Politics : Should We Fast Or Feast?

On Oct 16th, this book was put on the street.  It was written by a former Bush staffer named David Kuo.  The reverberations are still being felt.

Alan Wolfe, who teaches political science at Boston College, thinks Evangelicals are over as a political force.

David Limbaugh thinks Christians should feast, not fast from politics (Kuo argues that Christians ought to fast from politics).

Stand to Reason agrees that it would be unwise to fast from politics.

Marvin Olasky thinks the book is valuable for its specific detail on where the faith-based initiative went astray; however, he thinks that fasting from politics would merely create a vacuum which will be filled by anti-Christian politicians.

TM Moore thinks we ought to step back from political parties, but not from politics.  He regards this as a clarion call to Christians to work hard at discerning and declaring Biblical convictions about public policy issues, and look for opportunity to establish a Kingdom presence in both parties along a wide range of fronts, letting in the light of truth.

What does Mr. Dawntreader think?

First, it does not surprise me when anyone, Republican or Democrat, mocks Christians.  Christ made it clear that the world would hate those who follow him.

The question remains, should a follower of Christ be politically involved, and what ought that look like?

To number one, YES!  People who think Christians ought not be involved in the affairs of the state have a tough time making a Biblical case for that argument.  For a thoughtful essay, check out Greg Koukl's Not a Hint of Politics.  The money sentence is "But the goal of Christians being involved in the political sphere is not to build civic righteousness to commend a nation before God on the basis of their works. It's to ensure a just society."

To question number two, we ought to follow the guidelines laid down in Romans, Titus, 1 Peter and elsewhere.  Government is a God-ordained institution.  I find no Biblical mandate to withdraw from participating in civic affairs or holding positions in government.   The Bible has plenty of examples of godly men who have held high positions in the government.  Joseph and Daniel come immediately to mind.

I think Mr. Wolfe has misunderstood evangelicals.

Many conservative evangelicals are deeply persuaded that their society has descended into shameless immorality and that their task -- or, as they would say, their purpose -- is to restore the country to its senses.

Huh?  The purpose of government is restore a country to its senses?  Wha?

Historically, evangelicals believed that religion and politics should be separate: one was holy, the other Satan's domain. But they put those convictions aside in the hopes that the Republican Party would change America's moral climate. It has not, and they are not happy.

I am not sure where Wolfe is getting his data that evangelicals think that government is the domain of Satan.  I talk to a lot of conservative evangelicals, believe me.  None of the folks I talk to are under the hope that the Republican party will improve America's moral climate.

The primary issue is justice.   What falls under the rubric of justice can be debated, but it is hard to ignore the taking of innocent human lives by the millions at the hands of doctors.  The most helpless and voiceless human beings in our society are being denied the most basic right -- the right to live.  That is the biggie -- not faith-based initiatives -- not cleaning up America's sin problems through government.

Since issues of justice are continually punted to the Supreme Court, the main thing on conservative evangelical minds is which judicial philosophy will be in power in the oval office and the Senate when the next seat opens on the Supreme Court.

Now, TM Moore makes a cogent point.  Conservative evangelicals ought to be kingdom minded about all issues of public policy.  Here is the money paragraph from his essay.

At the same time, a fast from political parties might not be such a bad idea. Let all true believers denounce allegiance to any political party. Then let us come together to pray, study, discuss, and reach concensus on a long-term political platform for the nation. Thereafter we can begin to let our true concerns known, loudly and clearly. Not just the "usual suspects" of abortion, same-sex marriage, and so forth, but all the other concerns that are presently being discussed in informal caucuses throughout the evangelical world. Things like the environment, reforming public education, health care, technology issues, corporate ethics and accountability, and a host of others. Tune in at any of dozens of places on the evangelical dial -- especially web sites and certain journals --and you're likely to find fellow believers hotly debating and discussing some issue of public policy and political concern to which you've hardly given a thought.

I found that paragraph very convicting.  Moore is spot on.

Comments

[tgirsch]

Kuo argues that Christians ought to fast from politics

I don't think that's a fair characterization of Kuo's argument. I think Kuo argues that it's a mistake for Christians to align themselves too closely with one party, or more to the point, to think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In other words, just because the Democrats are worse on issues "social conservatives" care about doesn't mean that the Republicans are your allies. If his allegations ring true (and I think they do), the GOP basically panders to the evangelical vote in election years, and then alternates between throwing meaningless bones and simply ignoring their agenda the rest of the time.

Put more succinctly, in the American perception, "evangelical Christian" = "conservative Republican," and that's not a good thing.

[tgirsch]

Also, on reading this post, I see a problem that I simply don't know how to reconcile. Clearly, abortion (and by extension, things like stem cell research) is the elephant in the room for you. But if you set that issue aside for a moment, as hard as that may be, and look at the rest of the agenda espoused by those in power, it's hard to classify that as being in any way Christian. I seriously doubt Christ would have played semantic games rather than expressly condemning the use of torture. And I know Christ would neither sanction an unjust war sold almost exclusively through false pretenses, nor tolerate the continued refusal to admit that mistakes were made or to accept responsibility for those actions.

Truth to tell, I'm no conservative Christian, and I've never been fairly classified as an "evangelical," even back when I was a devout Catholic and politically conservative. That said, if you ignore the banging of the abortion-and-gays drums, no matter how big those drums might be perceived to be, I can't find anything at all for a proper Christian to like about Republican governance.

Getting back to abortion, then, I'm squarely in the Carter-Wallis camp: whatever your opinion of it might be, the proper way to do away with it has almost nothing whatsoever to do with legislation, which has been the route taken (actually, more pandered to than taken) by the GOP. Say what you will about Clinton's morals and the Democratic position on abortion, but the abortion rate experienced its steepest decline under Democratic leadership. I'd argue that this isn't coincidental.

Finally, on Supreme Court Justices, this is the "Christian" position I find most befuddling: take away the flowery language, and in effect what "Justice Sunday" Christians are arguing for is a judiciary that defers to the letter of the law, and to the executive (not necessarily in that order). They expressly not supposed to concern themselves with what's just. I would expect that Christians would argue that we ought to do what's right and what's just, irrespective of what the laws of man say. So it confuses me that conservative Christians clamor for justices who are supposed to espouse precisely the opposite.

[tgirsch]

Finally:

Huh? The purpose of government is restore a country to its senses?

I think you misunderstand Wolfe. He's not saying that it's the purpose of government to restore the country to its senses; he's saying that it's the purpose of American Evangelicals to restore the country to its senses, and that they view politics as one means of doing so.

[Doc]

Well, tg, I know that Christ would sanction torture, if you want to call Gitmo that, in order to extract info from bloodthirsty terrorists who have killed and would kill again, if necessary by a legitimate government to protect the lives of the citizens. That's what He made government for, after all: to protect the lives and property of the citizens of the nation. Not to protect the lives or property of the citizens of other nations.

He would have supported not just the Iraq war (a noble effort that has born some fruit and may yet bear more; as the Marines say, better to kill them over there than back here...), but also I suspect the imposition of the Pax Americana in a more robust form, including the use of tactical nukes on the capitols of nations that refuse to toe the line (no more allowing citizens to openly teach their children that America is the Great Satan, among other things; also no nukes in the hands of wackos).

Now, in fact, do I "know" that Christ would support such things? No, altho' I suspect He would. But then, neither do you know He would hold the positions you say He would. The only way you could know would be from His Word. And, since the Bible is a spiritual document, and you are, by your own admission, an unspiritual person, you can't understand spiritual things according to God's Word, so I certainly wouldn't put much credence in your take on it.
In the secular, political realm, however, you may find some takers for your point of view. Fewer and fewer, however, as the years go by, since such as you are not reproducing very well. Abortion, homosexual 'marriage', and one designer baby at 39 don't tend to carry the message on to the next generation. I have 4 kids, and my oldest, in college now, says he's going to have 6 kids himself (well, presumably he'll need a wife...) so I suspect I'll win the grandchild race. And he who wins the grandchild race will tend to win the worldview race, since upwards of 80% of kids view the world as their parents do. And, since I don't let leftists teach my kids (we homeschool) I have avoided the tendency among 'evangelicals' to see their kids slip away. My teenage boys can demolish the majority of leftist thought with one hemisphere tied behind their backs. So we'll see what the next 20 years hold, if Jesus tarries.

[Paul]

Doc - you mention that it's hard to ignore millions of innocents dying every year. Does this mean you will be voting Democrat in the upcoming elections, as they're the ones most inclined to save the 6+ million children who die each year because of lack of access to clean water? I know that very few of them are in 'our' society, but as I understand it they're all God's children, and our brothers and sisters. Or is an unborn American child more important to God than a 4 year old African child?

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"I think Kuo argues that it's a mistake for Christians to align themselves too closely with one party, or more to the point, to think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Numerous commentators have picked up on this phrase to "fast from politics." If Kuo was arguing we need to fast from political parties or from politicians, then my apologies to Mr. Kuo.

the GOP basically panders to the evangelical vote in election years, and then alternates between throwing meaningless bones and simply ignoring their agenda the rest of the time.

Both parties pander to their power bases. That is the nature of politics. I, for one, would not call Roberts and Alito meaningless bones.

Put more succinctly, in the American perception, "evangelical Christian" = "conservative Republican," and that's not a good thing.

Agreed. That was the gist of TM Moore's point.

Re: your point about abortions.

The best thing would be to change hearts and minds so that everyone would see it for the moral evil that it is ... and elect to never have abortion. I am working toward that all the time. However, that doesn't change the fact that we have euphemized and legalized murder in our country. That is wrong and ought to be changed.

Re: the littany of other issues you brought up. As Christians, we ought to wrestle with all of them and come to a Biblically informed view on them ... rather than just punting over to one party or the other and repeating the party line. I confess I am guilty of that on many issues.

Now, whether you agree with Doc or not, or agree with his tone or not, he is doing what I ought to be doing more of ... thinking through issues and forming an opinion in light of scripture ... whether it is torture, war or whatever.

Paul,

I think we ought to work toward better drinking water for African children. I don't think that should be a party issue. If you say that this issue or that issue will be addressed by this party or that party, then you are setting yourself up for the same disappointment as Kuo writes about. We ought to work toward something like the issue you raised because it is a just cause. Don't put your faith in a party.

[Danny Kaye]

I LOVE politics!!!

But...

I find it interesting that very few of the arguments I have heard or read on this topic have mentioned that a Christian's primary mission is to seek and save the lost, and to fulfill the Great Commission.

I could be wrong, but the question seems to be, "Should Christians be involved in politics? If so, to what extent and in what arenas?"

I am a big fan of politics. And though I am not "involved" in them, I enjoy political debates just as much as anyone. I love talking about where folks stand on issues and why I believe so-and-so is right or wrong on something.

The problem I see regarding the question above is that we, as Christians, can easily let politics distract them from our primary mission to seek and save the lost. Sure! We can be involved. Of course! We can campaign for whomever we're supporting. And absolutely, we can even run for office if we so choose. But the moment we get so far into it that it takes our focus off of the lost souls whose much larger problem has nothing to do with a lack of clean drinking water*, we've got to realign our priorities to match the Scriptures. I will ask you this:

How many of our elected Christian officials are involved in studying the Bible with the lost in hopes that they will become believers?

I would venture a guess that the number is very small. I've not met one person who converted to Christ simply because some politician passed a law that says we can or can't allow the death penalty; or that abortion is wrong or right. Is all this "politic-ing" resulting in anything that adds pages to "the book of life"? It could be just me, but that seems wrong.

*Please do NOT misunderstand me. I do believe that we should do whatever we can to help anyone in need no matter where they are on this planet. Christ had compassion on those who hurt and suffer. And we should, as well. And meeting those needs is a form of outreach that Christ employed quite often. But even He never let it distract Him from the larger picture of the human soul's condition. Even when He healed a person first, it nearly always led to the person, or at least the observers, becoming believers.

(Yeah...I could be wrong...)

[Rob Ryan]

Guess what, Doc? Earthly resources are limited, and unrestrained reproduction is ultimately irresponsible. By "winning" the reproductive game, you doom your progeny and mine to a miserable existence, maybe even a massive die-off. Perhaps you think this will be averted by the arrival of the "end times". Whatever. I don't see your insanely aggressive political views getting much traction; the political pendulum is already starting to move the other way. Your advocacy of nuclear warfare is appalling, and your suggestion that Jesus would approve of it is self-serving and offensive in the extreme to most Christians I know. You are a scary, Coulteresque dude.

To respond to the post, I think Christians have the same rights and obligations as any other American with regard to participating in our democracy. I think alignment with any particular political party, however, can lead to bizarre bastardizations of a faith of the kind exemplified by the redoubtable Doc. The Jesus I was raised with had a hard side and a soft side. Too many Christian conservatives of today have bisected their savior to fit their own politics and prejudices. Such Christians may actually be turning off potential converts and turning away former fellow believers. Some folks should ask themselves which is more important: propagating a faith or promoting a political perspective? The two might well be at odds.

[Doc]

Ah, TG, you think the Dems would be more likely to solve the 'drinking water problem' for the however many millions are afflicted by it? What a laugh. Like higher taxes and an impoverished US would be more likely to help them.

Neither you nor I are experts in international affairs, world poverty and its causes, etc. Those who are whose judgement I have reason to trust inform me that the primary cause for such a lack in the world is oppression by various dictators, a lack of proper government and societal structure. The way to fix that is either the long way, which is continued subtle efforts to 'open' the society involved, improve trade, get the population to desire, not democracy, but a representative Constitutional republic, a rule of law not man. Evangelism.

The other is to impose the Pax Americana. IMO we can't afford not to do this any longer. Our moats aren't big enough to keep the rest of the world's problems from affecting this nation's citizens. A famine in the Sudan, caused by the Muslim oppression, may trigger an epidemic of some nasty bug that then may hop the oceans and land on our shores in no time. Can't allow it any longer. Not to mention nukes in the hands of wackos. Time to announce to the '3rd world', from Guatemala to Algeria, to Pakistan, to Indonesia, that we will consider it an act of war to continue to allow their children to be taught that the US is the Great Satan, to allow large scale famines and political oppression, possess nukes or other WMD's w/o our permission, etc. Not an exhaustive list, of course. Anyone who's not immediately down with this plan, including our 'buddies' the Sauds and the Pakis, will be given 2 wks warning to allow time to evacuate their capitol. Then lob a tactical on the location. Once they rollover, they become a US protectorate, a la Guam.

So horrible, so farfetched, blah blah blah. You'll probably still be saying that after the first nuke goes off in Manhattan (I still can't figure out why the Muslims are so keen on blasting the very areas of the US where they are least opposed; it'd make much more sense to nuke Kentucky).

Government's duty before God is to protect its citizens from violence, not protecting the citizens of other nations. I may PERSONALLY be willing to contribute to all sorts of missionary activities including well-digging, etc. But our government should be doing nothing of the sort, that's not it's purpose.

[tgirsch]

Doc:
I know that Christ would sanction torture, if you want to call Gitmo that, in order to extract info from bloodthirsty terrorists who have killed and would kill again, if necessary by a legitimate government to protect the lives of the citizens.

I'd like to see chapter and verse on that one, please.

But then, neither do you know He would hold the positions you say He would.

I think Christ's message on violence is consistent and clear. He advocates it exactly nowhere. Not once. He advocates against it several times, according to scripture. So I'm going solely based on my understanding of the gospels. I'm not trying to say "Jesus is a Democrat" or anything silly like that; truth to tell, I suspect He'd be disgusted with both parties. I'm just saying that of what Christ actually did say and did teach according to the gospels, I just don't see any of it in the modern GOP agenda.

And, since I don't let leftists teach my kids (we homeschool) I have avoided the tendency among 'evangelicals' to see their kids slip away.

Huh. I never knew Ned Flanders was a doctor...

Paul:
Or is an unborn American child more important to God than a 4 year old African child?

Oh, considerably more important. After all, the latter is already born. The work of the pro-life advocate is done.

(To be fair, I'm sure plenty of self-described pro-lifers care about what happens after the child is born; it's just that their agenda doesn't reflect this in any visible way...)

Jeff:

I haven't read Kuo's book; I only know his positions based on what I've heard him say for himself, primarily on Fresh Air, but also on The Colbert Report.

However, that doesn't change the fact that we have euphemized and legalized murder in our country. That is wrong and ought to be changed.

Even if you grant the "abortion = murder" calculus, which is far from unanimous or even a majority view, this extends well beyond the abortion issue. How many innocent civilians have we "murdered" in the name of fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq, err, destroying massive WMD caches, err, bringing Democracy to the middle east, err, whatever the justification is this week? How many inner-city blacks have been "murdered" by police who mistakenly thought they were armed and dangerous? How many people have been wrongfully "murdered" by the state under capital punishment laws? (There's an organization that uses DNA evidence to prove or disprove the cases of people sitting on death row, and in nearly 40% of the cases they investigated, the DNA evidence exonerated the accused; a 60% success rate would be great in baseball; in life or death, not so much?)

I don't doubt that abortion is a huge issue for you, but it ain't the only one, and statistics show that criminalizing it and calling it "murder" won't prevent most people who want one from getting one. Put simply, the all-or-nothing, criminalize-it-or-bust tactic taken by the pro-life movement is not only ineffective, it's directly counterproductive to the stated goal.

And when it comes to issues of life, if for no other reason than where public opinion is right now, all those other issues would be considerably easier to remedy. But to an outsider looking in at the "evangelical Christian" political movement, all these others seem like complete non-issues.

Now, whether you agree with Doc or not, or agree with his tone or not, he is doing what I ought to be doing more of ... thinking through issues and forming an opinion in light of scripture ... whether it is torture, war or whatever.

I'm stunned that you'd find anything of scriptural merit in Doc's rantings.

Rob:
You are a scary, Coulteresque dude.

Well put.

Some folks should ask themselves which is more important: propagating a faith or promoting a political perspective? The two might well be at odds.

Even better put.

Doc: (again)
Ah, TG, you think the Dems would be more likely to solve the 'drinking water problem' for the however many millions are afflicted by it?

Uh, I never said a word about drinking water one way or the other. Maybe you intended to address that to Danny Kaye? (In any case, yes I do think the Dems are better on the "drinking water problem," given their record on environmental issues has historically been exponentially better than that of the GOP...)

Neither you nor I are experts in international affairs, world poverty and its causes, etc.

If we limited our commentary to things we were "experts" in, I'd be confined to discussing relational databases and UNIX, and you'd apparently be confined to ill-thought-out, hysterical, Hannity-esque rants. Thankfully, the blogosphere encourages us to stretch beyond the areas of our expertise. :)

You'll probably still be saying that after the first nuke goes off in Manhattan (I still can't figure out why the Muslims are so keen on blasting the very areas of the US where they are least opposed; it'd make much more sense to nuke Kentucky).

Maybe this is where Jeff sees the image of Christ in you. I, on the other hand, just don't get it.

In case you're interested in buying a clue, the fact that the people of NYC and elsewhere don't share your enthusiasm for heavy-handed tactics to ostensibly combat terror doesn't mean that they "support terror" (or "oppose it less"). The world is not the giant false dilemma you paint it out to be. I hope for their sake (and for the sake of the next generation) that your homeschooled kids didn't inherit your uber-simplistic binary thinking.

Government's duty before God is to protect its citizens from violence, not protecting the citizens of other nations.

Chapter and verse, please.

[Doc]

TG
Why should I bother giving you ch and v? You seem to think that only the Gospels tell us what Jesus thought. All of Scripture is His Word. Paul, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, clearly says that government does not carry the sword for nothing. This is war. If we do not prosecute it with vigor, our citizens will be killed. Our enemy wishes us dead, dhimmitized, or converted to Islam. If you don't recognize that, then your head is in the sand.

Nowhere in Scripture does it indicate that government is supposed to take money from one group of people by force and use it to feed, clothe, or house another group of people, dig wells for them, etc. But all this is beside the point.

The real point is that you, like me and everyone else, need to repent of your sins and believe in Christ for the salvation of your soul. You need to read His Word with the illumination provided by His Spirit. Until then I doubt if your mind will change. Even so, should you be sick and in my care, I will treat you to the best of my ability. My now 15-year-old son, who intends to go into the military, will still defend you and your family against the forces that would do you harm. Whatever you might think, you are in no significant danger from 'fundie Christians'. Fundie Muslims, however...

[RLS]

"Say what you will about Clinton's morals and the Democratic position on abortion, but the abortion rate experienced its steepest decline under Democratic leadership. I'd argue that this isn't coincidental.
(In any case, yes I do think the Dems are better on the "drinking water problem," given their record on environmental issues has historically been exponentially better than that of the GOP...)"

Tgirsh:
I’m not saying that your information is wrong or right, but where did you get your statistics? Just wondering…

[Mr. Dawntreader]

Great discussion, everyone.

A couple of comments.

Re: "The problem I see regarding the question above is that we, as Christians, can easily let politics distract them from our primary mission to seek and save the lost."

There are two commissions in the Bible - the Great Commission and the Cultural Commission. Our mission is a case of both-and ... not either-or. We have been given a mandate as a race of people created in God's image to continue creating and civilizing this world to the glory of God. We are to view everything under the rule and reign of Christ -- which is another way to say we ought to be kingdom-minded. Note that the gospel that Christ preached was not repent and get saved -- it was repent for the kingdom of God is at hand. It was the gospel of the kingdom -- not one of personal salvation.

So while I agree that we ought to not get distracted from extending the rule of reign of Christ in the hearts of unbelievers (i.e. evangelism), we should not view our "mission" on earth as merely getting people saved.

If this sounds like "theocracy" then you have misunderstood me.

A couple of good reads on this are How Now Shall We Live? ... and Total Truth ... both are liste in my "Best In Class" section.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

Re: "The Jesus I was raised with had a hard side and a soft side."

Rob, you were raised with Jesus? I learned something new. I would like to hear more of the story sometime.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

Re: "Some folks should ask themselves which is more important: propagating a faith or promoting a political perspective? The two might well be at odds."

This is a dichotomized view of Christianity. If all Christianity is is making people believe a few things about a guy that lived 2000 years ago, then you might have a valid point.

However, those that hold that view of Christianity have a very shallow understanding of what it means to follow Christ. Christ preached to repent (i.e. do an "about face") and follow him, for the kingdom of God is at hand. He inaugarated a new kingdom under a new covenant. It was not to be an earthly kingdom with an earthly government, per se ... at least not until his next coming. However, Christ followers are to bring every square inch of life under his rule and reign -- and promote the work of the kingdom. The work of the kingdom includes a proclamation and a message -- it also includes "pushing back the darkness" -- reclaiming enemy occupied territory -- the act of redemption.

I realize this is a lot of theology for such a tiny thread, but my point is, Christianity is a full worldview -- it is not about propagating a few beliefs about someone who lived on earth 2000 years ago.

Those who try to put Christ into a tiny box which is separated off from the rest of life simply don't understand what it means to follow Christ.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

T,

I don't think you want to get into a numbers game and compare the number of aborted human children to the number of innocents killed in Iraq. First, the number of aborted children since 1973 is staggering -- it dwarfs WWII losses. Iraq would be a drop in the bucket. Second, it is a pragmatic argument and not a moral one -- arguing which form of murder is better is to miss the point completely.

Your point that Christians ought to look at more issues than abortion was granted and conceded in the original post and in this thread.

Nonetheless, it does not diminish the horror of abortion. It is murder, and we have attempted as a nation to sanitize it through euphemisms. Pragmatic arguments do nothing to change that. It is wrong and out to be outlawed.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

re: "I'm stunned that you'd find anything of scriptural merit in Doc's rantings."

I said Doc was

"thinking through issues and forming an opinion in light of scripture"

Christians do disagree about things you know ;-) I am not saying I agree with Doc's view of tactical nukes, for example. I am saying Doc has shown (not just in this thread but previous ones) that scripture is an authority to him and he takes it seriously. That doesn't mean Doc is infallible and always applies scripture correctly. I have never heard him make that claim. I certainly don't claim that for myself.

[Paul]

Mr D - I don't kid myself for a moment that the Dems will do much of significance to help the people I mentioned, though on the margin I'm sure they'll do more than the Republicans. On the other hand, it has already been demonstrated that Democrats are the ones to do most to prevent abortion, so believing that a Christian should support the Republicans on this issue is just as deluded.

Anyone - A couple of things I've read here sparked a new thought for me. Given that we can't do everything we might wish for, would Christ rather we save the life of a child, or convert an already safe child to Christianity? What I've read here suggests that a reasonable interpretation of scripture is that the latter is to be preferred.

Doc - I've never heard of people from Saudi Arabia referred to as Sauds, but given that the nation derives from the House of Saud I guess it makes sense. On the other hand the term "Pakis" is familiar, being the equivalent of what I'll euphemistically call "the N word" but applied to those from Pakistan (and to some extent Indians and Bangladeshis). Your use of such vulgarities diminishes you, your message, and this site.

[Danny Kaye]

I sincerely enjoy this stuff!
Mr. Dawntreader, you are presenting some perspectives that I have never encountered before. I don’t believe that is because I have led a sheltered life. I think it has more to do with the fact that I have not met everyone on earth, yet. ;-)

You said: "
Note that the gospel that Christ preached was not repent and get saved -- it was repent for the kingdom of God is at hand. It was the gospel of the kingdom -- not one of personal salvation."

I don't believe the two can be separated.
I believe this one comes down to how you define Jesus' Kingdom. I define it as all Christians being part of one body of Christ no matter where or when they lived. How do you define it?

Another issue I have is that I don't believe those particular words of Jesus were directed at us, but instead at those to whom He was speaking prior to His ascension. I would ask you, "What is the message in Acts (and the rest of the NT)"? In my opinion, it is there that we find what the Church should be about and should be doing. Are there any referenced to the disciples being involved in politics after the gospels? There may be...but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

You say: ”Those who try to put Christ into a tiny box which is separated off from the rest of life simply don't understand what it means to follow Christ.”

Though I disagree with the accusation, I can only assume that statement would be addressed at my ilk and me. ;-)

If you don't mind, let me try to understand your views by asking a couple of questions.

So help me understand this: ”There are two commissions in the Bible - the Great Commission and the Cultural Commission.”

Where is this Cultural Commission located in the Bible?

You say: "If this sounds like "theocracy" then you have misunderstood me."

Yup…It does. And I apparently have. It sounds just like the politics that the "Church" has been involved in for the last 1000 years or so. And that led to some pretty awful “bedding down” with those in power. How is what you are espousing going to lead to a different place? And please don’t say, “because now we can look back on history, and we know better.” ;-)

I don’t understand the meaning of: ”it also includes "pushing back the darkness" --reclaiming enemy occupied territory”

What exactly is the occupied territory? Is it not the souls of the lost of this world that Satan has in his possession? I am confident that you are not referring to any parcel of land. But if you are referring to the moral decay of society then I would argue that the laws of man have never been able to stop it. Moral decay has happened to every society since Adam. We are a very young nation, and we are going the same direction as every other nation does, given time. (I would even argue that we are setting a record!)

I am all for politics. I'm addicted to political talk radio. The thrill of a good political race keeps me up all night on election night.
And we should do what we can by electing leaders who will do what we think is right morally, and perhaps even jump in the race ourselves if that is our desires. But I am convinced that the only way to change the heart of a nation is to change the heart of a man or woman. And a law simply will not do that.

We have laws in place against racism…but racists who don't spew their racist ways out loud are plentiful.

We have laws against drunk driving…but people die everyday because of it.

We have laws against illegal immigration...well, you get the idea.

I will end with a question that seems to be the most important one to me:
How many Christian politicians are actively involved in reaching out to and studying the Bible with non-Christians?
I just don’t see how that is not a significant question.

PS( "Those who try to put Christ into a tiny box which is separated off from the rest of life simply don't understand what it means to follow Christ."

Perhaps it's not us who don't understand. [and I say that with all affection and respect...])

[Mr. Dawntreader]

Danny,

Though I disagree with the accusation, I can only assume that statement would be addressed at my ilk and me. ;-)

Whoops. Sorry if I preached at you ... didn't mean to be accusatory toward you, my friend.

I was addressing my comments to a culture who thinks we Christians ought to stay in the Christian ghetto and keep Jesus and the Bible to ourselves because they think all truth is relative ( except their truth ).

That is definitely not you or your ilk, my friend.

I will answer your excellent questions when time permits (maybe t'nite, or this weekend).

Blessings to you.

Mr. D.

[Doc]

Paul
You'll have to take responsibility for your own sense of outrage at my use of terms. I certainly meant nothing by 'the P word'. I was simply using shorthand, like US or Yanks or Dems or Repubs or such.

Personally, I find abortion, videos of kidnapped people being beheaded, and threats of nuclear annihilation by Muslim leaders a lot more offensive, but hey, I'm a right wing bigoted Christian fundie; what do you expect?

And as to tg's assertion that the Dems do more to decrease abortions, what a canard. And the Nazis did more to decrease poverty among Jews, too; no Jews, no Jewish poverty, eh?

[Paul]

Fair enough Doc - is it OK if I say 'goat abusers' instead of Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians/Christianists? No offense, obviously, just as a shorthand?

I too find abortion offensive, videos I'm not too bothered about but the actual beheadings are horrible. Threats from Muslim leaders aren't at all offensive - right now they're not particularly convincing, but even if they were 'offensive' isn't at all the right word. Oh, and finding abortion and murder offensive aren't unique characteristics of right wing bigoted Christian fundies (or should I say goat abusers?)

And on tg's assertion...Well it's one of those inconvenient facts, I understand, but I fail to see your analogy. Are you saying that earlier abortions had killed abortionists, but now that abortion has fallen we're once again breeding more abortionists? The Dems decreased abortion by removing the need through contraception (which isn't abortion) and education, not by killing fertile people. I'm sure you can do better than that.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

How do you define it [the kingdom of God]?

The rule and reign of Christ. King Jesus is sovereign over every square inch of his creation. He reigns right now ... though we are in that age of history between the "now and the not yet". The kingdom of Christ has not come in its fullness yet ... but it is here. It was inaugurated by the victory Christ won on the cross and through his resurrection.

I liken the period of history we live in now as to the time in WWII between D-day and VE day. With the success of D-day, victory was won ... but it took another year to complete it. The allies still had to reclaim territory and experience the horror of Market Garden, Bastogne and the crossing of the Rhine. Likewise, Christ is king ... but the enemy is still fighting. However, victory is assured and Christ is redeeming all of creation and will restore shalom completely ... one inch at a time. Ultimately, he will rule and reign on the new earth ... which will be a physical place, not floating on a cloud in heaven.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"Another issue I have is that I don't believe those particular words of Jesus were directed at us, but instead at those to whom He was speaking prior to His ascension."

Let's look at some concrete examples. The gospel of the kingdom message is all through out the gospels, Acts and the NT.

14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,
15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Then, John 18:36

36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

Then, Acts 1:3

3 To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

Then, Acts 19:8

8 And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.

Then, Colossians 1:13

13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,

What Jesus and his followers talked about was a kingdom. The language of the kingdom is overwhelming. The kingdom was referred to *both* in future language and in present language. It was a kingdom that in its present form is not represented by an earthly government. In its future form, however, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord.

My question is, what leads one to believe that the gospel of the kingdom is restricted only to those Christians who lived in the first century?

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"I would ask you, "What is the message in Acts (and the rest of the NT)"? In my opinion, it is there that we find what the Church should be about and should be doing. Are there any referenced to the disciples being involved in politics after the gospels?"

The message of Acts is proclaiming the truth of the inauguration of the kingdom of Christ. The apostles go forth in power and proclaim the truth about King Jesus.

I don't see any reference to the apostles being involved in holding government positions in the government of Rome ... but then again, I don't find the apostles shrinking away from being good citizens either. Look at the teaching in Romans, Titus and 1 Peter about being good citizens.

The point is, we take our Christian worldview with us where ever God calls us -- whether it is being a pastor, a church planter, a ditch digger, a doctor, a lawyer, a software developer, a grocery bag stuffer ,a Senator, a judge or where ever God calls us.

We ought to integrate our worldview into every sphere of life -- that what it means to bow the knee to King Jesus and recognize his rule and reign in all of life.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"Where is this Cultural Commission located in the Bible?"

Gen 1:28-30. The commandment given to you and me is to subdue the earth and exercise dominion over it. We began in a garden (Gen) ... we end in a city (Rev). This is also called the Cultural Mandate. We are dealing with the effects of the Fall now. But the commandment was never abrogated. Creation still belongs to God and it is all under the rule and reign of King Jesus -- and he is the process of redeeming and restoring everything -- ultimately consummating it in the New Heavens and the New Earth.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"But I am convinced that the only way to change the heart of a nation is to change the heart of a man or woman. And a law simply will not do that."

A law won't change a heart ... but it is part of the purpose of government, isn't it? Didn't God set up governments to punish evil doers and preserve order?

You are certainly right that we can never neglect the importance of the Holy Spirit changing the hearts of men -- and our role as witness bearers in that.

But government is not a creation of Satan -- it is an institution established by God for a purpose (read Romans 13).

A good question to ponder is, what is the purpose of law?

[Mr. Dawntreader]

How many Christian politicians are actively involved in reaching out to and studying the Bible with non-Christians?

Great question, but I have no way of answering that.

Is the assumption beneath the question that a Christian politician is being un-Christian if he is simply making good laws and not about the business of evangelism? (or am I over-reading into the question)

Danny,

You are asking great questions and it is incredibly difficult to do them justice in comment thread on a blog.

A good read on all of this stuff is Colson's How Now Shall We Live? Francis Schaeffer was another excellent writer on how a Christian worldview affects all of life -- his book How Should We Then Live is a good read.

[Danny Kaye]

Good answers, Mr. D.,
I can understand the frustration of trying to make comments without writing a book. I will try to keep my comments short (which will one of the greater miracles of the Lord, should it happen)!

Let me say that I am no expert on what I am going to say. These are just things I've learned from my own study. And I never was a very good student!

First,
"The kingdom of Christ has not come in its fullness yet ... but it is here. It was inaugurated by the victory Christ won on the cross and through his resurrection."

From what I have studied, I understand that the kingdom was supposed to come with power from on high. And to be sure, what happened right after Jesus breathed his last was nothing short of power! But I question whether that was when the kingdom was inaugurated.

Joseph of Arimathea "was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body." (Mark 15:43)

This is after Jesus had been crucified. If the inauguration of the kingdom happened on the cross, then Joe was waiting for it in vain? No, the kingdom had not yet come at that point.

What about after Jesus raised from the dead?

So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:6-8)

No. The ressurection was most certainly a powerful moment in history! But the kingdom did not come at that point either.

My understanding is that the kingdom began in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. It has all the signs that Jesus spoke of when hinting at the coming of the kingdom.

[Danny Kaye]

I agree with everything you wrote in the third comment except for this line:

"We ought to integrate our worldview into every sphere of life -- that what it means to bow the knee to King Jesus and recognize his rule and reign in all of life."

I like the first half, but I disagree that this is the definition of what it means to be under Christ's rule of authority.

Though I do believe that the Lord and King cares about the affairs of the world and has compassion on the widows, fatherless, oppressed, and all who suffer, and those needs "could" be met through having the right polticians in offices, I don't believe that is His greatest concern about the earth's inhabitants.

To be under Christ's the King's rule, we must focus on what He cares about most.
I believe He cares much more deeply about the spiritual condition of the individual souls on earth. Why? Because going to the cross was His greatest reason for coming to earth. And I don't believe that the cross had anything to do with politics, or government. The cross's only objective was to bring the opportunity for the forgiveness of sins to mankind. And if that is what the cross was all about, then that is what WE should be all about.

Again...please don't interpret my words as saying Christians can't be involved in politics. But if we are not about the things about which Christ cares the most, then we need to realign our priorities with his. Sure! Continue in the political arena. But make sure there are souls being saved as you go.

[Danny Kaye]

Second,

"Let's look at some concrete examples. The gospel of the kingdom message is all through out the gospels, Acts and the NT."

I agree. And I would throw the OT into the mix, as well.

However, When Jesus says the time is "fulfilled", He is not saying, "The Kingdom has come." He is only saying that it is time for the kingdom to come. He uses the same phrase (The time has come) when Judas came to the Garden. But that didn't mean that He was crucified, yet. It just meant that the time had come for it to happen.
And from what I have studied, when Jesus talked of the kingdom being at hand, he is saying that the kingdom is "eggizo", (approaching or near). I believe this is a consistent translation throughout the gospels.
Speaking about something does not mean the "something" has happened. I could speak about the Super Bowl and all of its awesomeness, but that doesn’t mean it is here.

I believe I mentioned Acts 1 in the post above.

And because I believe that Acts 2 was the pivotal "Kingdom-coming" moment, the other references you mentioned are referring to a kingdom that is here now.

You ask:
"My question is, what leads one to believe that the gospel of the kingdom is restricted only to those Christians who lived in the first century?"

A good question. I would wonder why anyone would believe that, too, because I sure don't! ;-)

No. All who are "in Christ", no matter when they lived, are all part of this great Kingdom.

[Danny Kaye]

You'll have to forgive the order in which these come. I apparently was still in preview mode and didn't finish posting the comment when I posted what was supposed to be my third comment.

(Yeah...that means I almost lost the entire comment above this one. That is the trouble with having multiple windows open while posting these! Ah, well. Ya' live and learn.)

[Danny Kaye]

"A good question to ponder is, what is the purpose of law?"

I'm all for law and order. But I make no comparison between the OT law (which was to govern the Jews and Jewish converts) and the laws of all other governemts (which are to govern all people).

I read in a comment in this thread (that I can't find right now) that said something to the effect that we Christians are to be overtaking this world's government to make it fall under the rule of Christ. (That is a VERY LOOSE paraphrase!) I simply disagree. It is exactly what happend centuries ago when religion and government became bed-buddies. And that is a road we should avoid BIGTIME.
We should, as you say, do our part to make the laws more reflective of Christ. But because that is a VERY miniority view, and always has and will be, it is not a battle on which the Lord wants us to put the entirety of our focus.

The purpose of today's laws (at least in the USA) is to ensure justice when injustice is served and ensure that a peaceful coexistence is available to all.

But it has next to nothing to do with the laws of Christ. His laws just don't fit into this world's way of thinking. And that has always been the case.

[Danny Kaye]

"How many Christian politicians are actively involved in reaching out to and studying the Bible with non-Christians?

Great question, but I have no way of answering that."

Neither do I, Mr. D.

My purpose for posing the question is simply that I believe Christians should be about the same purpose of Jesus:
Luke 19:10
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."

Politics simply cannot become more important than the lost souls of the world. That's all I'm saying.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

Looks like we both wrote books ! :-)

Great comments. I'll get to them as soon as I can.

Blessings to you.

Mr. D

[Danny Kaye]

No sweat, Mr. D.

I have limited time on the weekend so don't rush it.

Blessings right back atcha!

DK

[Doc]

Sure, Paul, if you want to use a stupid term that seems to bear no relation to its object, such that no one but you and anyone you directly inform of its referent will understand it, making it nearly completely useless as 'shorthand' (whereas the terms I used were understood by everyone, I expect), go right ahead.

[Paul]

OK Doc, so you're saying that we can use 'the N word' because it's widely understood to refer to African Americsns and is shorter to type than 'African Americans'? Don't you think that the fact it's a racist term should play into the decision at all?

[tgirsch]

Doc:
Nowhere in Scripture does it indicate that government is supposed to take money from one group of people by force and use it to feed, clothe, or house another group of people, dig wells for them, etc. But all this is beside the point.

No, it's exactly the point, because nowhere in scripture does it say "Government's duty before God is to protect its citizens from violence," or "Christ would sanction torture ... in order to extract info from bloodthirsty terrorists who have killed and would kill again." Those are both claims that you actually made, and which are unsupported by scripture. Meanwhile, I have argued that scripture requires income distribution exactly nowhere. Thus, I'm criticizing your actual statements, whereas you're disingenously constructing strawmen to counterattack.

RLS:
I’m not saying that your information is wrong or right, but where did you get your statistics?

Most of the aboriton statistics I get from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. They are a pro-choice organization, but their statistics are respected and widely cited by both pro-life and pro-choice groups. According to their US statistics, the sharpest drop in the abortion rate was from 1993 to 1995, from 25 per 1000 women to 22 per 1000 women, a drop of 12%. By 1997, the rate had effectively leveled off, even though it has still declined very slowly since.

Jeff:
I don't think you want to get into a numbers game and compare the number of aborted human children to the number of innocents killed in Iraq.

I'm not going to get into numbers games and moral equivalence arguments, and never intended to. My point here was not that the other things I mentioned are as bad as, or worse than, abortion. I'd leave that to individual judgment. Instead, the point was that the strategies preferred by those who oppose abortion are actually counterproductive (i.e., they actually work against the goal of reducing the number of abortions), and that even if you don't view those other issues as being as important as abortion, that doesn't make them unimportant.

Scoff at pragmatic arguments all you want, if you don't mind happily capturing the "moral high ground" in your ivory tower while the problems that contribute most directly to abortion (e.g., poverty, poor education, lack of access to health care, etc.) are actively made worse by the policies of your party of choice.

Just to be clear: I'm not for a minute arguing that Conservative Christians should set aside their opposition to abortion. What I am suggesting is that their concern about that issue, to the apparent exclusion of virtually all others, is harmful in two ways: it makes the abortion problem worse, and it makes those other issues worse at the same time.

In other words, it's not that you need to "come around" and support abortion; it's that you need to rethink how you're going about your opposition to it. If you'll pardon the false dilemma, from the outside looking in, it looks to me like given an either-or choice between reducing the number of abortions or simply criminalizing it, most of the "pro-life" crowd would prefer criminalization. Because that's literally the only prong that I can see in their political agenda.

Well, that and the whole "the only thing we're allowed to say about sex is 'don't do it until you're married'" prong. Which is why I submit that pro-lifers act as if the sex is the bigger sin than the abortion.

[Danny Kaye]

T(g or q)irsh,

I am a man who comes from nothing and am still in that situation today. Though I have made a better life for me and my family than I ever thought I could, I would be considered to be in the lower middle class in most states of the US, and even where I currently live, I am in the Lower Class level of society. I was not brought up in an ivory tower of morals. (I was raised irreligiously). Compared to others, I have no real education. (I just earned my AA this year at the age of 41 from a no-name community college, making me the only one in my family who ever even attended college, let alone get any kind of degree.) I became a Christian well after I moved out on my own. That is who I am.

So when I read...
"Scoff at pragmatic arguments all you want, if you don't mind happily capturing the "moral high ground" in your ivory tower while the problems that contribute most directly to abortion (e.g., poverty, poor education, lack of access to health care, etc.) are actively made worse by the policies of your party of choice."

...even I can't help but think that these are simply excuses to remove responsibility of, and allow for, poor parenting skills and bad parental decisions. All of a sudden, most abortions are caused by poverty, poor education, and no health care?

I say "no." A parent can teach a child the cause and effect of sexual activities even without access to health care, money, or a degree. And they don't even need to be Christians to do it. They just need to be better parents.

Having said that, I will agree that the solution cannot be to simply say, "HEY YOU!!! BE A BETTER PARENT, WILL YA'???"
I do not have in my possession the full answer. But I do know that it can't start with the gov't, but instead with the parents and children. And whether or not you want to call them Christian morals, or common sense morals, morals certainly do need to play some part in this.

[tgirsch]

Danny Kaye:

It's a g, not a q.

All of a sudden, most abortions are caused by poverty, poor education, and no health care?

It probably goes too far to say that these things cause abortion, but the correlation is undeniably strong. From my above link:

The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women)

In other words, if you live below the poverty level, you are 4.4 times as likely to have an abortion as a woman with a household income of just $28K per year. By way of comparison, the median household income in 2005 was $46,326, so the $28K income isn't itself anything like "wealthy."

The health care issue is related to the poverty issue. The women most likely to have abortions cannot even afford health care for themselves, never mind a child. While people like you and Jeff find abortion abhorrent, many of these women find the idea of having a baby they can't afford to care for equally abhorrent.

Based on some of these statistics, it seems to me that you cannot get serious about preventing abortion unless you also get serious about fighting poverty. Which, interestingly enough, is precisely the approach advocated by evangelicals such as Jim Wallis and Jimmy Carter. Rather than criminalzing abortion (attacking the supply), the focus needs to be on doing away with the conditions that drive women to choose abortion (instead attacking the demand). These conditions include poverty, inadequate health care, and, of course, the unintended pregnancy itself.

Having said that, I will agree that the solution cannot be to simply say, "HEY YOU!!! BE A BETTER PARENT, WILL YA'???"

And there it is in a nutshell. This is a problem that I actually have with many libertarian-esque theories of government (or lack thereof). They preach "personal responsibility," but then basically rely on everyone to actually act in a personally responsible manner. Which might be okay if those people were only hurting themselves, but they're not. They're hurting their children, and often society as a whole, with their lack of responsibility. I don't think it's too much to ask that we actually take measures to both empower people to act in a responsible manner, and to require (at least to some extent) that they do so.

But I do know that it can't start with the gov't, but instead with the parents and children.

The government certainly isn't the whole solution, but I argue that it has to be part of it. This can start with education. Rather than relying on parents to teach about things like abstinence and contraception and just plain how sex works, teach this in schools, before puberty (in other words, before it's too late). For those parents who do teach these lessons, the school lessons will reinforce this. For those who don't at least the kids will get it from somewhere. And for those parents who object to such teaching, they can put their kids in private or parochial school, or home school.

morals certainly do need to play some part in this.

I don't think I've ever argued otherwise.

[Danny Kaye]

Thanks for your response, Tgirsh. Good stuff in there. Lot's to chew on!

In other words, if you live below the poverty level, you are 4.4 times as likely to have an abortion

Do you believe that increasing someone's income will change his or her morals? How can that be true? After all, many of those with great sums of $$$ are just as corrupt in other ways. No. Morals are not raised by increasing income. If I were old enough, I would remember the days when those in poverty held their children to a much higher standard than those in poverty today. They took it upon themselves to train tehm and show him how to treat others. This included displaying social morals respect. If I understand it properly, they did this out of a sincere love and a sheer desire for their children to escape the poverty level life style.

I agree that the stats today speak loudly. But we can't let stats remove parental responsibility, can we? I mean, I fit the poverty level bill. But I refuse to believe that, because of my standing in society, my daughter is at a greater risk of having an abortion than one of my wealthy friends and neighbors. I gladly take the responsibility of teaching her cause and effect of her actions. (And yeah. I'll throw a heap of Christian morals in there with it.)

The problem, the way I see it, is that the gov't has been telling parents "we will take care of educating your kids" about sex, social acceptance, and all things moral, for so long, and with such fervor, that many parents no longer take it upon themselves to do ANY of it. And this is especially true in the lower income bracket. (The reason for this, in my opinion, is that the middle and higher income families have an image to maintain that they have their act together and are just such wonderful parents. The lower income families don't fool around with such pride. But that is only an opinion.)

many of these women find the idea of having a baby they can't afford to care for equally abhorrent.

I agree. But, in many cases, this could have been avoided if the parents loved their children enough to forewarn them about the consequences of sexual activity. (I know that is an incendiary statement. But I firmly believe that this is a "love your child enough to put the time in" issue.)

you cannot get serious about preventing abortion unless you also get serious about fighting poverty.

Ah...HERE is a very interesting statement! I do believe that both of these issues need to be dealt with. But they "stand alone together", so to speak.
One is a national economic issue for the masses; the other is a moral issue (that has become popular in the political realm) for the individual, and doesn't belong in the political arena. Because of this, they cannot be dealt with in the same arena. As I said above, poverty is no excuse for a lack of social morals, nor is having a high income a sign of morality. The two co-exist, but they do so separately.

I don't think it's too much to ask that we actually take measures to both empower people to act in a responsible manner, and to require (at least to some extent) that they do so.

Regarding poverty, I agree. Though I am not a huge fan of social programs the way they are operated today, even I can see that it is in a country's best interest to give those who are struggling a temporary boost to help them get back on their feet.
But I have not ONCE seen a gov't successfully change a person's morals, regarding abortion or any other moral issue, whether they be Christian or not. But then again, that is not a function of the gov't, is it? At best, a gov't can create laws to help adjust a person's outward behavior.

Sorry to ramble on. But you posted some interesting things that even I didn't know I had opinions on. I guess that's a good thing.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"Instead, the point was that the strategies preferred by those who oppose abortion are actually counterproductive (i.e., they actually work against the goal of reducing the number of abortions)"

What evidence are you citing to support this claim?

My strategy is to change hearts and minds and expose abortion for the evil that it is. How do you know this strategy is not working -- especially since you keep bringing up the point that abortions are down?

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"Scoff at pragmatic arguments all you want, if you don't mind happily capturing the "moral high ground" in your ivory tower while the problems that contribute most directly to abortion (e.g., poverty, poor education, lack of access to health care, etc.) are actively made worse by the policies of your party of choice."

The problem of abortion is incorrectly identifying the problem of abortion -- like you just did.

Not everyone who is poor automatically murders someone and steals. Not everyone who lacks a high school diploma automatically becomes a mugger.

Bad moral choices are a result of bad moral thinking and selfishness.

As we have discussed before, well educated rich people make poor moral choices -- just look at Enron.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"If you'll pardon the false dilemma, from the outside looking in, it looks to me like given an either-or choice between reducing the number of abortions or simply criminalizing it, most of the "pro-life" crowd would prefer criminalization. Because that's literally the only prong that I can see in their political agenda."

If you'll pardon me, most in the "pro-life" crowd would prefer for no one to ever view abortion as an option except in the rarest and most extreme cases where a mother would lose her life if she did not terminate.

We would not need laws to criminalize shop lifting if everyone agreed that it was wrong to shoplift and chose to do what was right.

What the pro-life camp prefers is for a change of heart and a change of thinking about the value of unborn human beings and why we ought to protect them instead of eliminate them -- and then rationalize it by blaming the government for not solving the problems of poverty.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"the focus needs to be on doing away with the conditions that drive women to choose abortion"

Exactly ... except you insist on putting the conditions "out there" in society instead of internally in the human heart.

You admitted that a woman makes a choice to abort based on an idea. Bad ideas are what cause abortions.

In your case, the poor woman refuses to see adoption as a choice -- and sees killing the child as a morally preferable choice to giving birth to the child and putting it up for adoption.

Bad idea. Bad moral reasoning. Bad thinking.

Let's change the thinking.

[Ramsey Wilson]

Great discussion, Mr. D and Danny Kaye re the Kingdom. I have a couple of thoughts/questions to add. Danny wrote:

the cross was His greatest reason for coming to earth. And I don't believe that the cross had anything to do with politics, or government. The cross's only objective was to bring the opportunity for the forgiveness of sins to mankind. And if that is what the cross was all about, then that is what WE should be all about.

Wasn’t the cross’s objective broader than that? Consider Colossians 1:18-20 describing Christ as “the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” In other words, Christ’s work on the cross not only provided the path to peace between God and humankind, but also set the stage for the restoration of the rest of creation.
Danny also wrote:

The purpose of today's laws (at least in the USA) is to ensure justice when injustice is served and ensure that a peaceful coexistence is available to all. But it has next to nothing to do with the laws of Christ. His laws just don't fit into this world's way of thinking. And that has always been the case.

The laws of Christ have a great deal to do with justice (and mercy, truth and grace), don’t they?

[Danny Kaye]

Welcome to the discussion, Ramsey. Good thoughts!

In other words, Christ’s work on the cross not only provided the path to peace between God and humankind, but also set the stage for the restoration of the rest of creation.

I need to ask, what exactly is the rest of creation? Surely it is not the birds and beasts. They never needed any kind of restoration. The same is true for the land and sea, the moon, sun and stars, and all the rest of creation outside of man.

Are you saying that the "things" in Col. 1 are gov't entities and the like? I simply can't buy into that thinking. Were not all of those under His authority even before the cross: Isaiah 40:22-23
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.

Unless Jesus was not God in the flesh, and therefore the two are not equals, then this passage must apply to Him as well.

Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus say that we are to take over the world or its gov't. Nowhere in the book of Acts do the brothers and sisters indicate that is a goal. And you really have to do some pretty swift dancing to prove that the rest of the NT says we should do so.

It was several hundred years after Christ ascended that Christianity and politics began to be bed-fellows. And it proved to be a horrible mistake.

The laws of Christ have a great deal to do with justice (and mercy, truth and grace), don’t they?

Obvously, this is true. But just because a very few of the gov't laws have Christain principle, does not, therefore, make the whole law Christian. There are many MANY laws in our gov't today that are as far from Christian as they can be.

The laws of Christ are about justice, mercy, truth and grace before God. They have to do with God's justice, God's merdy, God's grace, God's truth, and God's grace given to men through the blood of Jesus. They have next to nothing to do with how we legally stand before man based on our laws.

[tgirsch]

Danny Kaye:
Do you believe that increasing someone's income will change his or her morals?

Not by itself, no. I think the disconnect here is that you're identifying abortion as purely a moral problem, and I'm viewing it more as a practical one. But even from a moral perspective, I think poverty does have an impact. Stealing is generally immoral, I think we can agree. But someone who is poor is much more likely to be in a situation where they have a choice like "steal or don't eat," or, worse, "steal or don't feed your kids." Put simply, immoral acts are far more likely to be viewed as necessary by someone who is poor and has limited options.

In other words, the reason I think the rate is so much greater among the poor is not because they have looser morals than their less-poor counterparts, but because they are more likely to believe that they have no choice.

And let me clarify here that I don't view abortion to be "immoral," at least not in all cases. I'm just trying to show you why even from a perceived morality perspective, the poverty calculus works.

But we can't let stats remove parental responsibility, can we?

Of course not, but nobody is arguing that we should. I'm just saying that we shouldn't simply "trust" parental responsibility and leave it at that.

ut I refuse to believe that, because of my standing in society, my daughter is at a greater risk of having an abortion than one of my wealthy friends and neighbors.

You might not want to believe it, but the numbers don't lie. Statistically speaking, at least, she is at greater risk. Of course, this doesn't mean that she's somehow doomed to have an abortion, and there's plenty that you as a parent can do to help reduce the likelihood in her specific case. And you absolutely should do those things. But it would do a grave disservice to the children of irresponsible parents to simply leave it at that.

The problem, the way I see it, is that the gov't has been telling parents "we will take care of educating your kids" about sex, social acceptance, and all things moral, for so long, and with such fervor, that many parents no longer take it upon themselves to do ANY of it.

I won't deny that this factors in, but I submit that it's a much smaller factor than you seem to think. A bigger problem is that we have a lot of people who are simply unprepared to be parents becoming parents; this problem would ironically become orders of magnatude worse if abortion were criminalized (and if such criminalization actually prevented women who wanted abortions from getting them).

Widening the problem out to poverty in general, the so-called "welfare state" still gets far too much of the blame for this. For all its warts, I still think welfare programs do more harm than good. As it is, the cycle of poverty is extremely difficult to break; it would be even more so were it not for artificial opportunities created by government intervention that wouldn't otherwise be there. Heck, if you think it's bad now, imagine how much worse it would be without public schooling!

And this is especially true in the lower income bracket.

I simply don't believe this is true. The single most reliable indicator of poverty or economic success for an individual is the economic standing of their parents. And while I don't have hard figures to back this up, I'd bet $1 that this has actually flattened somewhat with the advent of universal public education and welfare programs.

But, in many cases, this could have been avoided if the parents loved their children enough to forewarn them about the consequences of sexual activity.

You'd have a much, much better shot if you did this AND discussed how pregnancy can be avoided when engaging in sexual activity. I seriously doubt sexual activity is limited to those who are ignorant of the "consequences."

But I have not ONCE seen a gov't successfully change a person's morals, regarding abortion or any other moral issue, whether they be Christian or not. But then again, that is not a function of the gov't, is it?

You know, it's hard to imagine a better pro-choice argument. :) This is why I continue to argue that abortion must be approached as a practical problem rather than a moral problem, at least in terms of government policy. As the old saying goes, you can't legislate morality. But you can legislate the externalities that are known to contribute to the problem.

Jeff:
What evidence are you citing to support this claim?

Well, for one thing, according to the AGI, a greater share of abortions are now being obtained at later times within pregnancies. A few years ago, fewer than 1% (about 0.9%) of abortions were obtained after 20 weeks. That number is now closer to 1.2%. I don't think it's a coincidence that during this time period, the pro-life lobby has gotten legislation enacted which makes access to abortion more difficult (things like waiting periods, mandatory counseling, etc.). These things aren't preventing women from having abortions; they're merely causing them to get them later.

My strategy is to change hearts and minds and expose abortion for the evil that it is.

I'm not really discussing your strategy, but the strategy of the larger pro-life movement. They do things like force a move away from comprehensive sex education, which is proven effective in reducing the teen pregnancy rate, and by extension the abortion rate, and instead replace it with proven-ineffective "abstinence-only" education. That's counterproductive.

But even with respect to your strategy, it starts too late. The emphasis needs to be less on preventing the abortion, and more on preventing the unintended pregnancy. Trying to prevent the sex can certainly be a part of this, but only a part.

Bad moral choices are a result of bad moral thinking and selfishness.

See above. When you start thinking about abortion in purely moral terms, you limit your ability to combat it. There's a huge practical aspect that simply cannot be ignored. Then factor in the fact that I and many, many others don't view abortion as being necessarily immoral. By taking the "hearts and minds" approach, you're betting the farm on the morality approach, thereby guaranteeing that you'll simply never connect with those who disagree with you on the morality issues.

If you'll pardon me, most in the "pro-life" crowd would prefer for no one to ever view abortion as an option except in the rarest and most extreme cases

I don't doubt this. But you've got a long, long way to go. Too far, I'd suggest, for the type of all-or-nothing approach the pro-lifers generally seem to prefer.

What the pro-life camp prefers is for a change of heart and a change of thinking about the value of unborn human beings and why we ought to protect them instead of eliminate them -- and then rationalize it by blaming the government for not solving the problems of poverty.

Calm down, there, Jeff. For starters, the poverty problem is not exclusively a government problem. I don't think I ever argued otherwise. In fact, I don't think I ever made the argument that "abortion is the government's fault because they haven't done enough to combat poverty." That's purely your fabrication. That said, government can play a role, and part of that role can be poverty-driven, since the two problems seem to be so tightly coupled.

Your approach is, in my estimation, far too simplistic. It seems to assume that if we just got the message across that abortion is wrong, and legislate punishments for abortionists, abortion will go away. It's nowhere near that simple. If you want to get truly serious about stopping abortion, you have to understand why women choose to abort, and work to eliminate these reasons. And most of those reasons are practical rather than moral. Which brings us to:

Exactly ... except you insist on putting the conditions "out there" in society instead of internally in the human heart.

Well, it's neither all of one nor all of the other. But it's at least as big a mistake for you to ignore the societal conditions as it is for me to ignore the "heart" issues. And since the subject at hand (for me, at least) is what government should do about it, it makes sense to focus on the social issues, since government is lousy at "heart" issues.

In your case, the poor woman refuses to see adoption as a choice

If you think adoption is a viable choice all or even most of the time, you're way off-base. Never mind the fact that the adoption system simply cannot handle the load this would drive, there are economic reasons why abortion is a much more viable choice for many women, especially poor ones. If a woman can barely afford to feed herself and make the rent, how is she supposed to afford prenatal care, maternity clothing, etc.?

Let's change the thinking.

I don't disagree with this, but that's not something government is very good at. And first and foremost, the thinking needs to be changed to "don't get pregnant in the first place." Historically speaking, at least, equating this with "don't have sex" simply hasn't worked.

To distill everything I've just written down into simpler terms, I think it's gravely short-sighted to just pound the single-prong of "abortion is wrong," to the exclusion of working to make abortion largely unnecessary. Even among those who agree with you that abortion is somehow "evil," many of them view it as a necessary evil. If every pregnancy were a wanted pregnancy, this simply wouldn't be the case.

[Ramsey Wilson]

Danny Kaye, thanks very much for making me feel welcome. I offer these answers in the friendly spirit in which your questions were asked. You wrote:

I need to ask, what exactly is the rest of creation? Surely it is not the birds and beasts. They never needed any kind of restoration. The same is true for the land and sea, the moon, sun and stars, and all the rest of creation outside of man.

By “rest of creation,” I suppose I meant just that. The effects of the fall extend far beyond our alienation from God. Trouble and anguish characterize our relationships with one another (Genesis 3:16). The ground itself has been cursed, and our work made difficult and less fruitful (vv.17-19). As Paul put it, “the whole of creation . . . groan[s]” as a result of Adam’s sin (Romans 8:22). All of creation is in “bondage” and subject to “suffering,” “decay” and “pain” (vv.18-22).

Are you saying that the "things" in Col. 1 are gov't entities and the like? I simply can't buy into that thinking. Were not all of those under His authority even before the cross

Yes, I suppose I am saying that the “things” referred to in Col. 1 include government and other institutions. The institutions provided by God remain under His authority, but they too are tainted by sin and in need of redemption. Government is no exception (e.g., Daniel 4:25-27; Dan. 3). Neither is the practice of religion (e.g., Genesis 4; 1 Kings 12:25-33), our notion of justice nor our poetry (Genesis 4:23-24).

It was several hundred years after Christ ascended that Christianity and politics began to be bed-fellows. And it proved to be a horrible mistake.

Right you are. Was it Martin Luther King, Jr. who said that the church must serve as neither the master nor the servant of the state – but as its conscience? Whoever said it was right. To that end, I believe that, as believers, it is our responsibility to bring to the public square a Christian understanding of justice, mercy, truth and grace, striving to personify those ideals and persuade others to adopt them.