Young evangelicals: "I'm not for killing babies, but I'm pro-choice."

thanks

Sheesh, I can't get this madness out of my mind.

"I'm not for killing babies, but I'm pro-choice."

Variations that come to mind ...

"I'm not for bombing abortion clinics, but I don't condemn those who do."

or

"I'm not for gay marriage, but everybody ought to have a choice in the matter."

or

"I'm not for hari-kiri, but the disembowling community has as much right to happiness as anyone else."

or

"I'm not for crack cocaine, but the government should never control what substances we choose to ingest."

Recently finished Graham's autobiography, "Just As I Am." Read alongside Murray's book, you see the glory and the tragedy of the man.

Henry's autobiography gives perspective on Nelson Bell. Good recommendations.

DW

Wow. It's not a slippery slope - it's a precipice.

Given what's been happening lately, what I've seen and heard and discussions on-line we're becoming a morally dark nation.

With these as our youth, a drop into the abyss can happen practically overnight.

At this point we need not bother sending missionaries anywhere else, our own culture is becoming the largest population of unreached peoples.

Looks like I have some research to do.

I apaprently don't understand what I am and am not getting from World Magazine. Could you elaborate on your sweeping statement that its doctrine is "not Protestant"? Such a serious accusation deserves some support, or should left unvoiced.

I have the April 19/26 issue in my lap. Page 8 describes John Piper and RC Sproul as "solid writers" whose books are deservedly getting a wide audience. Page 13 has an interview with the RUF minister at Virginia Tech on the anniversary of the shootings there. The articles about Pope Benedict on pages 40-41 are almost free of editorial value judgments. The only ones I can find say that the Pope's recent actions with respect to Islam are "muddled," and that the concept of the Pope posing as the representative of Christianity worldwide is "problematic for most Protestants." Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the RCC! Please help me to see what you see.

>Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the RCC!

I wasn't saying "World" endorses the Roman Catholic Church, let alone ringingly. Rather, that "World" doesn't ringingly endorse Protestant, reformed, and presbyterian doctrine. And I'm quite sure its editors would agree, saying they've quite consciously made a decision not to.

All the things you mentioned could as easily be pulled from the pages of "Christianity Today," but few would deny "CT" has from the beginning been as broad as broad can be. Some may describe that broadness as barely Protestant and I wouldn't cavil at that description. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic publications I read (and very much appreciate in certain specific areas of editorial content) are dogmatically Roman Catholic in ways "CT" and "World" wouldn't dream of. To see what I'm talking about, read "The Wanderer," "First Things," or "Culture Wars" and note the clearly articulated Roman Catholic doctrine all through their pages. Yes, the readership of "World" and "CT" is quite different, but sometimes I wonder whether it's really true that all the conservative Roman Catholics would drop their subscriptions to "World" if "World" began to advocate Protestant, reformed, and presbyterian doctrine as if it mattered to its subscribers to know, believe, and live that doctrine.

Somewhere, sometime we evangelicals will again stand with the reformers in choosing to speak and write and publish biblical truth in all its specificity and glory. Meanwhile, we'll have to leave our present world and denomination to find controversial writing or preaching of a critical mass.

Did anyone ever wonder, though, how long people would keep reading Calvin or Luther or the Apostle Paul after they were edited for publication by Zondervan, "CT," or "World?"

Speaking as one who grew up in an editor and publisher's home and married another child of evangelical publishers, you gotta love the internet. It's today's pamphleteering and it's gone a long way to righting the wrongs caused by the cost of printing presses.

>That still seems a long way from calling World "not Protestant in its doctrine."

Maybe I would have been clearer if I'd added the word 'distinctively,' as in "not distinctively Protestant, reformed, and presbyterian."

That would have been clearer, yes. World seems to aim for a broadly evangelical (in the historic meaning, not the new "Neuhaus is an evangelical") tone, with a friendliness to Reformed culture and thought but also an eye toward pop culture.

>He commanded them to make disciples, baptizing and teaching them to obey everything He had commanded.

Why on your blog do you complain more about homosexual unions than about the 40-50% divorce rate in the church? You talk about "sodomites," but not "harlots" and "adulterers," regularly. Christ spoke about divorce more than homosexuality... in fact I don't believe Jesus ever even brought up gayness.

Not supporting anything here, just want to see why you prioritize homosexuality so much more than divorce and remarriage, especially considering that one is much more prominent in our sphere of influence.

Also, why do you preach about the sanctity of life in an unborn child so frequently, but not about the sanctity of life for those who go unfed and unclothed on the streets daily? Seems to me that building relationships with the homeless, feeding them, helping them overcome paradigms of failure, might be a bit more effective and a practical first step at improving the sanctity of life. After all, these are the babies that were not aborted. Why not show them that once their lives have been spared that Jesus has real meaning and that the gospel has real power to change lives, instead of leaving them cold on the streets?

Homelessness and divorce address the root issues you are raising--sanctity of life and sanctity of marriage--and are areas where we the church can have a greater impact, if we made those our biggest pet peeves. Even if every person in the world were the church, we would still have more divorces than gays seeking unions. And this is speculative, but maybe if we gave more money to the poor like Jesus said, instead of building large church buildings with cool sound systems that we bought with the less-than-10% tithes we offer while wearing custom tailored suits that we bought with the leftovers from our pathetic tithes, young single women would be less fearful of being young single mothers because they know they will be taken care of by the church.

>Christian faith that claims to be loving while endorsing sodomite marriage and the slaughter of unborn children is no Christian faith at all.<

Brady

Do you deny what Tim has written here?

Why would you imply that Christians should only be free to oppose sodomy and abortion when divorce and hunger are no more?

Perhaps you believe that the Obamas and Clintons are shaming the church with their altruistic actions and marital examples and are paving the way to a hunger and divorce free world?

BTW, here are links to a couple of articles describing how our “compassionate” politicians are solving the world hunger problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/business/worldbusiness/15food.html?ei=...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/14/ccview...

>I suppose that you could add our denominational magazine, By Faith, to this list too.

Actually conservative RCs might have a lot of problems with By Faith but ironically more often than not the conservative RCs would likely be right and By Faith wrong.

>>Why on your blog do you complain more about homosexual unions than about the 40-50% divorce rate in the church? <<

Maybe because there aren't large organized efforts to tell us that divorce is all well and good. And if we want to kvetch about doing the most good, we can look at the example of what happened with a weak church in

>>Christ spoke about divorce more than homosexuality... in fact I don't believe Jesus ever even brought up gayness.<<

It wasn't a big problem with His audience. It was with Paul's. So Paul brought it up.

>>Homelessness and divorce address the root issues you are raising--sanctity of life and sanctity of marriage--and are areas where we the church can have a greater impact<<

Tell that to those in European countries who are persecuted for telling their congregations that sodomy is sin. Or to those in churches who've been battling sodomy lobbies for years. You don't seem to understand that the church must be defended.

America and evangelicals have no discernment and have since become "dull of hearing."

I liken the treatment of the sheep in America to the way we treat our professional athletes; we allow and even encourage a perpetual adolescence.

Instead of "28We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ."

We have, as evengelicals, maintained the "terrible two's" of our existence.

Hebrews 5: 11 Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

12For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.

13For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant.

14But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

>But don't forget that we can't leave off one to do the other.

That verse was not referring to homosexuality and abortion, especially not when referring to "the former." The former would have been the tithes I referred to in my post, ones that we also aren't giving.

And I'm fairly certain the reformed church would have to abandon quite a bit of its hate of homosexuality and abortion before it came close to its level of apathy towards divorce and the poor, at least apathy by omission (I notice Tim and David have posted over 200 posts categorized as abortion and euthanasia,and about 50 on sodomy, with not a single post categorized for poverty or divorce or tithes)

>Maybe because there aren't large organized efforts to tell us that divorce is all well and good.

Yet even with large organized efforts there are still fewer homosexuals than divorced people in our country and in our church. Indicates to me a much bigger problem if even without efforts it is so prevalent. Maybe the bigger problem by volume is where our efforts should be?

>and those who rush blindly into the sin of sexual immorality and perversion

Adultery is a sexual sin, and that is what Jesus says most divorces are. That sin is much more prevalent than homosexuality, but much less addressed.

>Tell that to those in European countries who are persecuted for telling their congregations that sodomy is sin. Or to those in churches who've been battling sodomy lobbies for years. You don't seem to understand that the church must be defended.

So your primary motivation for decrying homosexuality your concern that Christians will be persecuted by gays?

>(I notice Tim and David have posted over 200 posts categorized as abortion and euthanasia,and about 50 on sodomy, with not a single post categorized for poverty or divorce or tithes)<

Why don't you direct us to your blog brady and show us how you handle the issues of poverty and divorce? You might also let us in on how you know how tithes are directed in the churches of the two ministers who own this blog and how you know where they buy their suits.

>young single women would be less fearful of being young single mothers because they know they will be taken care of by the church.<

Are you sure that's how you wanted to word that brady?

>Is your real problem with this simply that you disagree that sodomy is sin?<

It does have that "Methinks you protesteth too much" air to it doesn't it?

Brady:

I live and work in Africa, amongst the poor. Both Tim and David's churches support our work generously and sacrificially. They've introduced us to other churches who now support our ministry. They've sent their loved ones over here to work among the poorest of the poor: orphans. And they've come themselves.

This is only one slice of evidence, but your accusations that the Bayly brothers and their churches don't care about the poor are simply untrue. Regular readers of this blog know this.

Much of my work is involved with teaching at a college that trains Africans to serve in positions as pastors and missionaries and Christian leaders and teachers of religious education in the public schools.

How do you help the poor when your call is teaching? You teach them everything Christ commanded. And it is a basic principle on this blog (they got it from Luther) that we emphasize those parts of the "everything Christ commanded" where there are "gaps in the wall." But we do teach the "everything."

One of the major worldviews in the west is feminism. The results of this are fairly well known to readers of this blog: homosexuality, what some call "gender confusion," abortion, divorce, sexual promiscuity, day care, etc.

Scripture says a lot about these subjects. And Father Bill is exactly right in his comments on Jesus. We don't know a bit about Jesus except from the words of an apostle. So we don't pit the words of Jesus against the words of an apostle. We don't pit the Old Testament (to which Jesus constantly pointed, especially Genesis 1-3 when speaking about matters sexual) against the New Testament. They form one fabric and have one author.

What do I talk about with my students? We talk a little about homosexuality. It is taboo in much of Africa, but South Africa has some of the most liberal laws on homosexuality in the world. (How a country that is being decimated by AIDS can do that is simply beyond my comprehension, but that is a bit off topic.) It is becoming a bit more common in Africa, as is divorce.

We talk a fair bit about feminism. African culture is patriarchal, but it is not a patriarchalism under the discipline and authority of Scripture. Many African cultures stand at a crossroads: they are being encouraged by many (mainly from the west, NGOs, teachers, and missionaries) to repent and travel the route of feminism.

Others of us are saying, the west has traveled down that road and you don't want to eat the bitter fruit that comes from it (see above). It is wrecking havoc on the lives of children, women and men and is simply out of accord with the Bible.

I tell my students that they must bring patriarchy under the discipline of Scripture and then we talk about what that will look like in Zambian culture. A lot more needs to be said, but that'll do.

Please give consideration to what several readers of this blog are saying to you and don't simply hear what you want to hear.

Warm regards, David

>Why don't you direct us to your blog brady and show us how you handle the issues of poverty and divorce?

I am not a great blogger and do not post frequently, but here you go:

somebodyshould.blogspot.com

and for a post specifically on this topic:

http://somebodyshould.blogspot.com/2007/04/kudos-to-roland-martin-christ...

>You might also let us in on how you know how tithes are directed in the churches of the two ministers who own this blog and how you know where they buy their suits.

I apologize for appearing to accuse Tim and David of tithe misappropriation, please see my comment right before this one.

>I am not a great blogger and do not post frequently, but here you go: somebodyshould.blogspot.com<

Brady I scrolled back to April of '06 and though I saw a few threads on the issue of homelessness I didn't see any solutions offered. There was one thread where the homeless were interviewed and given the opportunity to state what they wanted.

What do you think the church ought to be doing in its efforts to minister to the poor? Don't reply with a simplistic "feed them" but offer something substantial and build your case from Scripture. "The church isn't doing anything when it ought to be doing something" is an empty complaint for that is all it is..a complaint.

Mar 14:4-7 There were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment wasted like that? For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor." And they scolded her. But Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me.

Based on some of the things you've said one might conclude that Jesus didn't have his priorities in order.

2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.

Psa 37:25 I have been young and now I am old, Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken Or his descendants begging bread.

Pro 28:27 He who gives to the poor will never want, But he who shuts his eyes will have many curses.

What do you do with passages like those above? The sinful tendency to ignore the poor is mitigated by the third verse but all have to be accounted for. How long should one be supported? Is the church to become a veritable welfare state ever dispensing food, shelter and clothing to the same set of dependents?

Deu 15:7 "If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother;

Notice the command there is toward the brother. The churches responsibility is first to her own; to God's own covenant people.

It seems to me that you have a tremendous amount to think about.

Thanks Brady, I'm glad you wrote that. Now try and remember that as each individual is gifted differently for specific tasks, so different churches are also gifted to address the needs specific to their place.

The poor are not wrecking doctrinal havoc in the church. But the homosexuals and feminists are. Who will defend the faith if everyone is wielding a ladle at the soup kitchen?

Peace

Brady,

Thank you for calming down a bit, or at least it seems that way to me.

Adultery and divorce are heinous sins, and much of our society's present problem with homosexuality and abortion is probably a judgment from God for the church's appalling handling of adultery and divorce. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it makes sense to me.

The church's lack of mercy (I prefer to call the issue "mercy" rather than "poverty", as the primary charge to the church is to take care of the orphans, widows, etc) is another major problem. How can we preach the mercy of God if we do not imitate it in whatever small ways He allows us?

If I may, I have a suggestion for you. Perhaps it is a somewhat foolish suggestion, but here it is:

1) Pray to God for guidance as to your place in His reforming the church, particularly as relates to adultery, divorce, and mercy.

2) Figure out a good public (open-to-free-speech) place in town with a lot of Christians going to and fro.

3) Talk to your church leadership about speaking in that place, and see if they'll let you do it.

4) Pray to God for preparation in attitude, in what to say, etc; and study the Word (and other books as is judicious)

5) If permitted, go out there, speak to these people, and rebuke them.

6) Roll with the punches, it isn't easy, but be a man and by the grace of God something good will come of it.

Blessings,

Keith

Latest off Baptistpress, (to the mods) worth mentioning in this thread, I think?

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27947

Alaska governor welcomes Down syndrome son

Posted on Apr 29, 2008 | by Staff

WASHINGTON (BP)—-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her husband Todd, having put their pro-life beliefs into personal practice, introduced their fifth child to reporters and photographers April 21. Their son, born April 18, has Down syndrome.

"When we first heard, it was kind of confusing," Palin, 44, said of the testing early in her pregnancy that showed her baby had Down syndrome. The news was "very, very challenging," she said, according to the Anchorage (Alaska) Daily News.

However, the governor said, she and her husband came to believe that God has blessed them. Palen said her son, Trig Paxson Van Palin, is "absolutely perfect."

"It just feels like he fits perfectly," she said. "He is supposed to be here with us."

Ben Mitchell, director of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity in suburban Chicago, described Palin's decision as "a tangible reminder that Down syndrome should not mean a death sentence for the unborn."

"Governor Palin should be heralded for her courage of conviction. Like other faithful women and families, she is not pro-life in rhetoric only, but pro-life when it comes to making the nitty-gritty decisions that respect life over destruction," said Mitchell, who also is a longtime consultant to the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

A pro-life advocate and a Republican, Palin was elected in 2006 as Alaska's first female governor, as well as its youngest. She is breast feeding Trig and plans to take him to work with her, the Daily News reported.

The prevalence of prenatal genetic testing and the reportedly hopeless portrait painted by many obstetricians have made abortion the default option in recent years for parents whose unborn children are diagnosed with Down syndrome. It has been estimated as many as 90 percent of unborn babies detected with Down syndrome in the United States are aborted.

Palin e-mailed a letter to family members and close friends on the same day she gave birth, writing it as if it came from God and signing it: "Trig's Creator, Your Heavenly Father."

"Many people will express sympathy, but you don't want or need that, because Trig will be a joy," the letter said, according to the Daily News. "You have to trust me on this.

"Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed-up world you live in down there on Earth. Trig is no different, except he has one extra chromosome."

Down syndrome normally results when a person has three copies, rather than two, of chromosome 21.

"Her choice to value life in a very personal way speaks volumes and gives those of us in the pro-life community in Alaska cause to believe that we truly do have a pro-life leader in charge of our state," Eagle Forum Alaska President Debbie Joslin told LifeNews.com. "When so many in our culture have chosen to devalue the lives of those who face special learning disabilities, Governor Palin shines as a great positive role model."

--30--

Compiled by Baptist Press' Washington bureau chief Tom Strode and BP editor Art Toalston