will not break it again.

2) I am well aware of the illegitimacy stats, the abortion stats, AIDS stats, the incareceration stats, and all of the other failings witin the black communtity. I am, after all, a product of that commuity. Even a cursory glance at the race matters tab on my blog will show that I am not attempting to make a PC argument or excuse the voting record of my community. But as one of the Bayly brother said well, these stats in no way indicate that the white community is somehow more moral or has less illegitimate sex than the black community. Just indicates greater contaceptive and condom use. I sincerely hope that those of you who pointed out these stats wasn't seriously implying some greater morality on the part of other races. Less wordly common sense in the black community maybe, but certainly no more immoral than anyone else.

3)Again, in my explanation of the why behind the what in regards to the voting records in the black community, I was simply relating what was shared with me by CHRISTIAN black Americans when I have questioned the reasoning behind their vote.

Thank you Bayly brothers for the wonderfully stinulating discussion!