Pro-Life & In favor of Keeping Abortion Legal
Posted on December 15th, 2008 by catalyst into the Uncategorized, City Boobie Church, Comments From Others category
Reader, Michelle, sends in this email: I heard this interview on NPR the other day and thought y'all would find it interesting. Apparently, Franky, the son of Francis Schaeffer regrets bolstering the radical right. His blunt honesty was refreshing. Michelle: I was in tears upon reading your email and feel so blessed by it. Thankyou Thankyou Thankyou.
This is an amazing interview from a guy who grew up at the center of the Evangelical Movement and hates what it has become. Frank Schaeffer has converted to Greek Orthodox, and in November voted for a Democrat for President for the first time in his life.
In my opinion, Mr. Schaeffer is the future of Christianity. I'm not exactly sure what shape the Christian Movement will take in 20 years. But I gaurantee, it will look vastly different than it does now, and the Dobson's and Damazio's of the world won't be major players. They'll be fringe radicals, that Christians look back on with regret.
RSS feed for posts
December 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Only time can tell what an Obama administration is capable of.
- jared
December 16th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Oops, I did it wrong. Let’s try again from the top.
Why must you “hater’s” bring it all back to Obama? The broader point is that the church in 20 years will look distinctly different “with” or “without” Obama in office. There’s alot of people who “struggle” with Christianty which inherently is not a political problem but a spiritual one!
December 16th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
He can’t possibly be worse than the “Christian” Administration we just suffered through.
And to second Negrodamus, Christianity is about Faith not Politics.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Ok, Negrodomus
did you even read the link to the article? I’m guessing you didn’t because it was all about Obama. I really do hope obama does well. I hope he makes peace. I hope that his stance will help others see abortion truly as it is - murder. I hope that pointless wars, anywhere in the middle east are looked upon as murder as well. I hope he improves global stewardship. I wish all of the above.
Catalyst,
I wouldn’t call the current administration “Christian”. Nor would i call the Obama administration “Christian” either.
December 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Neither would I.
December 16th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Yep your right Steward, I call it politics! That’s it, nothing more nothing less, but the evangelical right call’s it God and the evangelical left calls it God damn America that’s in the bible, LOL!!!
December 18th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
I don’t really know how this all turned into an argument about Obama. Really, the interview was astounding from start to finish. This man who was such a pinnacle in the political realm, a Christian celebrity, has openly said, “I was wrong”. He wasn’t spurred on by a scandal where he was caught doing some dirty deed, he’s just taken an honest look at the results of his actions. His honesty is truly admirable, no matter what you think of Obama or the fact that he voted for him.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Apart from what God says in His Word, researchers have established all the things a baby — a person — can do in the womb, like laugh, cry, hiccup, etc., as well as the emotions they feel and express. Or like how these babies — that is, these people — have been seen to physically react against the
government-sanctioned murderabortion process in the womb, recoiling in pain from the saline solution as it is injected into the mother.Kyrie, eleison.
So Cat, in light of the 50 million abortions perpetrated per year, explain to me how some guy clearly in the middle of a mid-life crisis of faith who wants to keep this murderous “right” legal somehow comes out cooler in your eyes than those who, for all their worts, work to oppose it.
Frankie is so far off here his poor dad must be revolving at lightspeed in his grave. But then again this redefining/reversing of moral values has not only become commonplace and en vogue in our day, but amazingly, is also a sign of panache. Who cares that it’s decried in the Word?
Another fine example of those who in their frenzied zeal choose to focus only on the dirty bath water — the excesses of the Religious Right — therewith throw away the baby as well.
(Pun intended)
-joe
December 30th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Joe,
The title given to this interview is a little misleading… I’m wondering, did you listen to it? Believe me, you don’t have to tell me about abortion, I was raised by an anti-abortion activist and was watching dead baby videos from the time I was about 5. Franky is well aware of the realities of it as well as he fiercely fueled the anti-abortion movement, even talked his dad into getting involved. The message was not that Franky Schaeffer now thinks that abortion is dandy. The issue in question is “what do we do to reduce the incidences of abortion?” The way that he explained it was that he hopes Obama will leave the laws as they are so as not to further the culture war. When we start trying to pass laws, that is when both sides get inflamed and do insane things in the name of the cause. He has come to a different tactical approach on the issue. Can you have a little respect for a man who spent many years on the forefront of this war, pause your ideologies for just a second and wonder if maybe the guy knows what he’s talking about?
December 30th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Adjusting our tactical or philosophical influence will not solve abortion. It doesn’t matter if your opposition is soft, loud, bold, or patient. Some will listen to the soft, some will listen to the loud. Sure each generation is different. Maybe this generation has changed from what it used to be.
Two things matter. One, is your opposition motivated by love of these souls? Two, is your stand in agreement with God’s laws, or against God’s laws?
-jared
December 30th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Hi rocki;
Thanks for the response.
Yep.
IMO Frankie’s dead wrong here, and the unfortunate thing is, in making public a personal/private stance recently come to, he’s given unwanted ammunition (as is seen by its posting in this lofty venue) to those who watch for any chink in the armor of those who have come out for that which is morally right. A tactical error on his part, and he really should’ve known better. It’s the little foxes that spoil the vines, and the pro-abortion crowd will contort and twist this to no end.
I could be wrong, but I imagine he will live to regret/rethink the wisdom of his remarks, and not just because of political backlash from the right. History as well as human nature have irrefutably proven if something is left unchecked, and implicit auspices/endorsement is thereby given, that thing will increase.
Don’t believe me? Tonight, just for fun try letting your kids have the ice cream before being made to finish their vegetables. Come dinnertime tomorrow you’ll have wished you hadn’t.
Or, for a more relevant example, remember the Western Powers holding to this same mistaken notion with a certain Austrian Corporal at Munich in 1938? And their error resulting in upwards of 70 million dead in WW2? In my view, if for no other reason than that concept, all believers in Jesus should oppose abortion as well as the making of sodomy legal.
On a similar note, when emotions as well as hormones have cooled with time, I think whatever unbiased historians/presidential scholars are still left around to do so will take quite a more favorable view of the Bush presidency, as has happened in the past decades regarding Truman’s decision to drop the bomb(s) on Japan. And especially regarding the Afgan/Iraqi wars/police actions, when their perspective of the last 8 years will have been tempered by what is slated to take place to our world in the not-so-distant future….
5 “For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many.
6 “And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.
7 “For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes.
8 “But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
9 “Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name.
10 “And at that time many will fall away and will deliver up one another and hate one another.
11 “And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many.
12 “And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.
13 “But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved.” (Matthew 24:4-13, NASB)
You said:
I appreciate your sentiment, and am not seeking to disparage Frankie Schaeffer’s character, as I admire the man. But as any shavetail fresh out of OCS will tell you, tactics (the method) must never override strategy (the absolute).
And in regard to Frankie’s IMO misguided notions, political correctness/panache/cultural trends must never trump moral right and wrong, the same principle of which Jesus also addressed:
You leave leaven unchecked, it will grow. That’s its nature.
-joe
December 30th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I understand what you’re saying Joe. I’m sure there were a lot of smug responses coming from those who advocate abortion. That stings if you’re someone who cares about the unborn. But let’s face it, as pro-life Americans we have quite a reputation to live down. Maybe he back-peddled too far, I don’t know, but I think it was humble and courageous of him to make the admissions that he did. And perhaps after the smugness wears off (on the part of the pro-abortion side), some defenses will be put down. I don’t really see this as a battle of good and evil as you imply in your statement about leaven. I think most Americans (whether they call themselves pro-life or pro-choice) want the same thing: fewer abortions. I would love it if we could just stop abortion altogether, but it’s not reasonable to expect everyone else to agree with me. I think if we stop quibbling with each other, trying the demonize “the other side”, we may make some headway in that goal.
Also, I don’t think that abortion can really be compared to the holocaust, since an unborn baby requires the mother in order to stay alive. As sad as it is that a woman would rather kill it than carry it to term, (I try to empathize with it, but really cannot understand) it isn’t the same as rounding up entire families of autonomous people and slaughtering them. Speaking of father’s rolling over in their graves, mine probably is hearing me say that…
December 31st, 2008 at 8:39 am
Steward/Jared wrote:
That’s a thought provoking question, Jared … is it the Christians responsibility to “take a stand for God’s laws” for himself only, or for all of society? In other words, does a Christian have any responsibility to enforce God’s laws on others?
Concerning the abortion subject - I personally think abortion is selfish, heartless, murderous - if at the age of my wife and I she became pregnant, we’d have the child - though we would be 70 when the child graduated - if our daughters had become pregnant, we’d have counseled them to have the baby and keep it, or give it to my wife and I to raise, or offer it for adoption - but I’d make a passionate case for bringing the baby to term and make every argument against abortion …
Beyond my wife, my daughters and me, do I feel any responsibility to take a stand against abortion, where “stand” means to actively seek to stop an abortion, the answer is “no” - I do not feel any such responsibility.
The Bible has many scriptures that speak to the right of individuals to choose their path and many scriptures of warning concerning the consequences of those choices.
If it were a believer’s responsibility to “take a stand” and attempt to stop someone from breaking one of God’s laws (read: sinning), then the story of the prodigal son would have been altogether different …
The father of the prodigal son would have lobbied the city council for the enactment of laws prohibiting drunkenness, prostitution, gambling, sons leaving home and the early distribution of an inheritance - the father’s “stand” would have effectively blocked the ‘prodigal son’ from ever leaving home. The father’s stand would have given him a clean conscience and he’d be spared the emotional suffering over the departure of his son.
But there would have been a tradeoff - certainly the son would have burned with desire to sin and he would have begun to seethe with anger against his father who prevented him from doing what he wanted to do. Preventing someone from sinning, by force (of law) only makes matters worse, as it does NOT deal with the burning desire to sin, rather only deprives it of an outlet. In that scenario, the prodigal son would effectively become an enemy of his father - thereby robbing the father of peace by the sons resentment and rebellion, as the son’s desire to sin would seek fulfillment even under his father’s own roof.
For me, one of the fundamental lessons of the prodigal son story, is that when we are ‘tethered’ (as in a father and son relationship) to someone who is hell-bent on sin / rebellion, we need to cut the ties to that person, lest they drag us into sin / rebellion with them.
Applying that on a larger scale - to a world that is hell-bent on sin / rebellion - my approach as a believer who follows God’s laws by choice / voluntarily - I would plead with those I love to do right in God’s eyes - but I would not endeavor to stop them by force of law.
That’s how I can personally be appalled at issues such as abortion while not objecting to the laws that make it possible. It sickens me, but, there is no guarantee that our lives here will be without trial / trouble. We overcome in Christ, not by the law. I can’t imagine that an abortion would be an option for anyone who is truly IN Christ Jesus. It is likely only an option for those who are in the world.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Thanks, Scrupe. I agree. We’ve had the laws written on stone before. They only worked to bash people over the head with them. The New covenant writes the laws on the heart, the only effective way.
January 1st, 2009 at 12:23 am
well said scrupe, well said…
January 1st, 2009 at 8:28 am
I disagree.
Whatsay we bring this down to home, eh Cat and Scrupe?
Let’s say Illinois was mulling ballot measures proposing execution for all former Boeing employess, and the transfer of all law-school types to concentration camps in Libya. I mean, such things have happened in history, right?
So, if they were having a town meeting to discuss this, and assuming I was also living in Illinois, would you want me to show up to help voice support for you?
And if they indeed put them on the ballot, would you want me to vote against those measures?
And what if they passed, and they drug you off to jail awaiting execution and Cat was ensconced in a concentration camp in Gaddafi’s Tripoli? Would you want me to use my rights/the law/my vote to do everything I could to overturn those laws and help you guys?
But if I said….
“You know Scrupe, I never really cared for Boeing and their monopoly on Defense contracts.
“And Cat, I’m kinda with Shakespeare and that ‘let’s kill all the lawyers’ thing.
“So bottom line, I’m not going to ‘endeavor to stop them by force of law.’ And furthermore, as a Christian I don’t ‘have any responsibility to enforce God’s laws on others.’
“So sorry ‘Scrupe and Cat, but I can’t help you guys.”
…..would you feel I had made the right decision? Regardless if this is a lame-o example, if this really did happen to you, try and imagine how you would feel towards my indifference as they enforced civil law upon you two.
Scrupe, you said:
IMO you missed it here for two reasons. Because as to 1) civil law, it is indeed within our rights as American citizens to oppose that which we deem to be wrong. The framers of the Declaration of Independence recognized this:
And far beyond what civil law permits, in regard to 2) us as Christians being Salt and Light in this world, the tenor of both Testaments of Scripture supports opposing laws contrary to the moral and/or explicit Laws of God.
E.g., God prompted and used Esther as His Divine vessel to use her personal influence to oppose a law which was against the People of God. She persuaded the king along those lines, and thus saved her people from murder, fulfilling the Purposes of God.
In the N.T., we see the Apostles opposed/jailed/beaten by the authorities for the breaking of their laws in Acts 4-5. But, Peter said the Laws of God trumped the laws of men: “we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts. 5:29).
Someone replies, “Yeah, but didn’t Jesus endorse the paying of taxes – ‘render unto Caesar?’”
Yeah, but He also said to not forget the stuff the Father cares about — “render unto God.”
They reply, “How about when Paul says ‘the powers that be are ordained of God’ in Romans 13?”
Very true as far as they go, but you forget Paul also made use of his legal rights as a Roman citizen when he was about to be unlawfully beaten in Acts 22:25.
-joe
January 1st, 2009 at 9:14 am
So that’s how they’re gonna f#@k me out of my pension! Ba#%*rds!
Joe, how do you reconcile the teachings of Jesus as in the prodigal son story, the immoral brother who was ‘turned over to sin’ (1 Cor. 5), Revelation 22:11, et al?
Perhaps what those things mean, my 2-wheeling brother, is that as each of us work out our salvation with fear and trembling for God and his word, we will at times differ in our view of that salvation … of course, my life experience has a profound effect on me as well - for I have at one time been tethered to someone who dragged me and my children through hell and back several times over - attempting to stop that person from committing the madness that was in her heart, only made it far worse … so naturally, my life experience has caused me to weight my view of salvation / application of scripture, on the side of choice and relinquishing the sinner to the sin he/she lusts after …
And besides, if the scenario you described ever started to play out, me and Cat could just move to, say, Arkansas …
January 1st, 2009 at 10:29 am
Joe,
I understand where you’re coming from because I used to say almost the exact same things. I don’t say that to be condescending to you, just to let you know, I’m not talking out of my ass, I actually have given a lot of thought to this…
For one thing, if your friends were in danger I would expect you to do what was in your power to help them. When people get caught up in politics they have less time to actually help people.
It doesn’t seem like Paul and the apostles were involved in politics, they were just doing what they felt they needed to do and got in trouble for it. I find it kind of weird when people use these examples as if the apostles were perfect and we should mimic every single thing they did. They were just people.
Your analogy about former Boeing employees and law-school types falls apart where your holocaust analogy falls apart. There is no conspiracy against the unborn. Legal officials are not going around slaughtering all unborn people. Abortion is terrible and again, I don’t understand why a woman would end the life of her vulnerable child. But the kid is not an autonomous individual, and if the mother wants to keep the him the government would also aid her in doing that. The government is like a business that exists to keep things running smoothly in society. It is not it’s job to help people to be moral. When the government is doing things like taking functioning members of society out of their homes and gassing them, it is not doing it’s job. It is imposing the morality of a select group of people, not helping society as a whole.
It’s our job as individuals to be available to the people we know. For a time, I was in a situation where I was pregnant and far away from my family. My husband was an uber-Christian, but actually mentally ill (we didn’t know anything about mental illness). He left abruptly and I was left holding the bag (or the baby, whatever you want to call it). It was all really dramatic the way it happened. I was going to a church at the time and all the people were pissed off at him, but no one was really interested in being friendly with me. They were all super busy with ministry, such as, holding revival meetings in other countries. Except one of the pastors and his wife. They went way out of their way to be friends with me, invited me to their house all the time, etc. Shortly after, they were kicked out of the church for disagreeing with the “senior pastor”. Lucky for me, I had other options. By then I had moved back to Portland and gotten support from my family. But can you imagine if I was someone who didn’t have somewhere else to go? I think if there were more people available to women in crisis pregnancy situations (and I’m not talking about building more crisis pregnancy centers, I mean real people just being emotionally available), fewer women would choose abortion. Changing the law seems like a simple answer, but I’m afraid it’s more complicated than that.
January 1st, 2009 at 11:16 am
screwed out of“relieved of” over 15 years of pension because my time was divided between the Teamsters and AFL-CIO.Scroopy-doobie-doo, you’re taking the teachings of Jesus/Paul/John about instructions for interpersonal relationship within the Redeemed Community of the Church — that is, the Divine Law of God — and trying to compare that to the civil laws of (unredeemed) men, which are legislatively enacted upon public society at large, and as a whole.
Apples and oranges.
But what I’m talking about and what we see in the Word, is seeking to change — and if necessary, opposing — an existing civil, unrighteous law of the land enacted upon society as a whole, because it is in opposition to the biblical, moral Law of God. Acts 5:29.
Thus, your red herring still offers no explanation for how we see exactly that in these examples from the Scriptures: God’s People/Christians either using or opposing civil law depending on how it relates to God’s Law.
-joe
January 1st, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Rocki:
The thing is, Scrupe and I have this sort of history. He’s always out there in the ether regions, floating around and “sensing” things, while I see things more concretely, and go more off of cold hard facts. I suppose the truth/ideal lies somewhere between us. But anyway, I was trying to get him to get real for just a minute, and admit he would make full use of the civil law of man if it suited his personal needs.
As we ALL do everyday, by the way.
Like calling the cops after we’ve been robbed. Or IDing a shooter for the authorities so that civil justice can take its course. Or like telling the judge that I was in fact within the law by swerving to avoid that jaywalker, thus avoiding the big fine. Or by only paying the advertised price when they try and jack it up at the register.
And, to show that my opposition to his and Cat’s imaginary plight based upon pseudo-spiritual grounds — of not wanting as a Christian to try and legislate morality — would not only terribly upset them both, but leave him dead and Cat being forced at gunpoint to recite the Quran for the next 30 years.
IOW, making him honestly answer the question of “How’s that not-getting-involved-in-trying-to-morally-change-society thing working out for you?”
I see these things a bit differently.
Yes, the Apostles were human, as was Jesus by the way.
But I view God as allowing these things to be recorded in His Inspired Word (2 Tim. 3:16) as examples and admonition for us. As also Paul does in regard to the example of O.T. Israel in 1 Cor. 10:11.
And as I see it — at this point in time anyway– changing the civil law to be in line with God’s Law is only complicated because the god of this world doesn’t want that to take place. And so he uses public pressure, the media, secular values, political correctness, and the fallen reasonings of men to intimidate us into not doing that. Still though having said that, I’m confident none of that will ultimately deter the Father’s overall purposes, as Ps. 76:10 tells us. The question is, would he want to use us as an Esther in our day to change our world?
I’m sorry for what you went through during your hard times at the hands of the IC, but thank God His faithful ones were there for you.
-joe
January 1st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Joe,
Yeah, I wasn’t keen on the history with the 3 of you. Regardless, I don’t think your analogy holds water.
What your saying is that the government cannot be morally neutral? That if we do not implement our morality into the government then, someone else’s will win? Just wanted to make sure I understood.
I was trying to illustrate that women don’t have abortions because it is legal to have an abortion, they have abortions because they find themselves in a situation where they feel that they need to. And the very people that tell them it is “immoral” and fight to change the law to force them to carry their child to term, are no help to them. It makes me wonder if they were not busy trying to change the law, they may have more time and energy to spare. Who knows…
Interesting to hear someone else’s point of view though. Thanks for discussing.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 am
Of course it does.
I’ll try this again, rocki, but will limit it to the proposed killing of ‘Scrupe, as I suspect Cat — given his oft-expressed disdain for so much of the Bible, especially the O.T. — might actually enjoy being forced to memorize the Qur’an.
In response to this proposed action against this poor guy ‘Scrupe, you said:
By saying this you imply it would be wrong or immoral for Scrupe to be killed.
That is a moral judgment.
Then you said:
That is also a moral judgment.
So, you’ve admitted to two moral judgments: 1) that killing is an immoral action, and 2) that I am therefore morally bound to do something about it.
So rocki, please explain to me how killing ‘Scrupe would be immoral, but killing a baby in the womb is not immoral?
(And do so using the Scriptures so it will register with me)
Though you say you don’t understand how a woman could, you nevertheless defend the right to kill her unborn child by saying:
And you then imply killing babies is not the same as if the Government were to:
And that when Government permits the killing of these babies, it is
Do you realize the import and logical conclusion of your words?
Whether you are cognizant of it or not, when you infer babies are not autonomous individuals, nor functioning members of society, this exact same rationale was used by the Nazis to defend the killing of Jews, Gypsies and the retarded before and during WW2.
Then you said:
Surely you aren’t serious. What then is the Government doing when it prohibits theft, murder, racketeering, false advertising, the selling of drugs, prohibiting prostitution, the selling of organs and children on the black market — on and on ad infinitum — if not forcing someone’s opinions of what is moral — what is right and wrong — on society, and therefore making people act and live morally??
Or when they gave assistance to the 9-11-01 and Katrina victims? Or food stamps/welfare to single moms? Isn’t it because they viewed it was “right” to do this, and “wrong” to not help and let these people suffer?
But then, the argumentation and viewpoint presented here is, in my view, yet further proof of how the atheists and pro-abortionists have succeeded in dumbing down, intimidating and mesmerizing the majority of Believers in Jesus into widespread apathy. Into philosophizing away opposition to this legalized killing of babies by saying spiritually sounding stuff like “Christians shouldn’t use the law,” and “You can’t legislate morality.”
Even though these same Christians “use the law” every day to:
- to get the punks who robbed their home or carjacked their vehicle,
- to not let their landlord use his pass key to steal the stuff in their apartments while they’re at work,
- to demand a refund from the company which over-taxed them on their payroll.
And those same Christians will indeed want to “legislate morality” by:
- going after the guys who raped their sister,
- wanting that lowlife who molested and killed their child to go to prison, or worse.
The fact remains that Paul used the civil law to prevent being unlawfully beaten in Acts 22:25. And, the Apostles opposed and broke the civil law in Acts 4-5, because it opposed the Laws of God.
And if the Bible ain’t the inspired Word of God, given to show His people how to live, but is instead a book filled with fairytales and errors, and is just a bunch of hocum, I say let’s stop being hypocrites and throw the doggone thing away.
Rocki, please bear with me in all this, as like my friend anna, I tend to get a bit “riled” at times.
I honestly don’t mean to offend, but instead hope you will see what is to me, the illogic and error of your view.
I welcome your thoughts.
-joe
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
‘Scrupe here - back from the dead - no thanks to JoeBib …
Joe, perhaps the difference between our views, is that you confer human qualities on the government / law, whereas I do not. Government / law is no more than the expression of majority rule, where in this world, the majority do not ascribe to the rule of scripture, rather, abide by carnal nature.
Paul discussed the difference in several ways - being a child of the bond woman (law) or the free woman (spirit) - being either a citizen of Rome (symbolic for the governments of the world) or citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven … Revelation likens the institutions of men to non-human ‘beasts’ … why would anyone expect governments / institutions / laws to be moral, since they are inanimate - non-human - and yet, there is something spiritual about them - perhaps even a kind of divine / kingly authority in that people submit to them - even pledge their allegiance to them. As you point out, most every Christian has a foot in both worlds - picking and choosing between the laws of man and laws of God based upon that which benefits them most with little to do with righteousness.
For me, it amounts to a tug of war between God and man over sinner’s right to sin. Why would I try to stop that which God has permitted? Though I would prefer the world resemble more the place I long to live, I have no illusions of heaven on earth, nor the ability of carnal men to conduct their affairs with godly righteousness. The governments of men tend to reflect convenience, expediency, avoiding accountability and responsibility, which should come as no surprise since they simply reflect the will of self-centered men. Though I live in the world, I am not obligated to sin simply because the world gives me license to do so - I can choose to abide by God’s law instead.
Changing gears - Joe - have you ever watched a movie called The Corporation? It’s an interesting documentary about the proliferation of Corporations in America and how the courts have conferred upon Corporations ‘human rights’ even though they are non-human and a-moral. One memorable sequence evaluated the typical behaviors of a corporation using a scale of mental health and concluded that corporations would be diagnosed “psychopathic” if they were human. Corporations are, in a sense, mini-governments, complete with charter (constitution), policy (law), etc., presiding over stock-holders and employee alike.
With the financial melt down, the government has had an opportunity to demonstrate such Christian human attributes as compassion and mercy, by bailing out people who are losing their homes to foreclosure, creating jobs for the unemployed or at the very least extending jobless benefits and medical care. Instead, individuals have seen not a penny from the government, but financial institutions have been the beneficiary of generous cash infusions from the government, on the backs of the very people who are suffering at the hands of greedy institutions. You’d think by now any illusion people have about the benevolence of government, moral and compassionate humanitarianism, would be dispelled by recent events.
The government that waged a private oil war under the pretext of deposing a dictator hell-bent on acquiring and using WMDs, sold citizens into debtor’s prison to bail out criminal lenders, is neither moral or compassionate. Like The Corporation concluded, governments, like corporations, are socio/psychopathic. They are an expression of the best and worst of human will; a beast that protects animals and murders the unborn. A beast I have no desire to tangle with … lest it tie me up in perpetual conflict and distract me from abiding in the God’s Kingdom by the Spirit.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Scrupe,
Interesting about governments being psychopathic. I keep forgetting to watch that movie, I’ll put it on my que now…
Joe,
Thanks for your thoughts, but I think you are mischaracterizing what I (possibly others) think about this. I would never say that Christians shouldn’t use the government. That’s stupid. I just think that the governent is in place to serve the passions of the people. The fact that we still have some good laws out there, such as laws against stealing etc. just goes to show that there are still a lot of good people out there. It’s not that we cannot legislate morality. It’s just that as far as morality that we are going to impose on others, there needs to be a consensus.
This is exactly the nature of a psychopath. Rather than feeling one thing or another is right or wrong, they survey the status quo and act upon rules determined by social norm. However, psychopaths have been given a bad rap. There are fully funtional psychopaths out there, who just have had to figure out a way to get by. And where the government is concerned, how could you expect a non-living entity to be anything more?
You don’t offend me at all, if I couldn’t handle debate, I wouldn’t engage.
BTW You didn’t answer my question. Do you think that the governement is morally neutral? Or no?
January 5th, 2009 at 7:52 am
rocki;
I’ll answer yours when you answer mine.
-joe
January 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Whatever Joe, I totally answered. I said that expecting an individual to make moral judgements is different from expecting the governement to make moral judgements. I think you’re just getting tired of this conversation. It’s OK, I understand.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Rocky,
Joe’s gettin’ to that age where he has his good days and his bad days … when ya get old, most everything that used to work good starts working in spurts … it won’t be long before ol’ Joe is sittin’ in the doctors waiting room and talking with the other old folks about their poops and Matlock reruns …
‘Scrupe
January 6th, 2009 at 5:34 am
I musta missed it.
Wanna try again?
I know, I know, it’s no fun to be asked to move one’s theology from the theoretical into shoe leather, to come down from the ivory tower and into the dirty streets.
Like when Peter was up on the Mount and said to Jesus “It’s good for us to stay up here in the clouds. Let’s pitch a couple of tents.” But Jesus said, “No Peter, we gotta go back down. See, there’s this demon-possessed child that needs delivering….” (see Matt. 17:1-21).
James also hits on this, but from a different angle:
If OTOH you are tired of all this, I understand completely…..I’m rude that way.
(Scrupy-doo-doo said:)
Pfft. I can go anytime I want.
-joe
January 10th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
[…] A couple of days ago, I posted some questions to facilitate discussion about the persecution and killing of Jews in Nazi Germany and Europe before and during WW2 in a post entitled, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? Which questions were in turn born out of a previous thread concerning the killing of babies in the womb entitled, Pro-Life & In favor of Keeping Abortion Legal. […]