Watching some Christians react to election news is a sober reminder of how easy it is to forget the unborn and the horrific evil and injustice that is legally done to them every day in this country.
Take this sentiment expressed by a Christian journalist, which is simultaneously ignorant, tacky, and completely callous to the horror of the murder of innocents.
It's ignorant, because 1) correlation does not equal causation, and 2) a far more plausible reason that abortion rates declined in those years is owing to pro-life legislation at the state level. christianpost.com/voices/no-demo…
It's tacky, because the primary aim of the comment is to antagonize pro-life Christians who voted for Trump on the ground that he has followed through on many of his campaign promises regarding pro-life policies & judges. Make light of baby murder to own the Trumpsters.
It's callous, because Biden/Harris plan to aggressively rollback policies that limit abortions.
End of the Mexico City policy (which will result in exporting America's abortion radicalism to the world).
End of Hyde Amendment (which limits federal funding for abortions).
Forcing Christian organizations (like Little Sisters of the Poor) to fund abortions under the ACA.
A significant challenge for the pro-life movement is that abortion is out of sight, out of mind. No nightly news updates televising the latest dismembering. A media committed to covering for a billion dollar industry that enriches itself on killing children & selling their parts.
The evil of abortion is evident to natural reason. The humanity of the unborn is established by embryology. The dignity & worth of the unborn is accessible to the consciences of all by virtue of the moral law written on our hearts.
But human beings are naturally truth-suppressors. And therefore, it is incumbent on Christians--of all people--to remember the unborn, to refuse to ignore the silent screams, and to resist the impulse to rationalize, minimize, & make light of our country's gravest moral evil.
Because the womb is not dark to God. He sees the violence done in the secret place by our so-called "healers." He hears the silent screams. And his justice does not sleep. He stores up wrath for a day of reckoning.
What's more, he sees the way that civility and social "decency" becomes a cover for evil. He knows that "the appearance of godliness" can mask heinous injustice. When I consider our nation's great evil, I always think of this quotation from the preface to The Screwtape Letters:
"I like bats much better than bureaucrats. I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of 'Admin.' The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps & labour camps [or abortion clinics]...
In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars & cut fingernails & smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice."
And right now I see far too many Christians who are willing to celebrate those quiet, smooth-shaven men [and women].
And what's more sobering, God sees, and God knows. We would be wise to repent of our apathy in the day of his kindness. Some day the iniquity of the Americans will be complete. Until then, have mercy, Lord Jesus.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Great post here from @scottrswain on important theological categories for thinking about sex identity (who and what we are as male and female). scottrswain.com/2020/05/14/mor…
Three additional thoughts: 1/
1) An additional fact that Swain doesn’t directly highlight is that the “common” Adam starts off in the body of a single man. In other words, the common Adam is not de-sexed or de-gendered, but is in fact male. 2/
This establishes the temporal progression and polarity of Adam as original (and therefore, head) and Eve as eschatological (and therefore, glory). 3/
The question before the house is this: Is the difference btw narrows & broads merely a matter of *application* of shared biblical principles, or is it a matter of a different understanding of biblical principles themselves?
To make the question concrete, let's consider one of the key passages: 1 Timothy 2:11-15. There Paul grounds the prohibition on women teaching and exercising authority in the order of creation (Adam first) and the nature of the first sin (Eve deceived).
I'm eager to dig in to the new @9Marks journal on the reckoning among complementarians. 9marks.org/wp-content/upl…
I've already read or skimmed a few articles and it looks helpful and clarifying in many respects.
For example, I agree with @samueld_james that the inter-comp debate is often a matter of different instincts:
That said, the opening editorial by @JonathanLeeman contains this line:
"Turning to the inside of the church and home, broad and narrow complementarians agree on the basic biblical principles, but they tend to *apply* those shared principles differently."
) reminded me of a little thing that I wrote (but never published) a few years ago. It was inspired by Bede's story of Gregory's role in sending the mission to the English. sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/bede-gr…
Pope Gregory I had many accomplishments to his name. His book on pastoral care was a standard text in the Middle Ages. Calvin famously called him the last good pope. His liturgical reforms earned him the title “Father of Christian Worship.” 2/
His dialogues led the Eastern Church to call him “Gregory the Dialogist.” And, of course, he is most commonly called Gregory the Great. 3/
1) The definition of empathy is contested and often confused. One friend who has studied the topic told me that the academic literature is filled with debates and discussions about empathy, sympathy, and compassion and the distinctions between them. 2/
2) This article lists 8 different contested definitions. theatlantic.com/health/archive… This is unsurprising because the word has only been in use for about 100 years. 3/
If I understand Sam's argument, individual Baptists may, in their private capacity, regard paedos as true Christians, but Baptist churches must, as a matter of theological principle, declare on behalf of Jesus that paedos are NOT members of the kingdom. 2/
That logic is ia big part of what drew me to open membership. I didn’t want Baptist churches, as an institution, to in essence formally and publicly excommunicate all paedobaptists. IOW, open membership is an attempt to resolve the tension Sam identifies in his conclusion. 3/