Facing the crisis of our times
Two years into a presidency, people in the opposing party generally start looking around for his opponent. But whom they choose depends on what they think our country’s greatest problem is. What is the greatest evil we must confront as a nation?
Some evils are with us for so long they become part of our decaying and—to people who see it for the first time—ghastly cultural furniture. The more we hear about same-sex marriage and the more we see same-sex couples kissing and marrying on the news, the more that young evangelicals, according to polls, seem to find peace with a political settlement on the matter. But despite 38 years of nationally legalized abortion, members of the emerging evangelical generation are at least as staunch in opposition to it as their elders are. So there is some hope for what I see as the two great threats to America as an historic experiment in the dignity of self-government: abortion and the breakdown of marriage.
Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, our laws have sanctioned the killing of over 50 million people. The test of any society is surely how it treats its weakest members. Babies in the womb—the faceless, the nameless, and the most completely dependent on the care of others—are surely the touchstones of our selfishness or our decency.
The family is the foundation of society. By it, we form the next generation into citizens or criminals, social assets or social liabilities. There is no substitute for this “little platoon.” But we are working it away, entertaining it away, defining it away. The American family is suffering a thousand cuts from every direction—from tax policy to divorce law.
We need to identify the bloody stain of abortion and the faltering of our families as serious threats that are in every way comparable to the curse of slavery in the 1860s and the threat of Japanese invasion in the 1940s. We must develop a 20-year policy agenda to reduce abortions and draw our laws into conformity with the protection of innocent life. (Thankfully, abortions have been declining since their peak in 1990, but we still lose 1.2 million children a year.)
We need an equally long-term policy that will strengthen and protect marriage and family at least as tenaciously as we now protect waterways and wildlife. Ronald Reagan appointed a Special Working Group on the Family to examine all policies for their impact on the family. That was good as far as it went, but the work needs to be less reactive. A thoughtfully crafted, fully coordinated family policy should recognize the requirements for and the impediments to healthy family life, and inform the president of what is necessary and constitutional to strengthen it. State governors and local governments should do the same. Conservatives these days are hawkish over how this tax or that regulation will affect small business and job creation, and it is good that they are. But the family deserves the same protective scrutiny.
Last year, Mitch Daniels told The Weekly Standard that the next president would have to call a truce on social issues to focus on the nation’s more immediate and existential crisis of crippling debt. Social conservative support for him evaporated, even though he is pro-life to his bones. He dismissed the remark to WORLD reporter Edward Lee Pitts, saying, “It is just a suggestion I made once.”
Will we pull ourselves out of this financial mess? Perhaps we will. But a nation is more than an economy. And economies go up and down; they tank and they peak. A nation is fundamentally a moral community. If we do not take proper care of our children, both in and out of the womb, there may not be a country to finance that we recognize as America.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top80 Comments to “Facing the crisis of our times”
I would add a third major problem to the mix of faltering families and abortion, the fact that in order to buy a house, a two income family is required.
I think it was about 1972 that I was engaged and the price of new houses jumped. Up until then banks would only lend a loan that the payment would be 25% of what the man’s income. Then it was recognized that a woman’s salary should be added to that income. I remember that new houses (3 bedroom, 2 bath) went from $28,000 to $40,000 in the course of a year. While the prices seem low today that was a big jump in one year, 43%!!
All sorts of social problems stem from women not being home during the day. Besides that, the fact that working women need a second car that doesn’t breakdown opened the door for Japanese cars.
And no, I am not a Neanderthal macho male, I run my house, don’t I Dear?
Gotta go finish the dishes!
Report comment to moderator
“A nation is fundamentally a moral community.”
Ouch! Where does that leave the United States of America?
And where do Darwinian and/or nihilist faithfuls get morality, or even meaning for existance, anyway?
Report comment to moderator
Unions?
Report comment to moderator
The more we hear about same-sex marriage and the more we see same-sex couples kissing and marrying on the news, the more that young evangelicals, according to polls, seem to find peace with a political settlement on the matter.
Because that level of “yuck” should totally be illegal, right?
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, I was not sure what D.C. Innes was saying in the quote you shared. Does Innes think that young evangelicals don’t really care about the result on this issue just as long as it is settled politically? I don’t think this was clear.
For myself, I have communicated my reasons for not supporting a politically pushed re-definition of marriage itself to please a particular gruop with particular preferences. My reasons, of course, never had anything to do with any alleged level of “yuck” either. As an older evangelical, I don’t often find “peace” in political settlements or in what politicians do either way. I find it at much deeper and more lasting levels.
Report comment to moderator
Our moral deficits are indeed far far more serious than our financial deficits. If we first fix the financial deficits, the moral deficits will remain and the financial deficits will come rushing back. If we fix our moral deficits, the financial deficits will eventually disolve.
Report comment to moderator
I would add to the “crisis of our times” the threat of radical Islamic regimes or rogue terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction, including atomic bombs. Certainly, Christians outside the U.S. have different crises – as in the Middle East, they’re not so much plagued with abortion and same-sex marriage as actually being murdered by the dozens by hate-filled Muslims. Therefore, this article is very America-centric. As for the Christian church overall, it would be good to recall that America only has about 4 or 5 percent of the world’s population, and probably not much higher than that percentage of the world’s Christians.
Report comment to moderator
That doesn’t mean we want to live in a cesspool.
Report comment to moderator
. A thoughtfully crafted, fully coordinated family policy should recognize the requirements for and the impediments to healthy family life, and inform the president of what is necessary and constitutional to strengthen it. State governors and local governments should do the same.
DC Innes is correct but I don’t think economic conservatives will agree. Capitalism and pro-family policies don’t always agree in fact they are frequently contradictory. To protect the family — economic justice, pro-education policies, health care, maternity and paterneity leave, etc would become more important.
BOB is also correct that personal income has not kept up with inflation and growing cost of basic needs thus necessitating two-family incomes. Hence, we see a rise in household incomes which neo-cons cite as evidence that neo-con economic policies work. They don’t and they are anti-family. Bob and a I may argue about what came first two income families or increased expenses (I think they may be concurrent), but we can both see this as a problem for families.
Of course, my solutions — paid paternity leave, free health care, tax credits, free education, etc — may not appeal to all of you.
Report comment to moderator
Bob, actually two incomes aren’t required. Careful use of resources is required, but two incomes are not. (Studies have shown that a second income actually adds very little to a family’s bottom line–you have to pay for child care, higher taxes, work clothes, more gas, etc., and you’re also more likely to eat out, spend more money on convenience foods, etc. And if the wife is home, she can make it part of her “job” to find ways to save money.) My family has never found that second job necessary–and no, we do not make high incomes, either.
It’s amazing to see God provide when we choose to trust Him on such things.
Report comment to moderator
God is wise and loving in calling some things sin, because sin damages or destroys relationships. He wants us to have good relationships and the primary one, he desires is between himself and us. The Statistical Abstract of the United States, printed by our own Census Department (link below) has printed for years that around eighty percent of U.S. babies aborted are from unwed mothers. The last printing reads that more than forty percent of babies born in the U.S. are to unwed mothers. This information doesn’t get presented in Sunday school lessons, nor do we hear it being preached from the pulpits. “Premarital Sex” is the cause of our abortions. Two unwed people having sex is not a family and data says rarely ever will become one. Sin is the cause of the failure of our families. Most Churches these days want to entertain their congregations rather than tell of sins damage to our souls and society. If the Church would preach the true and full Gospel there would be many innocent lives saved and heartaches avoided. With this Salt and Light, spoken in Love, the Church can build good relationships with babies conceived in true love and not in lust to then be aborted. Read what the early church said about fornication. Is God wise or not?
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0100.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0085.pdf
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote, “Capitalism and pro-family policies don’t always agree in fact they are frequently contradictory.”
I disagree. To protect the family, economic justice means cultivating a society wherein families keep more of what they justly earn (tax relief).
Pro-education policies means better accountability and making sure that the feds stay out of it so that the local authorities and local communities are empowered.
Pro-family interests are served when families (not the feds and not gov’t) have more private control over health choices, coverage needs and doctors and plans.
Who pays for more and more paternity leave (yet another way for people to get paid by the state for not working or being productive outside the home)? Paternity and maternity are crucial family responsibilities, NOT gov’t responsibilities.
Report comment to moderator
Communism or socialism and pro-family policies don’t always agree — in fact they are frequently and decidedly contradictory.
Quotes:
* “It is important to remember that the breakup of the family is not incidental, but central to official communist ideology.” Elton & Pauline Trueblood, “The Recovery of Family Life.” Harper & Brothers, 1953 (p. 15).
* “The Communist Manifesto made the attack on family loyalty perfectly clear. The Manfesto spoke of ‘The bourgeois claptrap about family and education, about the hallowed co-relation parent and child.’ That the family as developed through Judeo-Christian influence would come to an end with the completed revolution was vigorously asserted. ‘The bourgeois family,’ says the Manifesto, ‘when its complement (prostitution) vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.’ The main shift which the communist authors envisaged was from the family unit to larger social agencies.” Elton & Pauline Trueblood, “The Recovery of Family Life.” Harper & Brothers, 1953 (pp. 13-14).
* “The government of the proletarian dictatorship, together with the Communist Party and the trade unions, is, of course, leaving no stone unturned in the effort to overcome the backward ideas of men and women, to destroy the old uncommunist psychology . . . We are establishing communal kitchens and public eating-houses, laundries, and repairing shops, infant asylums, kindergartens, children’s homes, educational institutes of all kinds. In short, we are seriously carrying out the demand of our programme for the transference of the economic and educational functions of the separate household to society. ~ Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870 – 1924), leader of the Russian Revolution and the Russian Communist Party. 1920.
* “Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever” ~ Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870 – 1924), leader of the Russian Revolution and the Russian Communist Party.
__________________
Report comment to moderator
Good and relevant quotes from Joel Mark. I’m off to wikipedia and find out more about Elton Trueblood. That name has a ring of familiarity to it
Report comment to moderator
Sawmaker, I hope your searching is a blessing. The Author Elton Trueblood has always seemed rather objective in my understanding. He is a theologian who writes thoughtfully and very readably in matters of socioloty, politics and such. I have never perceived him as a fundamentalist or right winger, per se. In fact, I think he was a high academic who became a Quaker — or in some sense, came down to earth as it were. But he was not a pure pacifist.
I will check back on this thread to see if you post any highlights on Trueblood that you found worth sharing.
Report comment to moderator
Membership in society requires presence in society. The womb isn’t social space. Women, not Evangelical totalitarians, own and control the space in their bodies. The fetus is not “ours”; it’s hers, the mother’s. Presence in society, along with membership in society, commences at birth.
Although many rational and admirable people “approve” of abortion, the law does not, strictly speaking, assent, endorse, validate, or bless abortion. The law merely forbids the use of criminal process against those who contract for and perform abortions. One may be outraged that the law does not condemn abortion, but moral neutrality is not approval.
Few people believe that abortion should be prosecuted as murder. Without such an ethical consensus, criminal process would not be constitutionally proper.
Abortion couldn’t be genocide, even if it were murder, because women abort no other woman’s fetus than their own. The government doesn’t kidnap pregnant women and transport them to have involuntary abortions. Each abortion is the willed determination of a woman who carries the burden, and no one else.
The comments in this post don’t disprove the conviction that abortion is murder, they merely challenge the language that Evangelicals typically use when they express that conviction.
Report comment to moderator
The Nazis considered abortion to be a crime against society that deprived the Führer of future soldiers and workers. The idea was that the fetus belonged to society. Nazis punished abortion that they considered to be an act of resistance against the Reich Accusations in the People’s Courts brought the death penalty.
Fascists loved the idea that the fetus does not belong to the mother but to society.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, the Nazis only thought the abortion of arian whites was a crime against society. Like the founders of Planned Parenthood and so many abortionists and abortion industry supporters to this day, abortion is still seen and/or used as a means of eugenics to get rid of more minority humans–much as many of the Naxis thought and did.
But if the Nazis had opposed abortion consistently regardless of skin-color and race, then they would have been correct and decent on that particular point. And that would NOT have mitigated against the FACT that they were dead wrong and evil across the board on just about ALL other matters of life and sanctity.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote, “The womb isn’t social space.”
Huh? If it is or isn’t (it strikes me as an excessively theoretical or posed phrase that means whatever Scroop Moth wants it to mean), the baby in that womb is still a human baby.
The fetus (from a Latin word for “infant”) is not merely “hers” but it is indeed ours, as part of worthwhile humanity. As long and justice and dignity are deprived of one human being (baby or adult), justice and dignity are threatended for us all.
And the law not only uses the state to protect abortion and the abortion industry, but it prevents the people from having ANY say about its legality.
The law merely forbids the use of criminal process against those who contract for and perform abortions. One may be outraged that the law does not condemn abortion, but moral neutrality is not approval.
Report comment to moderator
Membership in society requires presence in society. Because the womb is a personal place, not a social space, the fetus isn’t present in society.
I’m stunned by Joel Mark’s failure to concede that a woman, not society, owns the contents of her body.
I’m willing to grant that Joel Mark is a better defender of pregnant women and custodian of their fetuses than the Nazis were, but both claim social ownership of something that is totally personal.
Report comment to moderator
DCINNES says Americans have committed 50 million abortions of human fetuses. I’ve seen no corresponding slide down a slippery slope toward the murder of living human persons who are born. Americans seem to me to be just as committed to the prosecution of murder as they were before Roe v. Wade.
Also, people are just as capable of the love and nurture of children, and I think they’ll remain so after another 50 million abortions.
The fundamental difficulty with the Evangelical position is that they’ll never persuade enough people to believe that abortion is murder. They can’t persuade themselves of that, truly. Evangelicals may preach ’til they’re blue in the face, but many reasonable and admirable people 30 years from now who oppose murder will still not believe that abortion is murder.
Report comment to moderator
#10 Cheryl D
“Bob, actually two incomes aren’t required.”
We lived in balmy SoCal, Downey to be precise. Our cheapest house was a two bedroom, one bath of 640 sq. feet for $29,000 in 1976. Our second house was a two bedroom, one bath of 1,400 sq. feet for $72,000 in 1976. My father and I added about 1,100 sq. feet, two more bedrooms, two baths and a laundry/sewing room four years later for abut $30,000. (Labor was free!)
We would not have been able to afford the second house on one salary. Would we have been better off in the first house for the next 30 years? We wouldn’t have adopted the third child, a girl without adding on a second time to that small house.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote at #20 – “Membership in society requires presence in society.”
So what? And human development requires presence in the womb. And society does not determine morality or decency, and the Nazis serve here as a legitimate proof of that truth.
Scroop Moth, “Because the womb is a personal place, not a social space, the fetus isn’t present in society.”
The womb is indeed a personal place. That’s why it should be a safe place too.
Report comment to moderator
Please re-read my post, Scroop. I did not say that a woman does not own the contents of her body. I said that the fetus is not merely “hers” but “it is indeed ours” as well. The baby is part of worthwhile humanity. And the woman is not an island unto herself alone, ESPECIALLY whan she carries a developing human being. As long and justice and dignity are deprived of one human being (baby or adult), justice and dignity are threatended for us all.
The life a a human being in the womb is BOTH personal and social (society plays a huge role in preparing for and celebrating the coming of a newborn).
Your insulting sarcasm positively comparing me with Nazis does not fly as either intelligent or amusing.
Report comment to moderator
Interestingly enough Scroop the fact that you insist that the women is choosing the abortion proves that abortion is in fact murder, even by common law, as the definition of murder is:
1. the killing
2. of a human being
3. by another human being
4. with malice aforethought.
These are the four parts of what murder is, and malice aforethought is fulfilled by any of these four:
1. Intent to kill,
2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an “abandoned and malignant heart”), or
4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the “felony-murder” doctrine).
You stated “each abortion is the willed determination of a woman who carries the burden, and no one else.” Thus by your own argument and line of logic, the woman’s intent to end the life of her unborn child indeed makes her a murderer.
The other part of your argument concerning personal space, if the law does not apply in my personal space, then why is it still illegal for me to kill anyone I please in my own house?
Finally the life of her unborn kid belongs to her unborn kid, and her kids life will always belong to her kid. My life does not belong to my mother, it never has. Under current word usage the ownership of another is slavery, and slavery being banned in this country means that under American law the mother cannot own her child’s life, thus she has no right to take it from her child.
Report comment to moderator
The notion of “membership” in society is important because abortion criminalizers like DCINNES claim that:
The test of any society is surely how it treats its weakest members. Babies in the womb—the faceless, the nameless, and the most completely dependent on the care of others—are surely the touchstones of our selfishness or our decency.
The fact that the fetus is not present in society is a strong argument that the fetus is not a member of society. Abortion is therefore not a test of how society treats members, individuals who have been delivered to and received by society.
The fetus belongs to the woman who carries it, not to society. Of course, what’s “ours” is also “hers” — but not the reverse.
This land is “our” land; however, you or I can be arrested for hiking across it without a permit. The park rangers tell us, “Welcome to your park, ” but you or I can’t act as if Yosemite is personal property, in any meaningful sense.
Calling something “hers” is a meaningless and disempowering concession that insults women by claiming that that “hers” is effectively the same as “ours.”
The Nazis claimed that what was “hers” was no more than what was “ours.” The Nazi theory of possession denegrated a woman’s claim to the contents of her body as “selfishness.” Hmmm.
Report comment to moderator
ROM116 — congratulations for making the argument that abortion is murder. I’m impressed, because it’s reasonably certain that not even the majority of Evangelicals believe that abortion should be treated the way murder is treated in criminal process.
For instance, most Evangelicals think that the kinds of circumstances that would be considered aggravating factors in murder cases (deliberation, convenience, economic benefit, hire, etc.) are actually exculpatory factors in abortion.
I’ll pass up the task of arguing that abortion isn’t murder (I think I won that argument on previous threads). It’s enough here to point out that many reasonable and admirable people think that it’s not, and this circumstance presents practical and constitutional difficulties for criminal process.
I’ve also made the argument that abortion does not appear to be a “slippery slope” which induces people to tolerate any acts that have been prosecuted as murder for at least 200 years. In fact, many conservatives argue that society is over-protecting children.
Report comment to moderator
I re-read your post, JOEL MARK. Frankly it’s like all of our posts here, not worth reading twice, if even once. Narcissists have the perfect right to demand repeated looks. However, instead of always saying, “re-read what I wrote” why don’t you just try saying it another way?
Report comment to moderator
I requested that you re-read my post, Scroop Moth, because you missed my point. Perhaps, if you read my posts seventy-seven times, you would still miss or distort my points. So, whether you read my posts is of little concern to me, but I have the right to correct you on what I myself actually said, after you misrepresent it in some way. I will say it another way when I deem it necessary, but if repetition can be avoided, why not try?
The human baby in the womb is present in human society and is a member of society. Abortion is fundamentally a test of how society treats members, especially its weakest and most dependent members. The Nazis should not determine our conclusions about this.
Report comment to moderator
One thing is worth repeating:
SCROOP MOTH, your insulting sarcasm positively comparing me with Nazis does not fly as either intelligent or amusing.
Report comment to moderator
but I have the right to correct you on what I myself actually said, after you misrepresent it in some way.
Of course, but who says otherwise? Not me, and I didn’t misrepresented you, either.
I said you failed to concede that a woman, not society, owns the contents of her body. This is true and correct.
You have the right to lie, too. You’re lying about me when you say I misrepresented that. You’re misrepresenting me.
I’ve been called a Nazi by Evangelicals on this blog, with reference to this subject. For me to compare Evangelical theories of ownership with Nazi theories of ownership is legitimate debate. XION frequently argues that the Nazis were leftist progressives. So why can’t I count the ways that the Nazis were like Evangelical right wingers? Stimmt das?
Report comment to moderator
JOEL – just because a poster doesn’t mirror back your posts to you as you wish to see them reflected to you doesn’t mean that other writers have “missed” your points. Sometimes your points don’t seem to require a comment, no matter how often you ask people to re-read them. I do understand how disappointing that is, though.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, a stomach could be referred to as “the contents of her body,” but not a fetus. The fetus has its own body, and in most cases that body is living in the woman’s body because of actions she voluntarily took part in. In other words, she chose to house a baby inside her.
Depersonalizing the little person is exactly how genocides begin. Calling it “the contents of her body” as though it is a tumor is inhumane and disgusting.
And let’s not forget the father. Because a father is involved we cannot speak of the baby as belonging (in whatever sense a baby belongs to anyone) to just the mother. Some women even say “we’re pregnant,” which is a silly but nicely inclusive way to involve the father.
Either way, this “present in society” thing is sophistic. If a woman secretly had a baby at home, would it be her right to kill it, since it has not been made present in society yet?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, you did misrepresent Joel Mark’s words, which is a clever rhetorical tactic, but it’s not very nice or very honest.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
Pro-family interests are served when families (not the feds and not gov’t) have more private control over health choices, coverage needs and doctors and plans.
And when proper medical care isn’t available, affordable, etc the community needs to institution policies which help families in medical crisis — that is pro-family.
Who pays for more and more paternity leave (yet another way for people to get paid by the state for not working or being productive outside the home)? Paternity and maternity are crucial family responsibilities, NOT gov’t responsibilities.
Depending on the gov’t. In Canada, paternity and maternity leave is funded through the federal unemployment insurance which in turn is funded through payroll deductions. Thus it operates as a publicly owed insurance scheme. You are correct — maternity/paternity belong to the family and by administrating an insurance program the gov’t makes it possible for the family to spend more time on their responsibilities. This is pro-family. I spent the first five months of my daughter’s life at home helping her mom. What can be more pro-family than two parents spending time with their children??
Report comment to moderator
The human baby in the womb is present in human society and is a member of society.
This is a rather bizarre position in light of your comments to me
Pro-family interests are served when families (not the feds and not gov’t) have more private control over health choices, coverage needs and doctors and plans.
If the womb and its fetus is present in human society and society has an interest in its well being, than society should also have an interest in the post-fetal health of a child.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A, in order for you to charge that I “misrepresented” another poster you have to be able to quote us both and explain how my statement “misrepresented” the other.
You didn’t do that, and you can’t.
JOEL MARK #19 said, “The fetus (from a Latin word for “infant”) is not merely “hers” but it is indeed ours, as part of worthwhile humanity.”
I responded at #20 that JOEL MARK failed to concede that “a woman, not society, owns the contents of her body.”
“A woman, not society” is neither contained in nor congruent with “not merely hers, but indeed ours”.
Thus, my conclusion about what he didn’t say is not contradicted by what he did say. JOEL MARK could easily make be wrong by saying he does believe “a woman, not society, owns the contents of her body,” but he not, so my declaration stands.
I believe the worst dishonesty is making accusations of wrongdoing without backing them up. In my opinion, accusers should put up or shut up. Evangelicals evidently think different. Maybe you and Joel think that defenses are so tedious that you can jolly well get away with false charges.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop I am in agreement with you concerning not starting up a debate that both of us have gone through far too many times with others. But I do want to thank you for encouraging me to actually study the definition of murder in common law and its implications to abortion, as well as encouraging the study of common and modern law in general. I like it when I am forced to debate things on more than one “level” as every issue can be debated in legal, religious, metaphysical, medical, and scientific contexts. It is good when any party or side of a debate is pushed to look at the issue from another context.
Report comment to moderator
Only from a Marxist worldview do we get falsehoods as:
“DC Innes is correct but I don’t think economic conservatives will agree. Capitalism and pro-family policies don’t always agree in fact they are frequently contradictory. To protect the family — economic justice, pro-education policies, health care, maternity and paterneity leave, etc would become more important.”
From a Christian worldview we get capitalism, pro-family and limited state interference; not only non-contradictory but a thriving combination. Our country became the shining beacon with this worldview without the socialism noted in the above quote. We are now nose-diving by implementing the Marxist giberish stated above over the past 70 years.
The Christian worldview incorporates sphere soverignty as designed by God. This revolves around personal responsibility delegated to each of the spheres without one sphere usurping the role and responsibility from the other spheres.
The Marxist worldview is self-destructive as we are witnessing the collapse of the socialist welfare countries today; the PIIGS, GB, US, etc. As we saw Argentina a decade ago.
Report comment to moderator
RWhawk
IF you think the PIIGS and GB are socialist, then we will have a hard time in any discussion. For me the only social democratic states are Scandanavia, the Netherlands, and Germany which are doing well in comparison to the rest of the EU. Given recent changes, I’m ready to throw Denmark and Norway out of the club. Canada (a regulated banking sector allowed them to escape 2008 virtually unscathed) and Australia have honorary membership in the club as they are as socially democratic as the Anglo-Saxon model allows.
Much of the current mess in other parts of Europe can be traced to a deregulated banking sector which invested in American securities and derivatives, especially Ireland and the UK. However, Greece, Italy and Portugal all suffered from varying degrees of corruption no matter which party (right or left) were in power.
Argentina suffered from a fascist military dictatorship.
The US is suffering from 35 years of neo-monetarist/conservative economic policy and no matter what tinkering Obama is doing with this model, nothing will improve the US unless there is radical change from the current model of high military spending, corporate subsidies, private-public health insurance,etc.
Report comment to moderator
The Christian worldview incorporates sphere sovereignty as designed by God. This revolves around personal responsibility delegated to each of the spheres without one sphere usurping the role and responsibility from the other spheres.
Why can’t sphere sovereignty revolve around an other ethic, say social justice?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark:
“The fetus (from a Latin word for “infant”) is not merely “hers” but it is indeed ours, as part of worthwhile humanity.”
In other words, the baby does not belong only to the mother but to all os us. It is clear that Joel Mark does not mean that other people own the baby, but that the baby is a part of humanity. It seems that he is talking about belonging in the sense of being part of a group. You are talking about belonging as ownership.
Scroop Moth:
“I’m stunned by Joel Mark’s failure to concede that a woman, not society, owns the contents of her body.”
The word merely is the key word. Joel does not deny that the baby belongs to the woman. He is pointing out that the baby does not belong only to the woman. In other words, it is not an inanimate possession that she can dispose of if she wishes.
You misrepresented what he wrote.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and Scroop Moth, you do believe that a child belongs to society, because you believe that it is society’s duty to feed, clothe, and house needy children. So shudder all you want.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, you do not go far enough in terms of change needed. We need to not just end corporate subsidies and drastically cur military spending, we need to end bank credit altogether since it exacerbates the boom and bust cycle and places too much economic power in the banks by handing them the control of the US dollar, which should be controlled by the gov’t, not the banks. We also need to completely rewrite our tax code, and end the favoritism shown toward existing businesses and corporations. Insurance needs to be banned altogether as well, as insurance has only successfully driven up health care costs for the past 50 years. Sections of the Wagner act exempting unions from parts of our criminal code. They should not be above the law. While we are at it, Social Security should be run as an actual trust fund, not a simple pay-in/pay-out system, since during hard times where people want their SS money, the SS gets a reduced income since fewer people are working and paying SS. Medicare and Medicaid need to be (over-time) eliminated, as well as all current regulations that encourage cure over prevention. Caring for those who have no way to support themselves should shift to the states instead of the federal government since the states, unlike the fed, are forced to balance their budgets.
Centralized gov’t power concerning the economy needs to be drastically reduced in order to reduce the flow of lobbyists to Congress, reducing corruption and keeping the market competitive, while reducing the chances of Congress passing legislation or spending contracts that will create inefficiencies in the market by favoring one or more companies over the rest.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
1) Your frequently expressed idea that presence in society is what makes one a person or a human being, is a dehumanizing assumption that others need not share. It’s completely arbitrary—and even nonsensical when you realize the logical implications for healthy children. It makes murder ok as long as you do it in secret, away from society—in the closet, so to speak.
2) As for your frequent implications that if abortion is murder then one must be willing to charge the mother with a crime, I partially agree with you. There is a reluctance to hold women accountable for the crime of killing their own children—depending upon their location (inside or outside the womb).
There are circumstances completely unique to pregnancy that don’t exist in any other relationship or condition. There is the constant proximity of the unborn child, the circumstances of his inception, and there are extreme physical/ hormonal influences that cannot be escaped and for which there is little or no relief until the birth. Some use these natural conditions as an excuse to treat the child like a disposable non-entity to be killed and discarded at will. This cultural dehumanization of what we all know is a living, developing, human child is barbarism.
Instead, I would say that these very unique conditions could be mitigating circumstances that might make abortion more akin to manslaughter than murder. Of course, those who callously profiteer from abortion have no such defense. But I would have no qualm about charging both the profiteer and the mother with a crime for such a depraved act. The only question is what charge. I would think murder is more appropriate for the abortionist, and manslaughter for the mother. If you were so inclined, you could make the case for murder for both, but I don’t think that it necessarily must be.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
you said: Why can’t sphere sovereignty revolve around an other ethic, say social justice?
Because social justice is an unGodly concept and violates God’s design of social order. Social justice is a derivative of the social gospel and is founded out of the Marxist worldview.
Report comment to moderator
HRW;
curious. you said: I’m ready to throw Denmark and Norway out of the club.
Why?
I know Sweden had to be thrown out of the club a while ago because they allowed multiculturalism into its society.
Report comment to moderator
ROM
e need to end bank credit altogether since it exacerbates the boom and bust cycle and places too much economic power in the banks by handing them the control of the US dollar, which should be controlled by the gov’t, not the banks.
you’re more extreme than me!! You would trust the gov’t to control the currency!! So would you follow the Chinese model which pegs its currency lower than its perceived value in order to give an indirect subsidy to manufactures?? Even I see the gov’t manipulation of currency as unnecessary — let the market decide and impose a transaction tax to discourage speculators. As for credit — its a necessary oil for the economy.
We also need to completely rewrite our tax code, and end the favoritism shown toward existing businesses and corporations
yes
Insurance needs to be banned altogether as well, as insurance has only successfully driven up health care costs for the past 50 years.
I would think big pharma did that as well as the use of technology. But would you outlaw co-op and mutual benevolent societies??
While we are at it, Social Security should be run as an actual trust fund, not a simple pay-in/pay-out system, since during hard times where people want their SS money, the SS gets a reduced income since fewer people are working and paying SS.
Agreed — the American system was built on weak foundations but is still flush for the next 30 some odd years
Medicare and Medicaid need to be (over-time) eliminated, as well as all current regulations that encourage cure over prevention.
public health and prevention are more important but this requires massive investment by the state. As well you can’t abandon the sick.
Caring for those who have no way to support themselves should shift to the states instead of the federal government since the states, unlike the fed, are forced to balance their budgets.
Thats a poor reason to delegate powers. There is something to be said for greater local control but not on a fiscal basis but rather unique local concerns.
Centralized gov’t power concerning the economy needs to be drastically reduced in order to reduce the flow of lobbyists to Congress, reducing corruption and keeping the market competitive, while reducing the chances of Congress passing legislation or spending contracts that will create inefficiencies in the market by favoring one or more companies over the rest.
I think most lobbying in Congress is by corporations seeking to limit the power of Congress, thus limiting central power is actually listening to lobbyists. Instead ban corporate (including unions) election donations, ban third party election ads for the three months prior to election, limit donations to $500 per voting age individual.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A
If you ask Scroop to be consistent you should ask Joel to be consistent. If he thinks society has an overriding interest in the health of the fetus (that is suppress abortions) than should he not think society has an overriding interest in the health of the fetus once its born.
I’m all for state pre-natal health care, maternity leave, free health care in general, special pregnancy income supplements for low income mothers, etc. And I support similar measures once the child is born.
Report comment to moderator
Because social justice is an unGodly concept and violates God’s design of social order. Social justice is a derivative of the social gospel and is founded out of the Marxist worldview.
Thats a pretty definitive declarative statement any chance its more than just a claim and it has some logical basis to it? How do you prove that God is not just nor is he benevolent? And what is God’s social order and how do you know this?
you said: I’m ready to throw Denmark and Norway out of the club. Why? I know Sweden had to be thrown out of the club a while ago because they allowed multiculturalism into its society.
Whether Sweden is multicultural or not has no bearing on social democracy in fact its usually a feature of social democracy. Denmark’s new gov’t has radically changed both its economic and social policies and moved it to the right. As for Norway that was an error on my part, it is social democratic in nature but its reliance on resource wealth may create environmental issues in the future (in this regard they are similar to Canada)
Report comment to moderator
Debra –
You won’t find one quote from me where I said that presence in society is what makes one a person or a human being. Those are your words, not mine.
I said that presence in society is necessary for membership in society, and that the fetus is not present in society until it passes from personal, non-public space into social space, and is delivered and received (born).
In my experience, the question of “what makes one a person” isn’t of much interest to most Evangelicals on this blog, because they usually believe that our genetic code makes us persons at the instant of conception.
I regard the Evangelical view of personhood as “dehumanizing” because it misjudges evolution and the wonderful, indispensable development which I believe “makes” a person. Evangelicals sneer at all the building blocks of personhood, one after another, because they define personhood as a metaphysical status, not as a product of natural history.
Nevertheless, Evangelicals are correct about the moral value of personhood. If I thought the fetus was a person, I’d also think that abortion was murder.
It seems to me that one important feature of personhood is the capacity to detect murder. Reasonable people universally share this ability. I doubt a prospective juror has ever been disqualified from a murder case for not believing that malicious killing of a person is wrong. Such an occurrence would truly be a man bites dog story. However, substantial numbers of reasonable jurors would have to be disqualified from an abortion trial for not believing that abortion is murder. The fact that instruments which are “designed” to detect murder don’t register in response to abortion is empirically significant.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A:
“Not merely hers” is different than “hers, not society’s”. Joint and several ownership (or whatever Joel claims) is different than sole ownership.
If A and B are different, and someone says A, then they didn’t say B.
Thus, I’m totally correct to say that Joel didn’t say “B”, or that he failed to concede that the fetus is “hers, not society’s.”
If y’all want to assert “B” and recognize that the fetus is “hers, not society’s”, then I’ll quit defending myself. But you won’t, which confirms my comments.
Your accusations are absurd.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
If those ‘instruments’ designed to detect murder can be fooled into thinking that killing a black man is not murder (as practiced by slavery in the US) then they can certainly be tricked into believing that killing an unborn child is not murder–at least for a time. Those ‘instruments’ may be deceived for some time by a lie. But in the long run, truth and light have a restorative affect that will not be denied.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
It is not my intent to misrepresent your position, but On ‘What Rov v Wade has wroght’ in #14 you said:
Maybe it would help if you clarify when you think a fetus becomes a human being or a person.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, I meant to link that.
http://online.worldmag.com/2011/01/28/what-roe-v-wade-has-wrought/#comments>
Report comment to moderator
#51, I said that presence in society is necessary for membership in society, and that the fetus is not present in society until it passes from personal, non-public space into social space, and is delivered and received (born).
Scroop,
I have the impression that your view is not one I would agree with [well, that's the understatement of the year] but that it is at least coherent—still, I’m not quite getting it. Your comments taken as a whole seem to imply that the term ’social space’ excludes the doctor, the mother and the child who is outside the womb. Is that correct?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
Also, is attaining ‘membership in society’ a one-time, lifetime event, or can it be withdrawn forcibly?
Report comment to moderator
Also, is attaining ‘membership in society’ a one-time, lifetime event, or can it be withdrawn forcibly?
You mean like on conviction of murder?
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
you ask: Thats a pretty definitive declarative statement any chance its more than just a claim and it has some logical basis to it?
I suppose if you are unfamiliar with what the common meaning is as found in our schools and from the Obama administration it would seem to be just a wild claim. But here is an answer to your first question:
“One of the favorite words of President Obama and his supporters is “justice,” often combined with the adjective “social.” We hear calls for government-imposed economic redistribution through taxes and various kinds of welfare, and advocates of same-sex marriage also talk about “social justice.”
Education for “social justice” is now very big in public schools. At least three recent books push for teaching “social justice” even in math classes, which means spending less time learning the multiplication table and more time learning about the uneven distribution of wealth in the United States. (But isn’t one of the greatest injustices leaving kids without enough math knowledge to get a decent job and begin redistributing some money to themselves through hard work?) — Marvin Olasky
Social justice is just a repackaged Marxist concept…..a very unGodly concept
you ask: How do you prove that God is not just nor is he benevolent?
This is a baseless question
you ask: And what is God’s social order…?
God given roles and responsibilities of family, church, state, etc. A common term for this would be sphere sovereignty.
you ask: and how do you know this?
By knowing His revealed word found in the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
#58 Conan,
Re murder–Yes, that did occur to me. But I wondered if there are other circumstances. Would withdrawal of membership (that is such an odd concept to me) be a mere legality, or are there moral parameters. I am unfamiliar with this terminology within this context–except from Scroop. Is this thought formalized elsewhere?
Report comment to moderator
Social justice is just a repackaged Marxist concept…..a very unGodly concept
Again you’ve done nothing to prove this statement.
you ask: How do you prove that God is not just nor is he benevolent?
This is a baseless question
Why??
you ask: And what is God’s social order…?
God given roles and responsibilities of family, church, state, etc. A common term for this would be sphere sovereignty.
Very general answer exactly what roles and responsibilities??
you ask: and how do you know this?
By knowing His revealed word found in the Bible.
The exact same place those who formulated the social gospel found their inspiration. How do you know you’re right and they are wrong?
Report comment to moderator
Debra — I’m going to pass on a discussion of timing. Religious thinkers and psychologists can offer various determinations for the appearance of personhood. The points I make are narrow. The human fetus presents no behaviors that are characteristic of personhood and is not present in society. We recognizes legal personhood at birth.
I think that involuntary euthanasia is murder, regardless of the personal capacities of the victim. One of the dimensions of personhood is shared memory, both personal and social, which confers dignity even upon a person in a vegetative state.
It is true that the Bible, ancient law, common law, and early American law all failed to provide slaves with the full protection of the law of personal injury, to say the least.
EX 20: 20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Incidentaly, Exodus immediately then also excludes the fetus from the protection of the law of personal injury, according to the best interpretation.
I don’t think it’s necessary to take a single indicator as absolute, the way Evangelicals regard “the moment of conception.” The results of my “murder detectors” are just one kind of evidence which speak mostly to the constitutionality of criminal process rather than to the absolute identification of personhood.
Please note that nothing I’ve said about abortion allows slavery or the injury of slaves. Slaves are persons, so harming and killing them is personal injury.
Also note that common law did not explore the boundaries of slavery to the extent that contemporary thought has explored the ethics of abortion.
If you want to analogize the moral challenge of slavery to our disputes about abortion, we could have a very long discussion and you’d have a number of serious difficulties, if past discussions here are any indication.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
No, please, let’s not drag slavery into the dispute. I’m not even dragging myself fully into the dispute. But I’m curious, where did you come up with the whole membership in society idea? Is that original, or is it some system of thought I’ve never heard of—admittedly there are plenty of those.
Other than that, I really think we tend to make it more complicated than it need be. We all know that the fetus is a developing child; and eventually people will come to their senses and acknowledge it legally as they have in the past.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
try ‘redistribution of wealth.’ government is to take from those that do and give to those that don’t; divide society up into the have and have-not classes.
you ask: How do you prove that God is not just nor is he benevolent? This is a baseless question. Why??
You committed a logical fallacy…it’s a loaded question
you ask: And what is God’s social order…? God given roles and responsibilities of family, church, state, etc. A common term for this would be sphere sovereignty. Very general answer exactly what roles and responsibilities??
I’ve shown you the direction to persue, you can reasearch this topic yourself as it demands more space than this site allows and I really don’t owe you much more. Read the Bible and then you tell me what you learned for the role of family, church, state, individual, spheres of labor and community.
you ask: and how do you know this?
By knowing His revealed word found in the Bible. The exact same place those who formulated the social gospel found their inspiration. How do you know you’re right and they are wrong?
Matthew 7:15-16 (HCSB)
15 “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves.
16 You’ll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
It is helpful at this point to remember that classical liberal Protestantism is humanistic, and its approaches are primarily man-centered rather than God-centered.?2? When a church begins to stray from faithfulness to Christ, this will be evident not only in the shift to impure doctrine (which can sometimes be concealed from church members by the use of evasive language) but also in the daily life of the church: its activities, its preaching, its counseling, and even the casual conversations among members will tend to become more and more man-centered and less and less God-centered.
Grudem, Wayne A.: Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich. : Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994, S. 875
Report comment to moderator
What is “personhood”? An embryo and fetus are differentiated from the mother by DNA, possibly blood type, heart, and brain waves. When is brain activity sufficient to confer the status of “personhood”? Did Terri Schiavo achieve personhood?
Report comment to moderator
Put another way, how can a full materialist claim the fetus has no personhood? According to their explanations, our mind or conscious is epiphenomenal, a product of bio-chemical reactions in the brain.
Report comment to moderator
#65 I’d like to know if Scroop thinks Terri Schiavo lost her personhood before her heart stopped beating. And why.
Report comment to moderator
But I’m curious, where did you come up with the whole membership in society idea?
You’re not paying close attention to your own side, DEBRA. Membership in society is one of y’alls favorite terms of analysis. DCINNES: “The test of any society is surely how it treats its weakest members.”
We all know that the fetus is a developing child . .
I don’t. That’s like saying an embryo is a budding writer. The fetus is a developing fetus. It’s human, but not yet a developing child. A toddler is a developing child. A developing fetus is not the same as a developing child. If you can’t see the difference, you don’t know what a child is.
Of course Terry Schiavo was a person, and still is, in hallowed memory. One aspect of personhood is the ethical capacity to express one’s will in advance about being kept alive in a persistent vegetative state. Evangelicals were wrong about Terry’s brain and wrong about Mr. Schiavo’s right to speak for her in the circumstances.
Report comment to moderator
Ha. Scroop, I guess I’m not paying enough attention regarding the ‘membership’ argument. Perhaps because it’s not terminology I would use myself.
But I think you’re wrong that we don’t clearly know that the fetus is a developing child. Given appropriate sustenance, appropriate shelter, and time (which is nothing more than any human being physically needs to survive), and it is impossible for the fetus NOT to develop into a child. You have to kill it to prevent this from happening. On the other hand, while it is not impossible for an embryo to develop into a budding writer, it is unlikely, given the number who actually DO become writers. Though the number is not zero.
“One aspect of personhood is the ethical capacity to express one’s will in advance about being kept alive in a persistent vegetative state.”
I won’t argue over Schiavo, but she didn’t express her will in a way that her loved ones could have any degree of certainty of her intent. And Mr. Schiavo’s word seemed patently self-serving. But that’s history.
Report comment to moderator
RWH
try ‘redistribution of wealth.’ government is to take from those that do and give to those that don’t; divide society up into the have and have-not classes.
thats a fairly limited and simplistic definition of social justice. I would think rather than dividing society up it seeks to eliminate the already present division of haves and have nots. And its not about do and don’t since much of the rich consumptive class doesn’t actually do much either — other than hoard their cash in the Cayman Islands. If equity of opportunity exists, than people will be able to create and contribute more.
you ask: How do you prove that God is not just nor is he benevolent? This is a baseless question. Why?? You committed a logical fallacy…it’s a loaded question
I don’t think you understand what I’m implying “God is just” is a preposition or it proclaims a quality of being God. However, its impossible to falsify that statement ie God is not just. Hence, God is either intrinsically just or the quality of justice cannot logically be attributed to God. If we go with the former, than justice is demanded by God’s existence or if we go with the latter than God is arbitrary in his rewards and punishments. I would think we would prefer to go the justice route and hence we must raise the question what is God’s justice?
you ask: and how do you know this? By knowing His revealed word found in the Bible. The exact same place those who formulated the social gospel found their inspiration. How do you know you’re right and they are wrong? Matthew 7:15-16 (HCSB) 15 “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves. 16 You’ll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
Yes but even the devil quotes scripture,
but also in the daily life of the church: its activities, its preaching, its counseling, and even the casual conversations among members will tend to become more and more man-centered and less and less God-centered.
he leaves his terms undefined. And essentially what he says is people’s works are proof of their correctness in doctrine — not sure if that’s the position you want to take.
Report comment to moderator
Personhood is a legal term in anglo-saxon tradition. Until recently it excluded slaves and women. But now also includes non-humans such as corporations. In roman civil law, the term person is defined as a legal entity capable of responsibility. Hence, the mentally ill frequently lose rights and are detained indefinitely.
In discussing fetal rights and abortion, you can try to extend “personhood” rights to the fetus but then you limited the rights of women which were previously established.
However, you may approach the debate by defining what it means to be human — thus it becomes a more moral or philosophical argument which may have legal implications down the road.
In viewing abortion laws throughout the western world (ie Roman civil and anglo-saxon common law approaches), we see that most jurisdictions have taken a “developing personhood” approach — limiting abortion to early trimesters, place a mother’s rights over a fetus’ developing rights, etc.
For the pro-life group to move forward in the debate they must continue this approach of “developing personhood rights” while simultaneously advancing the claim of a fetus being human. You may not achieve an outright abortion ban but you will limit the number of abortions.
Report comment to moderator
No. It’s the sanctity of life and American public opinion is slowly moving our way as we learn more about gestation. Our warrant is that we’re created in the image of God; body, soul and spirit. By attempting to determine when “quickening” occurs, Pro-choice are using similar rationalizations as those used to justify slavery.
Regarding God’s justice: the orthodox view – though frequently challenged – holds that justice emanates from God’s nature or his God’s aseity.
Report comment to moderator
DEBRA – what’s up with asking a question, getting an answer, replying that you won’t argue, and then making an argument?
It could be that Mr. Schiavo was lying. It’s possible that his wife never expressed a personal opinion about being kept alive in a PVS, or that she discussed it at length and begged Mr. Schiavo to keep her alive at all costs. We’ll never know, this side of the Last Judgment. And you know what? For our purposes it makes no difference, except to enable Evangelicals to feel superior to Mr. Schiavo.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
There’s no need to froth over Shiavo; you brought her up, not me. The moral of the story is have your family affairs in order or have a living will (or both), because life is uncertain and there are no do overs. The end. Unfortunately, the capacity to make ethical decisions doesn’t mean a person will make them (at all—either ethically or unethically). So it’s hardly a necessary ingredient of your ‘personhood’, is it.
You’re just ticked because you can’t refute the abortion argument.
Report comment to moderator
DEBRA, you dizzy. Wagus #54 brought it up. I didn’t discuss Schiavo case until #68, after your query at #67.
I don’t bring up either mercy killing or slavery as a rhetorical strategy in abortion debates, dear. Count on me to mention australopithecines, however.
Report comment to moderator
HRW
you said: I would think rather than dividing society up it seeks to eliminate the already present division of haves and have nots….. If equity of opportunity exists, than people will be able to create and contribute more.
Egalitarianism….another concept from Marxism
“The parallels between the old, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism are evident. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, shares with classical Marxism the vision of a “classless society,” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition. Since that vision contradicts human nature – because people are different, they end up unequal, regardless of the starting point – society will not accord with it unless forced. So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced.”
You said: the rich consumptive class doesn’t actually do much either — other than hoard their cash in the Cayman Islands.
Really??? Who has rightful claim to that cash? Is it you and your covetousness via confiscation by the state? Is it the states? Or does the cash belong to those that earned it who can do with it as they prefer?
you said: Yes but even the devil quotes scripture,
And each quote by the devil was recognized as bad fruit…what’s the point you are trying to make other than supporting what I posted?
you said: he leaves his terms undefined. And essentially what he says is people’s works are proof of their correctness in doctrine — not sure if that’s the position you want to take.
The position Grudem takes is very biblical. I don’t agree that his terms are undefined. They are clearly understood by those with a Christian worldview and these man-centered (bad) fruits he points out are recognized for what they are, products of corrupted faith. Works is an outpouring of faith and these are the fruits from which to judge.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I will show you faith from my works. James 2:18 (HCSB)
you ask: I would think we would prefer to go the justice route and hence we must raise the question what is God’s justice?
Why don’t you begin and explain what you conceive His justice to be or what you want His justice to be. That will allow me to focus in on any misconceptions.
Report comment to moderator
Egalitarianism….another concept from Marxism
Sorry my argument isn’t for egalitarianism only equality of opportunity. You will have unequal results but at least everyone was on roughly the same starting line.
Really??? Who has rightful claim to that cash? Is it you and your covetousness via confiscation by the state? Is it the states? Or does the cash belong to those that earned it who can do with it as they prefer?
Was it earned? Was it earned morally? Who create the cash? Who maintains its value? Was the money earned due to institutions and laws put in place by society and gov’t?
. I don’t agree that his terms are undefined. They are clearly understood by those with a Christian worldview
that is to those who share the same assumptions as he does. But I’m not part of the choir so his terms are loaded in that they depended on the perspective of the user.
hese man-centered (bad) fruits he points out are recognized for what they are, products of corrupted faith.
how do you distinguish between man centered and god centered and how do you notice causal links between corrupted faith and bad fruit?
Sorry — you define socialism as unjust, hence you define the term. I’m only saying others have said socialism is just and capitalism is unjust and they too proclaim themselves Christians. Since you have come out definitively for one side you need to justify it.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
you said: Sorry my argument isn’t for egalitarianism
but is this not egalitarianism, eliminating the division of haves and have nots?: you say: I would think rather than dividing society up it seeks to eliminate the already present division of haves and have nots.
you say: only equality of opportunity. You will have unequal results but at least everyone was on roughly the same starting line.
Sounds grand…what is essential to implement this? What really is equality of opportunity?
I asked: Really??? Who has rightful claim to that cash? Is it you and your covetousness via confiscation by the state? Is it the states? Or does the cash belong to those that earned it who can do with it as they prefer?
Just answer the question rather than tap dance. Whose earned money is it to do with it as they please?
you said: that is to those who share the same assumptions as he does. But I’m not part of the choir so his terms are loaded in that they depended on the perspective of the user.
No, the meaning of the words depend upon the intent of the author. Your view is that of deconstruction….depend upon the perspective of the user. No it depends upon the ability and responsibility of the reader to discern the authors intent. Grudems intent is easier for me to understand as we both share the same worldview; it will require more work on your part to attempt to understand his writing. But that is your responsibility.
you ask: how do you distinguish between man centered and god centered and how do you notice causal links between corrupted faith and bad fruit?
By knowing the intent of the Author which is quite clear when you know scripture and know Him, His nature and character. With this knowledge and understanding you only have to be observant: does it glorify man and the creation or the Creator? Good or bad fruit is a result of one’s belief system/worldview/religion.
you said: I’m only saying others have said socialism is just and capitalism is unjust and they too proclaim themselves Christians.
Please provide the names of these Christians and references to what the basis of their positions are. Let’s discover if their theology is based on Liberation Theology or Black Liberation Theology and expose the Marxist worldview that predominates in these two theologies. Would Jim Wallis be one of these?
Report comment to moderator
What really is equality of opportunity?
nothing complicated — access to information, basic living standards, preventive health care, etc. In effect, each person has the same starting point and its their responsibility to accomplish something.
Just answer the question rather than tap dance. Whose earned money is it to do with it as they please?
I’m not tap dancing I’m raising legitimate questions. Its more complicated than asserting simple slogans.
No it depends upon the ability and responsibility of the reader to discern the authors intent.
good writers don’t require their readers to play guessing games. He assumes an audience which is fine but then those outside of his audience have no use for his words and it means nothing to them.
By knowing the intent of the Author which is quite clear when you know scripture and know Him, His nature and character.
Wow who knew understanding the bible was so easy — an to think Europe fought hundreds of wars over the correct interpretation.
Good or bad fruit is a result of one’s belief system/worldview/religion.
no the definition of good/bad fruit depends on one’s belief system.
Let’s discover if their theology is based on Liberation Theology or Black Liberation Theology and expose the Marxist worldview that predominates in these two theologies.
now were back to my original questions — why do you assert a conflict between liberation theology/social gospel and “true” Christianity?
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
you say: nothing complicated — access to information, basic living standards, preventive health care, etc. In effect, each person has the same starting point and its their responsibility to accomplish something
Sounds grand…what is essential to implement this with funding, roles and responsibilities? What is access to information besies what is readily avaiable now? What programs are necessary for providing basic living standards? etc??? what is hidden with ‘etc’?
you say: I’m not tap dancing I’m raising legitimate questions. Its more complicated than asserting simple slogans.
From a Christian worldview it is a basic, simple issue. Tell me why a Marxist worldview makes it much more complicated?
you say: good writers don’t require their readers to play guessing games.
I am not talking about guessing games but rather the readers responsibility. The true issue is with how different worldviews affect a writers and readers interpretation. To be a responsible reader the reader must know/understand the writers worldview whether or not he shares the truth claims of that worldview.
you say: no the definition of good/bad fruit depends on one’s belief system.
This is correct and incorrect. Each worldview/religion will have its own ethical notions of good and bad. But for our discussion the meanings of good and bad come from the worldview Christ teaches as we are using His quote.
you ask: now were back to my original questions — why do you assert a conflict between liberation theology/social gospel and “true” Christianity?
http://www.ronrhodes.org/Downloadable.html
“In 1985, a leader of the conservative wing of the Roman Catholic church in Latin America, Bishop Hoyos, denounced liberation theologians, saying: “When I see a church with a machine gun, I cannot see the crucified Christ in that church. We can never use hate as a system of change. The core of being a church is love.”[1]”
Liberation theology, black liberation theology and even feminist liberation theology plays on hatred and class warfare whether rich Vs poor; white Vs black or male Vs female.
The Bible teaches that nature and character of God never changes and therefore His truths remain the same and transcend all cultures. But liberation theology disagrees with this.
“Gustavo Gutierrez, author of A Theology of Liberation, provides us with a representative methodology. Like other liberationists, Gutierrez rejects the idea that theology is a systematic collection of timeless and culture-transcending truths that remains static for all generations. Rather, theology is in flux; it is a dynamic and ongoing exercise involving contemporary insights into knowledge, humanity, and history.”
You can tell them by their fruit! Their doctrines conflict with scripture.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!