Christian Alliance for Progress Update & "You Are the One," by Guest Blogger Xpatriated Texan

I just found this site today and considering personal membership! May I reprint this wonderful posting by Xpatriated Texan in our newspaper? I am with the "The Informed Constituent", published in Albany/Capital Region of New York. It is an educational tool to help people understand government and how to get involved in their communities. We plan on franchising it across the nation. Website: www.fourthbranchofamerica.org (click on TIC Archives in left menue to download a sample issue). We go to print next week on June 30th, so need to know right away.

Thank you!
Kimberly

Preach on, brother!

Kimberly:

Welcome! I gave Thurman your e-mail to get his approval. As far as this Blog is concerned, you can publish--please mention where you found the post, so that others can find their way here.

Great post, Thurman!

Best regards,
FP

Thank you so much for that article. It is so true. I wish I could say more about it, but..just...thanks. I think I have been busy being angry about the face that the Right has given our beloved church and haven't thought about actually doing anything about it.

To my eloquent and altar-calling brother Thurman/Xpatriated Texan: WOW! You are right on! I find it hard to believe, but I kept nodding my head with every additional thought of yours that I read. It is true that, in some ways, Christianity has been hijacked by the "majority" of vocal and divisive reactionary voices for the last couple decades. Many of us have continued to work at growing to live more Christ-like lives while at the same time reaching out to those in need, but it has been difficult to even voice an opinion for fear of getting stared down in our own churches. But you are absolutely right - Christ not only desires, but expects us to speak out, to speak the truth, in love, and help others to understand that truth....which is, love the Lord your God with all your heart/soul/strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. There is nothing in the Book about judging others, except the admonition in Matthew 7 to "judge not lest ye be judged." This great nation was founded on the principle of religious freedom and tolerance, not religious domination and intolerance. Be a voice for those in need, and remind our brothers and sisters that "God is Love." It really is that simple.

It's odd that you find it hard to imagine Jesus carrying a cardboard sign in protest. In fact I've been told he dragged a huge piece of wood across Jerusalem to call attention to our sins and then let himself be nailed to it. Before he did that he upturned tables in the temple, and it seems spent many a Saturday chastising the religous leaders of his day.

Did he do all that so women could discard that life that was growing within their bodies? Those bodies are temples to God, and the unborn children in their wombs are created in the likeness of God. Jesus calls us all to take up our cross and follow him. Picking up a cardboard sign and confronting the destruction of life seems pretty Chist-like to me.

Well Jon, if thats what you believe, fine.

Personally I find it pretty un-Christ like to have the government controlling the bodies and reproductive functions of women. Forcing them to go through a pregnancy against their will is pretty oppressive.

Leaving the sphere of religion, I think its hard to justify anti-abortion laws in the context of our government. While legal abortion does not stop you from chosing not to get an abortion, illegalizing abortion stops me from getting one. In a country with seperation of church and state, your ideal law would force your religious beleifs on me and my ideal law would allow room for both of us to live out our faith in our actions.

Dear Jon: While our Savior may have willingly carried/dragged that cross on his back up to Calvary, it was not a "sign" or a "protest" - it was a burden, a death sentence, that was cast upon him by the Romans and the Jewish leaders of his day. Symbolically it was put on him by all humanity.

To compare that to political sign-carrying of any sort is sad, nay, almost sacrilegious. Political expression is fine, but don't demean the sacrifice our Lord made by comparing it to anti-abortion demonstrations.

Remember, Jesus wants us to come together, to love each other, not to deride and scourge each other. Love is the answer. You think that sounds too simple? Think again....

John,

Abortion should be illegal like any other taking of innocent human life. No faith is required to see that. As for the oppression of pregnancy, I think that is why many people would accept legality of abortion in the case of rape. In such an instance it would still be a wonderful act of love to carry such a child to birth, because that child carries no more guilt than the rest of us.

Jeff,

In the words of Paul, the crucifixation was a sign: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

Also, it was "not cast upon him by the Romans or the Jewish leaders," because as it says in Isaiah 53:4, "Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted." (See the next verse after that if it's not clear that refers to the cross.)

Now to take that sign for political purposes would indeed be sacrilege, but the pro-life protestors are speaking specifically about the sanctity of life. The fact that that position has come to be associated with just one of our major parties and not the other does not make their actions political.

My reason for making these comments is not to deride or scourge anyone, and please forgive my limited writing abilities if I come off that way. We probably never come together on these specific ideas, but through the power of God we still be Christian brothers.

Jon:

First, I agree with you that a Christian must act in ways that his or his conscience dictates. Though personally disagreeing with your views on abortion, it may either be the Christian or the American in me (probably both) that vigorously defends your right to speak your truth. Yet what I have witnessed at some antiabortion demonstrations has seemed anything but Christian. Screaming vicious epithets at women who choose them, condemning them to Hell (which Christ SPECIFICALLY taught us NOT to do when he stopped the stoning of the adulterous woman)and egging on other protestors toward more and more violence against abortion doctors seems as far away from the spirit of the Savior as anything I have seen. Remember? We don't get to say whether ANY human life is "innocent" or guilty - even an abortion doctor. In fact, some interpretations of Biblical teaching suggest that the product of any "sinful" sexual union is not innocent (even an unborn child). I certainly disagree with that, but if you study the actual Bible and not James Dobson's or other fundamentalist's teachings there is certainly some room for argument there.

I just don't believe Christ came so that we might stand in judgment against one another, but that we work on OURSELVES so that our actions conform to God's will. I don't feel I have the right to condemn any other individual person (unborn or otherwise)as not "innocent". And there is no doubt from what I've seen that many anti-abortion protestors do that. Being a witness is appropriate, being a hater is not.

Also, you state that abortion, like the taking of any other "innocent" human life, should be illegal. And that "no faith is required to see that". Well, I can tell you that I am a person of great faith, and I have spent many hours in prayer considering the question of abortion. And I just haven't come around to your point of view. Nor have many other devoted believers that I know. I will continue to pray about this, and hope that you will consider also what I say to you. God bless you

I dont think the original post was all about abortion--but the discussion has unfortuneately devolved into that.

The original post was far more about the "Right" having perverted the Kingdom of God from being HIS LIFE and the celebration of that--to POWER AND TURF and clutching onto that.

The "Right" strongly pushes the notion the that Kingdom of God is based on what America does, and stands for, in the world.

This is blasphemy. This is idolatry. This is money changers in the Temple. This is a stench to God. This is whiteashed tombs. This is leprosy in the body of Christ.

Rather than serving with an open hand...it has the clenched iron fist of domination.

The Kingdom of God, according to the New Testament, is comprised ONLY of God the Father, the Son, and His Body. It is made of His substance and Eternal Life. It has nothing to do with political / economic / geographical conquest--and is strongly opposed to it.

The Kingdom of God has to do with HIS power, HIS victory, HIS Life, HIS sharing that Life, and we being made and conformed into His image and sharing His life.

It is also about us LOSING earthly power in deference to His, laying down our lives for those who hate us, loving/serving our enemies, and taking the lowest seat.

May we debate these issues, please?

Gregory Benesch
Eugene, Oregon

I agree with Gregory.

This community is about the diversity of Christians, and it is healthy for us to discuss the questions of our faith and issues like homosexuality and abortion with open minds and hearts.

But what's more important is we discuss the religious right and what they're doing in the name of Christ. How they're using Him to push forth this agenda. Many of the specific issues involved we can discuss and debate, but just the fact that they are using His name for their own purposes is something we should be talking about here, and how we can stop them. It's true that Jesus was political, and as his followers we should get involved in politics. This is not the same as utilizing the faith of a nation for personal gain. We should join together and think of ways that we can stop this from continuing in America.

However, I do want to contribute to the dialogue concerning abortion as well.

It would be a great day when all cases of heterosexual sex were between two consenting loving adults in monogomous relationships, when bearing children was always a emotionally and physically safe, and raising a child would never be an onerous burden.
But that day isn't today. I speak for my peers and youngers when I know that sex happens often under pressure, either from the partner or society. It's entering a world that they don't fully understand. We make mistakes throughout our lives but when we're young we seem to make more. Mistakes that young people and others involved should not be so harshly punished for.
Women are left by the fathers of their children with no money, no place to go, no place to turn to. And then it is she who is to blame.
At a high school where I'm from, Long Island, a young woman was not put in the program of her graduation ceremony, even though she had achieved her diploma, because she was pregnant. The father however, who went to the same high school and was of the same year, was in the program. She had the courage to walk anyway but in a culture that so often allows these injustices its a wonder anyone would be capable of the strength necessary to keep that pregnancy.
Rape is a common occurance as well. And even when a woman has the courage to press charges, its a crime that often goes unpunished by the law. There is usually little evidence that can stand up in court, especially in the cases of acquaitance or "date rape".

For these reasons and others I think that abortion should always be a legal option.

But I'd like to see there be as few abortions as possible. It can be traumatic for the woman and whether an embryo is a life or isn't it's not something to be taken lightly.

I propose this:
Could both sides of this debate agree that preventing pregnancy in the first place would be a viable and worthy solution?

I wish I had specific references but I've read of many studies proving that abstinance only education rarely works. Teach young people everything they can about what's out there so they can protect themselves and make informed decisions. Having the means of protecting themselves available is an easy way to prevent pregnancy and therefore abortions. Again, I have no references but studies have been done and available protection doesn't increase promiscuity. Hormones have been doing the job just fine on their own for quite some time. But even more important than the mechanics of all this,

Why not have schools and parents be teaching their children how to stand up to pressures in society and other people, teach them self worth, teach them independence and confidence and self respect?

Young women could be encouraged to learn basic self defence. They'll be more wary of dangerous situations and learn to try and avoid them all together, but even if they are attacked, they'll have some idea what to do.

To the picketers:
Instead of holding up your signs and harassing women who have already been put down as far as they can go, why not spend all that energy establishing places where women can go and feel safe and be helped through the difficulty of pregnancy? So many women could use emotional counseling, financial help, spiritual guidance. Give them the support and strength they need to keep the infant either to raise themselves or to put up for adoption.
Isn't that what Christ would have wanted? For us to stand up for "the least of these" and give them all we could? To teach our sons how to be men, to teach our daughters self respect and to give them help when no one else will? To teach not with words but by action and example?
Not to attack others and try to teach with a holier than thou attitude, something that is impossible in the Christain faith. It is so much easier to point to someone who's already been beaten down and push them even further. It's hard to reach out and do the right thing.

Before I forget to say it, thank everyone for the comments. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I say and I think it is good for the family of God if we have a few arguments over things. In the end, we need to remember that we are first and foremost Christians and that should be what unites us no matter what else we disagree upon.

Would Jesus carry a cardboard sign in protest? If you can show me where he did so in the Bible, I'll be happy to recant - however the examples given show quite the opposite action.

The cross was not a sign of protest to shame people into action. It was a means of providing a living sacrifice that would draw people to the love of God. It was not directed, for example, at stopping the practice of scourging or even crucifixion. It was directed beyond the political sphere to those who were suffering and oppressed and badly in need of God's love.

Similarly, the example of throwing the money-changers out of the temple was not an act of political protest. Rather, it was a symbol of purging the church of a secular master - the love of money. My understanding is that the money-changers were violating scriptural law within the sanctuary of the temple. They had set themselves up as gate-keepers for God's house. We are not called to be gate-keepers, but sign-posts. We are not to impeded people entering the house of God, but to break down any and all barriers that stand before doing so.

For the life of me, I can't see how marching in front of a clinic is doing that.

What if Christians, instead of protesting abortion, worked harder to make it unneccessary? picture this scenario...

A woman enters an abortion clinic and looks around nervously. The only other person in the waiting room is an older woman who looks up from her Bible and smiles. The young woman smiles back, but quickly hides her face to hide her shame.

As she sits, her hair hanging over her face as she tries to fade into the wall, the older woman comes and sits next to her. After a moment of silence, the older woman says,

"I'm pretty sure I know what brings you here, so I won't insult you by acting like I don't. It's none of my business what the circumstances in your life are, so I won't insult you by asking about that, either.

"In fact, the only thing I'm going to ask you is to remember me. Regardless of what you decide to do today, remember me. Here's a card with my phone number. Take it. Use it no matter what you decide.

"My faith calls me to minister to those in need - and we both know that you fit that description. With your permission, I'd like to pray with you and ask for God to guide you through your decision today and for the rest of your life while you deal with that decision.

"If you decide you want to keep your child, then understand there will be hard times ahead. There will be times when the baby cries and you have no refuge from the sound that breaks your heart. There will be expenses of diapers and formula and doctor visits. There will be times when you need a ride to work or to daycare - or maybe times when you can't afford daycare.

"That's when I want you to think of me. Call the number on the card. Whatever you need - whenever you need it - I will let God use me to provide it for you. If, for some reason, God chooses not to provide you with anything but the company of an old woman who prays too much for most younger people, then I can most assuredly offer you that.

"If you decide to have an abortion - and let's not pretend that isn't an option - then I want you to know that you may still have a hard rode ahead. There may be times when you are depressed. There may be times when your body aches for the lost child. There may be times when you wonder if you did the right thing.

"That's when I want you to remember me. Call me then. I'll never judge you or condemn you for the actions that God allows you to take. Instead, I'll come to you, and I'll sit with you. I'll hold your hand when you cry. I'll fix a cup of tea and sit in silence. And all the time, I'll be praying. If you want to hear my prayer, I'll say it out loud. If not, I'll keep it between me and God.

"Whatever you decide - I want you to know that God put me here to help you tomorrow, and next week, and next year, and ten years from now. And, when I die, my church will find another old woman to be there for you.

"Whatever you decide, it's up to you. I'll be here no matter what."

Would a single abortion be prevented by that approach? I have no idea. I do know that a whole new generation would find the church relevant and willing to address their lives.

That is what Jesus did - he made the church relevant to individual lives. We are still called to do so today. Whether or not you do so is up to you.

XT

p.s. - If we want to get strictly Biblical, then the problem with using abortion to end a pregnancy that comes from any couple not joined in marriage is that it does not go far enough. At a minimum, a forced marriage would occur, and in many cases the woman and/or the man would also be put to death.

If a person would take his pet puppy, or the workers at the zoo would take a panda or giraffe,or a rancher would take one of his horses or just name your favorite animal. If any of the above mentioned were about to give birth and they would surgically remove these animals from their mommy and discard them into the nearby trash, I wonder if they would still favor abortion under these conditions or would they have outrage and carry signs in protest. I have a sense that those who are christian and morally liberal are in a struggle with what they know is biblically correct lifestyles and choices and the freedom to do what they " feel" is good and not be accountable to the Word Of God. Being a Democrat doesn't mean you can't be a christen, but it sure must be tough when the socially liberal majority of your party conflicts with your conscious. One the the earlier comments was about the woman and those who that she should be stoned for adultry ( or killed). Please show me where those on the christen right want those on the left " stoned ". Maybe the liberal christen should be a little more tolerant of the views of the right.

Greg,

Having grown up in a rural area, I know quite a few farmers and ranchers that will gladly sacrifice a baby animal in order to save the mother.

The fact is that the Bible never once mentions abortion although the procedure was known for centuries prior to the birth of Christ. It gives neither a blanket endorsement nor condemnation of abortion. Companion rabbinical texts that deal with the issue specifically refer to the moment that baby's head (or majority of the body in case of breech) as the moment of "ensoulment". Until God and man look upon the face of the child, it is only "potential life". Since life is the ultimate gift of God, even a potential life should not be cast aside easily. However, there are times when it is the moral and ethical thing to do. My position is that it should be left to the woman most intimately connected to that decision as to whether or not it is the correct action. Basically, I trust women to know their bodies and their histories and I trust their ethical sense to lead them to the correct decision.

Perhaps you need to read my post again. There is not even a hint to say that conservatives of any stripe want to stone women. What I said is that the Biblical answer to most unwanted pregnancies is either a forced marriage or the death of at least the mother. Even the most denial-laden Republi-vangelical should be able to see that killing a pregnant woman will result in the death of the fetus inside her.

So, if you are going to preach to me about a Biblical standard, let's be honest about what the Biblical standard is. If we are unwilling to enforce marriage to a rapist as punishment for being deflowered against your will, then we need to say honestly that we are not going to strictly go by the Biblical standard.

Once that standard is left behind, then we need to honestly talk about what standard should be used. I am not convinced that an abortion is the answer to every unwanted pregnancy. However, I am convinced that it should remain a legal option for those times when it is the right moral and ethical decision. I am willing to talk to anyone about what conditions that standard should include, but I am not willing to be the final word for all other people in the country.

The tolerance of the left has resulted in the slow downfall of the church. Despite what others have said here, church attendance is down in almost all major denominations in almost all states over the last fifty years - this is despite a drastic increase in population. Catholic diocese are consolidating parishes and rural pastors in the Methodis and Episcopal denominations are finding themselves shepharding multiple flocks.

There is nothing in any of my posts that calls for a silencing of the right. Quite to the contrary, I quite clearly say that their voice needs to be met by dissenting believers. This is exactly what happened between Peter and Paul and it made the difference between the Gospel being offered to Gentiles or merely having Christians become a minority sect of Judaism.

We are a family of believers. A caring family listens to all of its members. Sometimes the best we can do is agree to disagree. However, we do not have the right to say someone is not a Christian because of their political affiliation or ideology.

We are to be sign-posts for the kingdom of Heaven, not gate-keepers. I would rather err on the side of inclusion and hear Jesus say, "You worked hard, but some of your friends didn't make the cut," than hear him say, "Why didn't you invite those others into my House?"

XT

My point on the animals is that there is a bigger outcry if innocent litters to be are destroyed than if a human life being carried by a woman. Besides the value of the human life is far greater than the animal life.

The human inside the mother during pregnacy was considered important enough to be protected
Exodus 21:22-25

I can't seem to grasp that abortion can ever be a moral or ethical thing to do. You said, "Basically, I trust women to know their bodies and their histories and I trust their ethical sense to lead them to the correct decision." When an unwanted pregnancy occurs and the baby is born why don't you apply this statement to this instance?

The biblical answer to an unwanted pregancy is not a forced marriage or death to the woman but forgiveness and birth to the baby.

I agree we are to be sign posts and not gate keepers. It is through God's grace and not works should any man boast. We are all sinners but the seperation is that some have asked forgiveness. We are to love the sinner but hate the sin. God wants all to be included and not parish, each of us are given a free will to decide.

The website below is a wonderful source of good sound biblical information on abortion among other topics. It's good to help us with our moral relativism issues.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/humanlife.asp

"When an unwanted pregnancy occurs and the baby is born why don't you apply this statement to this instance?"

Of course the statement is applied in that instance. No one is saying that giving birth and raising the child or giving it up for adoption are not options. They are equally valid options. The point is that woman should be freely able to choose between abortion and birth, with no stigma, shame, or outside influence pushing her towards one or towards the other.

"It's good to help us with our moral relativism issues."

Do I have a moral relativism problem? I didn't even know what that was until recently, and I think that people who say I am completely miss the point of what I say. This website seems to have nothing to do with moral relavtivism. Instead, its all about fundamentalism and biblical literalism. Just because I'm not a fundamentalist or a biblical literalist does not make me a moral relativist. This website is hardly helpful for me as it fails to take into account anything beyond what it interprets as the literal meaning of verses, without taking into account greater context, purpose for inclusion in the Bible, author's agenda, cultural context, or any of the other outside factors that influence the text. Let alone the fact that it discounts reputible science. This website is more a tool to help people who believe whats on it find greater justificiation to their beliefs.

Greg,

If you don't want to discuss animals then why bring them up?

I agree that human life is more important to God and man than other animals. However, the verse you sited has been drastically changed by fundamentalists over the years to provide political cover for their anti-abortion stance.

You can't simply take one verse out of context and upend everything else. Until the fetus is expelled from a woman's body, it is considered as a part of her body and is worthy of some protection as a potential life. However, it is not worthy of the same protection as the mother's life is.

You can't see how abortion can be moral? Then you simply haven't honestly thought about the situation. In a case where the mother's life is in danger, it is a decision between one or the other. Pretty much anyone will protect the life of a woman who is already here over the life of a fetus who is not.

The Biblical standard for a woman (who is betrothed and within the city) being raped is for the woman herself to be stoned as well as the one who raped her. The standard for a woman who is raped but not betrothed is to force her to marry her rapist.

XT

XT,

You said, "This website seems to have nothing to do with moral relavtivism. Instead, its all about fundamentalism and biblical literalism. Just because I'm not a fundamentalist or a biblical literalist does not make me a moral relativist. This website is hardly helpful for me as it fails to take into account anything beyond what it interprets as the literal meaning of verses, without taking into account greater context, purpose for inclusion in the Bible, author's agenda, cultural context, or any of the other outside factors that influence the text. Let alone the fact that it discounts reputible science. This website is more a tool to help people who believe whats on it find greater justificiation to their beliefs."
Are you referring to ...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/humanlife.asp
or your own website? There is far more reputible science here than the secular science you put your trust in.
Do you believe a woman should be able to abort her child for reasons other than personal safety,
i.e. just not wanting the baby, doesn't want to bear responsibilty of raising it etc...?
Where is the biblical reference for your last statement?

Greg:

First of all, you are addressing a remark to me that I did not make. You won't get far by asking me what John G. meant. For my part, I've not visited the answers in genesis site, and most likely won't. I'm not interested in the site at all.

I began my academic career by studying nuclear physics and electrical theory. I have a pretty good idea of what sceince is. I'm aware that the Republi-vangelicals have now created a shadow academia where they can train people in pseudo-science and denegrate real science.

Here's the difference: real science aims to find the cause and effect of events. Pseudo-science taught by Republi-vangelicals has the sole aim of propping up religious dogma.

The body of "secular science" in which I put my faith reaches back to Gallileo in an unbroken string of accomplishments. It has brought many advances to humanity, including open heart surgery, organ transplants, miracle drugs, everything that uses any type of electrity, cars, trains, planes, and submarines.

If you have a body of accomplishments that even comes close, I'd really like to see it. I'm not holding my breath.

As for proof of Biblical knowledge on my part, let's look at Deuteronomy Chapter 22:

Verse 20-21 (dealing with a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding day): "If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you."

Any woman not a virgin at her wedding is subject to death. No spin there.

A married woman who having sex with someone other than her husband:
"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. "

Both man and woman must die for adultery. No spin.

Verse 23-4:
" If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you."

A betrothed woman who has sex - consensual or not - within the city will be killed next to her lover.

Verse 25-7:
"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her."

If she is out in the country, she gets to live. He still gets killed.

Verse 28-9:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

If a woman who is not yet betrothed gets raped, the rapist pays a fine and the woman marries him.

This is the Biblical standard for unwanted pregnancies - kill the offending woman, unless she was a unbetrothed virgin, in which case she is married to the man who raped her.

Do I believe that it is morally right in such cases to have an abortion and not kill the mother? Yes, I am perfectly willing to deviate from Biblical standards in that respect.

Are there other cases in which the decision can still be moral? I believe so. I believe that such cases are limited, and that the potential life of the fetus should be given progressively more consideration as the pregnancy continues. I already stated that I do not believe abortion is a moral choice in all cases. However, it is in some.

Who is in the best position to determine what the morality of the case is? I believe it is the woman who faces the choice. The stern anti-abortion-in-all-cases mentality robs this woman of seeking the voice of God by drowning it out with the voice of man. There is no sin where there is no choice, but neither is there chance of salvation.

I believe it is the responsiblity of the church and of every Christian to teach that life is a precious gift of God - but it is not sacrosanct. Death is not to be feared by people of faith, but accepted as a companion of life. All death is not bad, and some can be a precious blessing.

It is not that I seek to be a "moral relativist", it is that I seek to be realistic when putting my faith into real-world issues. Christianity is not meant to be a religion that hides someone from reality. Rather we are to be the best part of reality.

XT

I think the best way to prevent abortions is to keep them legal and to spend a lot of time and effort on birth control education and clinics. Making it illegal will not stop it, it just drives it underground.

Back to the real topic, I find it really frightening that people are interpreting their re-written version of the bible as the word of God. It seems like a big scam to grab political power to me rather than a religion. I'm glad to see some Christians standing up to them.

Thanks, someone.

My personal belief is that no one should protest abortions until they have: 1)Provided free pre-natal healthcare to someone not related to them; 2)Provided adoption services to someone not related to them; 3) Provided ongoing supportive services for single mothers who opt to not have an abortion.

You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. If things aren't better because of your actions, guess where that leaves you?

XT

"We are none of us called to a life of leisure". I like that. We are indeed called to be The Master's work, to spread The Good News, and to shout loudly that what people are hearing from the so-called "Religious Right" is dead wrong. The Master tasked us to feed and clothe the poor, to take care of the sick, not to hoard wealth, and above all to love God with all our hearts and souls, but EQUALLY important to love our neighbors as ourselves. Are these "Dominionist/Reconstructionist/Nationalist"Far Righters concerning themselves with The Master's ACTUAL teachings? Or are they instead obsessing on passing idolatrous flag-worshipping bills, restricting and lessening the rights of other Americans, putting even more money into the pockets of the wealthy, ignoring the poor who are struggling just to survive, ignoring the environment, bathing in Nationalism like hogs in mud, and supporting intolerance and greed in general? We are indeed none of us called to a life of leisure. We are called to fight The Devil, whose face we have clearly seen. As you said, so many are being driven out of the churches, away from Our Lord, because of this "pseudo-Christianity". Jesus had something to say about those who would drive His children from Him. He said it would be better if a millstone were tied around their necks and they were thrown into the sea. But, in the meantime, we must stand and face The Devil and say "You've perverted The Master's teachings long enough....you're goin' down boy..."

Greg,

It is interesting that you cite Exodus 21 for the proposition that God sought to protect unborn life, because that passage explicitly states that, while unborn life is valuable, it is not the same as fully realized human life. That passage expressly states that, if someone strikes a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage but no other harm to the woman, he can be fined. If he also causes harm to the woman, then he shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. In other words, kill the fetus, pay a fine; kill the mother, suffer the death penalty. It does not sound to me like God views fetuses as enjoying the full panoply of rights accorded to fully realized persons. This, of course, does not mean that abortion is a good thing -- it clearly is not. At a minimum, it terminates a living thing, and a potential person. That is why we should seek to achieve Bill Clinton's goal of making abortion safe, legal, and rare.

XT: Thanks for an excellent piece. I attend an evangelical church in Texas. There are many wonderful people there, but I find myself in an internal struggle every day over whether I can continue to fellowship with people who, while meaning well, support evil, and engage in an almost idolatrous worship of right wing politics and politicians. It seems to me that American evangelicalism is an odd mix of biblical belief, neo-platonism and American exceptionalism. These latter two heresies have become so intertwined with what we perceive as Christian doctrine that many profesisng Christians cannot see them for what they are. Yet, so much of American Christian belief and action is driven by an unbiblical belief that the physical (and particularly the sexual) is evil, and the equally unbiblical belief that the U.S. is in some way the new Israel.

Randy,

I think you really have hit the core of the problem. What do you do when you face a true moment of Martin Luther (either I am right and the whole church is wrong, or I am condemned to Hell beyond salvation)?

My early answer was to simply walk away - and believe me, I understand why someone in your position would do so. In fact, I've not yet fully committed to a church-life because of being burned badly when I was in your position. Who gets hurt by it? Well, I do, for one. I honestly miss the fellowship, the opportunity to be with God's people and worship freely.

What do you do when that same freedom, which I believe also carries the responsibility of confrontation, may lead you to being ostracized? What happens if you are cut-off a little by holding back, but cut-off totally be opening up?

My article states that you should simply open up. Be honest about your reservations. The truth is that you will not be welcomed for doing so. Jesus taught that his Gospel would turn father against son, brother against brother. It still does.

Some of us are called to use our talents to build a new church - and that's exactly how I see these efforts here. Some of us are called to join a new church. Go where your heart leads you.

I can promise you this - it won't be an easy decision, and you'll have regrets and moments of doubt. Anyone who says differently is full of it.

If I can speak for Father Jake and PT and the rest of the bloggers here, you can always find a home (a virtual one) at our blogs and here as well. It may not be a perfect substitute, but I think it just might be the start of something wonderful.

XT

I don't know if anyone is reading this anymore or not, but I think this whole thread on abortions (which is insanely off-topic, but oh well), demonstrates a large portion of the problem: women don't get involved in this debate, men take over. I'm not saying that men shouldn't get involved, but women should get involved more-- it's our freedom that's at stake. Men are in political offices deciding what can and can't be done with an organ they don't possess, deciding what a woman's options are with a baby that she dearly loves but just might not have the economic means to support. I realise I'm not being particularly articulate about this, but my main point is this: women: get involved in this dialogue. Whether you want abortions to be legal or not, get involved. This is something extremely personal and close to us, not the men.

This is in reply to Greg. I have a pet puppy that I love nearly like a child. But that puppy is not a human being. If she were to have "bastard" puppies (she is purebred) we would take care of them and find them a suitable home. We would check to be certain it was a suitable home and that the puppies were well cared for. How much more should a human baby be cared for. Isn't it ludicrous to compare a woman and a puppy? But since you did, I wonder if, in the spirit of Christ, one of the card-bearing "Christians" demonstrating at a family planning clinic would be willing to take a child of a rape victim and raise it as his/her own. What if this happened to your daughter or sister. Would you be willing to take care of this child born of the vicious violation of your sister, daughter. Could you love it and live with it every day? I don't believe that abortion should be taken lightly, but I also don't believe that Jesus would condemn a woman who was raped if she chose to take the "morning-after" pill to be sure that embryo did not implant and grow. I don't believe you have any idea how it would feel to carry a child concieved in violence. I believe that if men had to carry a child concieved in rape this discussion would all be moot. It is the Dobson mentality.

Over the years, I have closely monitored the websites of the various right wing religious leaders. The following are a few of the positions that I have seen taken by religious right leaders.

anti immigration

anti environmentalism

anti abortion

anti birth control

anti gay

anti euthanasia

anti separation of church and state

anti Islam

pro prohibition

pro censorship

pro capitalism

pro war

pro death penalty

pro Israel (In itself, no problem exists, but in the cursing of her enemies, like Islam, instead of loving them and praying for and blessing them as Christ commanded.)

Christ said that all things to do with law and prophecy hinge upon the golden rule.

The old lady in the clinic presented herself honestly and openly to the young girl. She wanted her to feel welcome and loved. Not one of the people outside who were carrying placards and chanting had any respect for the golden rule. I have no more respect for their behavior than I do for Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church (family of Kansas lawyers who picketed Matthew Shepard’s funeral with signs like “God Hates Fags”).

I am with Bill Clinton on the abortion issue. It does not belong in the hands of politicians, or in the hands of illegally partisan preachers who would make so-called Christian values a test for public office. (Remember how they threatened Bush because of his indifference on certain bills they wish to pass.)

Where is the Christian Left? Where is the Christian whole?