Your response perfectly illustrates the problems to which I referred.

First, evangelical boundary policing extends beyond drawing lines between believers and non-believers. Evangelicalism is one expression of orthodox Christianity. I applaud American evangelicals for maintaining a commitment to orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, being an evangelical also involves submitting to particular cultural and social expressions of that orthodoxy. I am not an evangelical. My position, though, has nothing to do with disagreements about orthodoxy. Rather, I am not an evangelical because I reject the influences of revivalism and the pietistic movement. One need not be a pietist or a revivalist to be a Christian, but one does need to be a pietist or a revivalist to be an evangelical. Nevertheless, I frequently run across evangelicals, like you, who make efforts to equate evangelicalism and orthodoxy. Thus, it indeed seems to matter more to evangelicals whether someone is on “our side” than if someone is a Christian.

Second, I refer to “moral ills” because the word “sin” is not appropriate in that context. Sin refers to conduct that brings condemnation from a holy God. I use “moral ill” to refer to conduct that the state should discourage. But these two categories are not co-extensive. For example, the state should discourage fast driving, but I doubt that fast driving is a sin per se. On the other hand, gossip is a sin, but the state only discourages certain egregious forms of gossip. I’d suggest that abortion is both a sin and a moral ill. But unless you’re a theocrat, the state addresses the issue of abortion because it is a moral ill and not because it is a sin. I have no problem with the state making moral judgments, but I submit that the state makes moral judgments for reasons that are altogether different from those that guide the church in making its moral judgments. Many accuse evangelicals of being theocrats because they often use “sin” in referring to the type of conduct which the state should discourage. I’d disagree. I think that few evangelicals are theocrats. Instead, evangelicals use exclusively religious language to describe these issues because they have not trained themselves to describe these issues using non-sectarian language.

Much of what evangelicals want to achieve in the political arena is not too radical. In fact, the majority of Americans may indeed share their ambitions. Nevertheless, evangelicals have difficulty joining into any such coalition because they have little facility at discussing moral issues without lapsing into evangelicalese.

An analogy: In many countries around the world (e.g., Japan), every region has its own dialect. When people speak in their regional dialect, only about 30-50% of what they say is understood by those from other regions of the country. At the same time, there is an official version of the language that is taught in school and used in all professional communications. Educated people can often speak both dialects fluently, and know when and where to use each. Those who fail to grasp these nuances are targets of ridicule.

I’d liken evangelicalese to a dialect. It’s spoken by about 20% of the American population, and is useful for embodying their shared experiences in a pietistic, revivalistic Christian community. The rest of us, though, would prefer that evangelicals eschew evangelicalese when interacting with those of us who are outside of your community. In fact, much of evangelicals’ public complaining can be characterized as little more than murmurings about the fact that evangelicalese is not the nation’s standard dialect. Well, your plight is shared by the people of Osaka, Shanghai, Munich, etc., whose local dialects failed to emerge as the standard dialect.

Report comment to moderator

“First, you refer to “our side.” My experience is that evangelicals can often better define themselves by who they’re not than by who they are. This has led to a lot of unnecessary boundary policing, whereby anyone who is not one of “us” is one of “them.” It has always been unclear to me why evangelicals are so obsessed with “sides” and “boundaries.” I can understand it on core theological issues. But it extends to social practices as well. On abortion, evangelicals will not generally partner with those who merely believe that abortion is a moral ill. Rather, they will only partner with those who agree that criminal sanctions are the only acceptable remedy for this moral ill.”

No Kyoshi, its not by we are not. but by WHO WE ARE — we are Believers first — whoever is not a Believer is not saved by grace –

“SIDES” — Salvation in the LORD Jesus Christ isn’t a side it’s a belief in our Savior.

Abortion is a moral sin, it’s not an ill -

“Second, I would caution you against reducing policy issues to moral issues. Even if we agree that abortion is a moral ill, moral language is simply not that useful for creating and implementing effective policy levers for countering moral ills. I don’t see any opposition between moral thinking and legal pragmatism. (In fact, that’s the point of most forms of natural law theory.) Because we believe in general revelation and common grace, we should expect pragmatic solutions to be generally consistent with morally upright solutions.”

Sin is now called a moral ill? Sin isn’t an illness it is defiance against GOD.

“My mother was an administrator at an evangelical college, even though we were conservative mainliners. Therefore, I’ve spent my whole life around evangelicals. In that sense, I feel like an MK who grew up abroad. I can speak “evangelicalese,” even though I am not an evangelical. But that’s not true of too much of the population, especially of those who work inside of the Beltway. If evangelicals want to have a greater impact on society, they need to learn to frame their arguments in language that is intelligible to others.”

Because you were raised in an evangelical background, spending much of your time with them — yet you say “even though I am not an evangelical.” — then you say — “If evangelicals want to have a greater impact on society, they need to learn to frame their arguments in language that is intelligible to others.”

If in fact you spent your life around evangelicals, yet you aren’t one, you go on to give INSTRUCTIONS as to how evangelicals can “have a greater impact on society” ? ——– Kyoshi, it had no impact on YOU, but you think it might have some impact on others with your ‘thought out reasoning’ ?

Report comment to moderator

I appreciate your response. Nevertheless, I point to two aspects of the response that explains why evangelicals often fail in persuading others of their viewpoints.

First, you refer to “our side.” My experience is that evangelicals can often better define themselves by who they’re not than by who they are. This has led to a lot of unnecessary boundary policing, whereby anyone who is not one of “us” is one of “them.” It has always been unclear to me why evangelicals are so obsessed with “sides” and “boundaries.” I can understand it on core theological issues. But it extends to social practices as well. On abortion, evangelicals will not generally partner with those who merely believe that abortion is a moral ill. Rather, they will only partner with those who agree that criminal sanctions are the only acceptable remedy for this moral ill.

Second, I would caution you against reducing policy issues to moral issues. Even if we agree that abortion is a moral ill, moral language is simply not that useful for creating and implementing effective policy levers for countering moral ills. I don’t see any opposition between moral thinking and legal pragmatism. (In fact, that’s the point of most forms of natural law theory.) Because we believe in general revelation and common grace, we should expect pragmatic solutions to be generally consistent with morally upright solutions.

Conclusion: We are more divided by language than by our actual positions on the issues. Evangelicals are more comfortable addressing policy issues through the use of a particular moral vernacular that emerged in the early 1800s. Few non-evangelicals use such language. For example, we may refer to “brokenness” while evangelicals say “the consequences of man’s sin.” One can speak of moral issues without adopting the language of American Protestant revivalism.

My mother was an administrator at an evangelical college, even though we were conservative mainliners. Therefore, I’ve spent my whole life around evangelicals. In that sense, I feel like an MK who grew up abroad. I can speak “evangelicalese,” even though I am not an evangelical. But that’s not true of too much of the population, especially of those who work inside of the Beltway. If evangelicals want to have a greater impact on society, they need to learn to frame their arguments in language that is intelligible to others.

Lastly, I think that evangelicals need to become less agitated by the dissonance that results from living between the already and the not yet. We live in a fallen world where any change will be incremental and will fall short of the heavenly ideal. Christ’s victory over sin and death have been secured. Therefore, we can plow in hope, trusting that the Lord will use our labors even when no good appears to come of them. Much of evangelicals’ overcharged moral language may largely be an indication of impatience (and frustration with providence) than with conviction.

Report comment to moderator

You can chuckle as long as you like as a so called defender of Luther.

It’s not a matter of “What can we do?” — it is a matter of what have you done, or what are you going to do. Those of us who have been in this fight for the life of the unborn will continue to do what we are doing. You can answer for yourself and your commitment.

As far as Luther being an anti-Semite — it is clear in my mind that he was —

Can you see the LORD Jesus Christ or any of HIS disciples making statements to burn down synagogues? — OF COURSE YOU CANNOT, that is the difference.

Those who have advocated harsh treatment of Jews who profess to be Believers have, instead stood as strange Believers, as the LORD did not preach or teach this doctrine. Anti-Semitism isn’t a belief which has died, but in fact ignites with a passion against the Jewish people when those who profess to be Believers, who stand in a position as Martin Luther did, but exposing hatred against those who were HIS chosen people —– and then others hear, listen to the words of Luther only to find out that he of all people was hateful to Jews because they didn’t agree with him (Luther) –

To bring “red-herring” as memorable point regarding Nazi atrocities, — Yes Luther was a beacon in the Lutheran Church within Germany, he was the beginning and head of the Lutheran Church, so there would be no “red-herring, but a person who had made clear his intentions for the Jewish people if they didn’t believe, agree to what he, (Martin Luther) had laid down as truth. Yes to be Born Again is to accept Jesus Christ as Savior, but many ignore this, be they Gentile or Jew, but we don’t burn their places of worship or threaten them as Luther did to running them out of our town.

Anti-Semitism and abortion come together because it is mans way of diminishing his sin, and then couple that together with the holocaust and you have NO “red-herring” but a case against mankind of hatred — Abortion doesn’t draw attention away from the holocaust, but instead indelably marks death for those who are least able to care for themselves, and those who GOD loves, —- as worthless, being worthy of death, either in the womb or in another way. Nazi atrocities were no different than the atrocity we see today with abortion, the child ripped from the comfortable womb of the mother, just like the child ripped away from the Jewish mother in the camps, to be taken and mutilated, its genitals removed to un-man the small boy in excruciating pain. This Jonny is no “red herring” but a picture of mans hatred, no different than taking the SAME KNIFE and killing a child within the womb.

Report comment to moderator

– Jonny

Report comment to moderator

People today read the words of those they admire written hundreds of years ago, your comparison of 400 years holds no water at all, in fact its a weak argument for Martin Luther and Hitler’s admiration for his anti-Semitic rhetoric — which fit in perfectly with his deep seated hatred for the Jews — interesting that hundreds of synagogues were burned to the ground, house’s rampaged on Martin Luther’s birthday in 1938, that wasn’t lost on anyone.

Martin Luther would not have needed to write such an evil book if he hadn’t hated the Jews. And yes Ajones I read it, and I believe that Luther meant what he wrote which was vile and ugly.

Because I don’t agree with you, I would not advocate burning down whatever church you attend, but that is exactly what Martin Luther advocated if those around him (Jews) didn’t agree and believe as he did.

“If I had to refute all the other articles of the Jewish faith, I should be obliged to write against them as much and for as long a time as they have used for inventing their lies– that is, longer than two thousand years.
Martin Luther — On the Jews and Their Lies

YOU WRITE:….. “Even in the words that you love to quote from Luther he does not say that you should kill every Jew.”

No he doesn’t Ajones, and I didn’t either so what is your POINT? – except to insinuate that I have said it? – if not there would be no reason for you to have made the statement above.

Jesus said:

And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. Luke 9:5

Martin Luther didn’t study, if he had he wouldn’t have missed the passage above , and he certainly would not have decided to give advice as to how to rid themselves of the Jews:

“Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:
First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire.” Martin Luther

And this coming from a man who claimed to know the Word of God?

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

You can dismiss what Martin Luther wrote, his intense hatred for the Jews, the fact that on November 10, 1938, Luther’s birthday, the synagogues were burning in Germany – COINCIDENCE ? You can dismiss the fact that Hitler admired Luther and his stand against the Jews. But I will not dismiss it, nor will I condone anything Martin Luther wrote against the Jewish people.

It has long been noted the massive EXCUSES and JUSTIFICATIONS even those which you Ajones have posted, which have been written and spoken on behalf of Luther, the endless contrived statements giving those who support Martin Luther a pulpit – But no one can deny that Hitler admired Luther, and 6 MILLION Jews were murdered, during the holocaust — or that their synagogues were burned in Germany on Martin Luther’s Birthday in 1938 – This burning of the synagogues on this particular date isn’t lost on those who have read or know how anti-Semitic Martin Luther wrote against the Jews.

If Martin Luther had truly studied the Bible he would have understood that no one kills another person, or burns down their synagogue because they don’t believe the way you do. Luther missed most of what the LORD said in the Gospels. Luther had his own gospel, and made sure everyone understood it just a few years before he died.

What is also troubling, is the EXALTATION which people give Martin Luther today, knowing the truth about how anti-Semitic his writing reveal.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

We all have reasons for making comparisons between abortion and Hitler, and that would include many of the writings of Martin Luther and his voice against the Jews which is unbelievable. We as believers are not to EXAULT man but GOD Almighty. Martin Luther wasn’t exaulting GOD when he made remarks against the Jews, telling others to burn their synagogues, and hurt them physically, — so why should man EXAULT Martin Luther?

Have you ever seen the pictures of little Jewish boys and girls, their genitals removed, I HAVE. Hitler admired Martin Luther, that is widely known.

What have YOU done do stop abortion? Before you make a statement such as “but are all pretty weak when it comes actually to doing something about it.” I would highly suggest Jonny you speak for yourself regarding abortion and what YOU have done.

Report comment to moderator