I am a single issue voter

To be a single-issue voter is often sneered at as being too simplistic or overly confined to an ideology. However, I would suggest that all of us are single-issue voters. Each of us have a line, that if crossed by a politician renders them unworthy of our vote. For some that may be tax policy. For others that issue is welfare spending. While those are vitally important issues and are connected to the health and prosperity of our nation, abortion is, for me, that issue that separates the candidates above all else. I simply cannot cast a vote for anyone who believes that abortion is a good worth defending by the power of the state.

I am often confounded by those voters who are interested in "justice" but enthusiastically cast votes in favor of those who advance the greatest injustice of our time - the taking of life in the womb. The unborn are the weakest and most vulnerable among us. How can we tolerate legislation that allows them to be killed and cast aside like so much waste? Abortion is a breathtaking evil and any man or woman who desires to protect it as a right is unworthy of my vote.

Over at the Gospel Coalition, Joe Carter has written a helpful post on this very theme.

There are issues and then there are ISSUES

Great analysis by Denny Burk on the idea of "Post-Partisan" Evangelicals:

My concern with the post-partisanship of Jonathan Merritt is the message that it sends to ordinary evangelicals. When the ordinary evangelical steps into the voting booth this November, he will in fact have a choice to make. And that choice will involve prioritizing some issues over others. But I think Merritt disagrees. In his new book A Faith of Our Own, he writes:

Evangelicals…often reduce the immense witness of the Scriptures to only a few culture-war issues—namely, abortion and gay marriage. Both are important issues deserving serious thought. The Scriptures speak often about life and sexuality. But they also regularly address poverty, equality, justice, peace, and care of God’s good creation.

If Christians act as if the culture-war issues are the only issues or make them so paramount that they dwarf all others, we distill the limitless bounty of the Scriptures into a tiny cup of condensed political juice (p. 89).

How is a reader to apply this reasoning when it comes to voting? Merritt seems to be saying that evangelicals need not prioritize ending the regime of Roe v. Wade in their exercise of the franchise. If that is the message he’s trying to send, I think he is dead wrong.

When it comes to voting (which is the extent of political activism for most evangelicals), if everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. Merritt’s “post-partisan” approach causes the pro-life issue to get lost in the din of competing interests.

Christians should cast a wary eye toward anyone who suggests that abortion-on-demand is just one among many social ills. In America, it is the single greatest human rights crisis of our time, and to overlook the fact that it is legal in all fifty states to kill a person at any time from 0-9 months gestation is unconscionable.

Abortion definitely deserves more than “serious thought” in the voting booth. It deserves priority.

Read Denny's entire post HERE.

Is it time for civil disobedience?

"We have come to the point—I say this very soberly—when if there isn’t a dramatic change in circumstances, we as Christians may well be called upon to stand in civil disobedience against the actions of our own government. That would break my heart as a former Marine Captain loving my country, but I love my God more… I’ve made up my mind—sober as that decision would have to be—that I will stand for the Lord regardless of what my state tells me."

Clear thinking on Mormonism

With the presidential campaign in full swing, Mitt Romney's candidacy has brought the issue of Mormonism into the public debate. Mormonism is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. It is not longer the backwoods little cult struggling to survive in northwest Missouri. But while there is more public acceptance of Mormonism than there was in the mid 19th century, it is still as far from Christianity as any other false religion.

Al Mohler writes:

Mormonism does not claim to be just another denomination of Christianity. To the contrary, the central claim of Mormonism is that Christianity was corrupt and incomplete until the restoration of the faith with the advent of the Latter-Day Saints and their scripture, The Book of Mormon. Thus, it is just a matter of intellectual honesty to take Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, at his word when he claimed that true Christianity did not exist from the time of the Apostles until the reestablishment of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods on May 15, 1829.

From a Christian perspective, Mormonism is a new religion, complete with its own scripture, its own priesthood, its own rituals, and its own teachings. Most importantly, those teachings are a repudiation of historic Christian orthodoxy — and were claimed to be so from the moment of Mormonism’s founding forward. Mormonism rejects orthodox Christianity as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.

Mormonism starts with an understanding of God that rejects both monotheism and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Mormon concept of God includes many gods, not one. Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are now what God once was and are becoming what He now is. This is in direct conflict with historic Christianity.

Mormonism rejects the Bible as the sole and sufficient authority for the faith, and insists that The Book of Mormon and other authoritative Latter-Day Saints writings constitute God’s final revelation. Furthermore, the authority in Mormonism is mediated through a human priesthood, through whom God is claimed to speak directly and authoritatively to the church. Nothing makes the distinction between Mormonism and historic Christianity more clear than the experience of reading The Book of Mormon. The very subtitle of The Book of Mormon — Another Testament of Jesus Christ — makes one of Mormonism’s central claims directly and candidly: That we need another authority to provide what is lacking in the New Testament...

It is neither slander nor condescension to state clearly that Mormonism is not Christianity. Taking Mormonism on its own terms, one finds a comprehensive set of teachings and doctrines that are self-consciously set against historic Christianity. The larger world may be confused about this, but biblical Christians cannot make this error, for we are certain that the consequences are eternal.

Next, Dr. Mohler addresses whether or not Christians should vote for a Mormon:

It is on this question that Evangelicals must think forcefully, faithfully . . . and fast. We need to recognize that we are asking this question from a privileged historical and political context. For most of our nation’s history, voters have chosen among presidential candidates who were identified, to one degree or another, with some form of Protestant Christianity. To date, for example, America has had only one Roman Catholic president and one Jewish candidate for vice president as a major party nominee.

It can be argued that our contemporary political context puts greater emphasis on the religious identity of candidates at all levels than has ever been experienced in American history. Both major political parties have sought various elements of the religious electorate and have developed strategies accordingly.

Read on HERE.

Another small step in the right direction...

Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed into law a state-wide ban on all abortions based on gender or race.

Read the story HERE.

A few thoughts:

1. It should tell us something about the "pro-choice" folks that they would find this law controversial.

2. Some of you are surprised that Americans can have their unborn babies killed simply because they are the "wrong" gender.

3. It is a lie that our elected officials cannot truly impact the reality of abortion.

4. Elections impact abortion so it matters who we vote for.

A Matter of Conscience

Some good news came out of the House of Representatives this week. The Pence Amendment passed which assures that federal funds will not be given to Planned Parenthood. This is a good thing.

However, there are those in Washington who are intent on advancing a pro-abortion agenda. Health care workers in the U.S. have been protected by a conscience clause from having any participation in abortions. But on Friday the Obama administration made great strides to rob health care workers of this protection. This is truly an outrage that ought to concern every American.

Al Mohler comments:

The Obama administration has revoked nearly all of the conscience protections put in place by the administration of President George W. Bush. The policy change came just today, and was released as a new rule from the Department of Health and Human Services. As Rob Stein of The Washington Post reports, “The Obama administration rescinded most of a federal regulation Friday designed to protect health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable on personal or religious grounds.”

In this case, “most” means almost all of the previous rule has been rescinded. Stein described the action by stating that the Obama administration had “eliminated nearly the entire rule.” All that remains are protections put in place previously covering medical personnel who object to abortion or sterilization. Gone are all protections for those who object by conscience to abortifacient drugs and “emergency” contraceptives, the treatment of gay men and lesbians, and prescriptions for birth control sought by single women. In these cases, medical personnel have objected that their conscience and understanding of medical ethics do not allow them to facilitate acts and behaviors that are both immoral and unhealthy.

Read the entire post HERE.

Orwell on Political Speech...

In light of recent statements made from political leaders celebrating the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade...

“Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
- George Orwell

The Supreme Court, Kermit Gosnell, and Roe's "fine print"

Justin Taylor links to an important article by Clarke Forsythe in The Weekly Standard. Forsythe demonstrates the connection between the Supreme Court's actions in Roe v. Wade and the "house of horrors" which was Kermit Gosnell's abortion mill in Philadelphia.

Can we honestly claim any longer that there is no direct connection between the people we elect, the policies they enact (and judges they appoint) and the devestating evil of abortion?

Speaking Truth to Power

Al Mohler weighs in on the President's troubling celebration of the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

As he concluded his brief statement, the President said: “And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

That paragraph is just a recitation of the feminist argument that was enshrined in Roe v. Wade — that women, no more than men, should be encumbered by the professional and personal limitations required by a pregnancy. That logic is enshrined as orthodoxy within the Democratic Party, and President Obama is one of its most ardent defenders.

Ever since Barack Obama emerged on the national political scene, he has been promoted and protected by a corps of preachers and religious leaders who have tried their best to explain that he is not so pro-abortion as he seems. Nevertheless, his record is all too clear — as is this most recent statement. There was not one expression of abortion as a national tragedy, even as a report recently indicated that almost 60 percent of all pregnancies among African American women in New York City end in abortion.

Read the entire post HERE.

Will our leaders stand for life?

I stay away from partisan politics on this blog and in my preaching. However, I have not and will not shy away from addressing abortion. I will also not shy away from the connection between who we elect for public office and abortion policy. The following is from a statement from President Obama on the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade:

Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.

And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

I am left a bit speechless. I know this is not a new view from our President but I am shocked at the lack of moral clarity displayed in that statement. All of us, including (especially?) our leaders must have the moral clarity to oppose, not champion such an unmitigated evil.



HT: Justin Taylor

Connecting the dots

Well, it will not be surprising if the national media conveniently neglects the unholy and very clear nexus between pro-choice politicians, local bureaucrats, and monsters like Kermit Gosnell.

Michelle Malkin writes:

In the City of Brotherly Love, hundreds of babies were murdered by a scissors-wielding monster over four decades. Whistleblowers informed public officials at all levels of the wanton killings of innocent life. But a parade of government health bureaucrats and advocates protecting the abortion racket looked the other way —until, that is, a Philadelphia grand jury finally exposed the infanticide factory run by abortionist Kermit B. Gosnell, M.D., and a crew of unlicensed, untrained butchers masquerading as noble providers of women’s “choice.” Prosecutors charged Gosnell and his death squad with multiple counts of murder, infanticide, conspiracy, abuse of corpse, theft, and other offenses...

Already, left-wing journalists and activists have rushed to explain that these abortion atrocities ignored for four decades by abortion radicals and rationalizers are not really about abortion. A Time magazine writer argued that the Philadelphia Horror was “about poverty, not Roe v. Wade.” A University of Minnesota professor declared: “This is not about abortion.”

But the grand jury itself pointed out that loosened oversight of abortion clinics enacted under pro-choice former GOP governor Tom Ridge enabled Gosnell’s criminal enterprise — and led to the heartless execution of hundreds of babies. Mass murder got a pass in the name of expanding “access” and appeasing abortion lobbyists.

As the report made clear: “With the change of administration from [pro-life Democratic] Gov. Casey to Gov. Ridge,” government health officials “concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay.”

Deadly indifference to protecting life isn’t tangential to the abortion industry’s existence — it’s at the core of it. The Philadelphia Horror is no anomaly. It’s the logical, bloodcurdling consequence of an evil, eugenics-rooted enterprise wrapped in feminist clothing.

Yes, it does matter who we vote for. It does matter if the men and women we vote for are pro-life or not. They write and enforce policy that either increases or decreases the numbers of abortions. Let us not kid ourselves any more that we can support pro-abortion politicians with a clear conscience. When a politician publicly supports and even champions the death dealers like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the reverberations are devastating.

Lillback & Trueman on Christianity and Politics

The guys at Reformed Forum do great work. They have recently taped a discussion with Carl Trueman and Peter Lillback on the subject of Christianity and politics. The video below is an excerpt.



The entire discussion can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

A return to the civility of the past...

Political Discource and the 9th Commandment

Some of you will be overjoyed by this post thinking that it represents the dawning of change in my political perspective (which it does not). Others of you will get angry, having the same thought. So, here goes...

Over at Ref21 my friend Carl has posted what I believe is a very balanced and thoughtful rebuke concerning the nature of contemporary political discourse among evangelicals.

Carl is interesting to most American Christians. It would be difficult to find a man of greater orthodox or "conservative" theological convictions. He is also pro-life and believes that biblical sexual ethics are not to be re-imagined for our own day. You will also find few men who can more ably skewer contemporary liberalism. And yet he is also, in some ways, a man of the left. Some of his ideas about the role of government would drive most conservatives a bit crazy. So what are we to make of a man like Carl? It seems to me that he is, in some ways, a man without a home (politically speaking). He is as offensive to liberals as he is to conservatives.

This is one of the reasons I like spending time with Carl. When it comes to politics I don't always agree with him but he makes me think (and he usually makes me laugh as well). Plus, he's a fun pub mate.

Anyway, I found this piece to be spot on and convicting for I have been guilty of breaking the 9th Commandment in some of my own discourse (believe it or not!).

One of the most depressing things about the current season of political stumping in the USA is the mindless nature of so much of the discourse. The recent sight of the unbearably self-important and ill-informed Bill O'Reilly and the overwheeningly self-righteous and equally ignorant Whoopi Goldberg squaring off in a TV spat about as realistic and spontaneous as a Hulk Hogan smackdown just about says it all. The most popular TV pundit of the Right, who yet cannot define `socialism,' versus the advocate for women's rights who does not regard the drugging, and forcible and perverted sexual violation of a thirteen year old girl as `rape.' If ever we needed a microcosmic demonstration of all that is wrong with left and right, those two say it all: it is all about empty posturing, extreme slogans, and, above all, entertainment.

More worrying, however, is the role of the religious in all this. The culture of extreme nonsense that leads many to regard the O'Reillys, Becks, Goldbergs and Olbermanns of this world as serious contributors to intelligent debate and discussion is, sadly, alive and well in religious circles, and frequently fed by such. Just recently, I read a comment in World Magazine describing Obama as a `Marxist-Christian syncretist.' Of course, Marxism, like socialism, is a term the Religious Right love to hate, even as they often struggle to be able to define it with any degree of precision. For myself, while disagreeing with many of Obama's policies, I find characterisation of him as a Marxist to be ridiculous, risible, and an affront to those who have truly struggled (and continue to struggle) under real totalitarian Marxist regimes. Indeed, when the `M' word is used by the Religious Right in the USA, it would seem to function in the same hyperbolic way as the phrase `You've totally ruined my life!' functions for the typical teenager whose cell phone has been confiscated for a couple of hours by an irate parent.

More seriously, however, if I myself were to apply such a term to Obama, it would surely represent a breach of my ordination vows. I subscribe to the Westminster Standards and, in the Larger Catechism, Question 128, on the Fifth Commandment, `What are the sins of inferiors to superiors?' carries the following answer: `The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against, their persons and places, in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking, and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonour to them.' I will not bore readers with the LC on other aspects of the Fifth commandment or, indeed, on the Ninth Commandment; suffice it to say that neither really allow much room for hurling accusations of `Marxist' or `Fascist' against those with whom we simply happen to disagree on marginal tax rates, health care, or Wall Street reform.

So here are two fun suggestions: Christians, right and left, should model intelligent civic engagement, not help to destroy it by pandering to the moronic soundbites and posturing of the TV pundits. And anybody who holds office in a confessional presbyterian denomination and who calls the President a Marxist (or carries around a picture of him at a rally photoshopped to make him into Hitler or the Joker), or anyone, for that matter, who claims that the Republicans are all Fascists or racists -- anybody who does such, I say, should be charged in the courts of the church with breach of vows and, if unrepentant, dismissed from office. Criticism and dissent are vital in democracy; but how we express that criticism and dissent should be shaped by our Christian commitments and, for those of us who hold office, by our solemn vows.

A letter from Nacy Guthrie to her pastors

There is nothing I can add to Nancy's words. She expresses my thoughts concerning clergy participation in the Glenn Beck rally better than I can...

Dear Pastors Benton, Filson, and Teller:

I know it has been a few weeks now since the big Glenn Beck rally in Washington. Most of the conversation about it has centered on Beck’s Mormon faith. But that is not what prompts me to write to you. What prompts me to write is a statement Beck made on August 30 in an appearance on Bill O’Reilly’s show, when he cheerfully celebrated that “240 pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams on stage all locked arms saying the principles of America need to be taught from the pulpit.”

As I’ve continued to think about this statement, I’m moved to write today and say “thank you” for not being one of them. Thank you for your faithfulness in preaching Christ from the pulpit, not “the principles of America.” Thank you for leaving that to others and reserving the sacred desk at our church for preaching, in the last few weeks, about the once-for-all sufficient sacrifice of Christ, about the privilege we have to approach God in prayer as Father, about Christ as the Wisdom of God, about Christ as the most valuable Treasure in the universe, worth trading everything to have.

I love my country and certainly I have concerns about where it is headed. But I also know that “this world in its present form is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31). I know—as you quote it week-by-week—that “all men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever” (1 Pet. 1:24-25; cf. Is. 40:6-8).

So thank you for continuing to preach the word of the Lord and present the beauty of Christ, and for not being so short-sighted to preach the “principles of America.” You keep calling me to love Christ more than my country, more than anything, and this is the word I need most to hear.

God and Caesar

From Collin Hansen:

Enjoying a sunny fall day, I walked around the National Mall on Saturday afternoon. Before visiting any other favorite sites, I ascended the temple steps where Father Abraham presides on his throne over American civil religion. Designed to recall the Greek Parthenon, this memorial secures Lincoln’s place in the American pantheon. If you champion a social cause and want to leave your mark on America, you must at some point make the pilgrimage to this hallowed ground. All the better if you can deliver a speech that incorporates elements of Lincoln’s famed Gettysburg Address.

Only three weeks earlier self-appointed political prophet Glenn Beck claimed Lincoln’s imprimatur by packing these same steps for a rally. But religious nationalists who invoke America’s greatest president never seem to understand the irony of his memory. The man who saved the Union understood that God transcends and judges it. God’s ways often surpass our understanding. We cannot manipulate him to baptize our pet causes. Read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, a stunningly moving model of public theology written by a man whose true beliefs elude historians still today. No, actually read the speech and marvel at this man’s magnanimity after four years of shockingly bloody killing. He captured in this speech a mature political philosophy that shamed the many warmongers masquerading as pastors in both the North and South. Even today, the church cries out to God for him to raise up more pastors and theologians who can help the evangelical public understand that for all this nation’s blessings, Jesus Christ didn’t robe himself in an American flag.

My concern stems from experience working on Capitol Hill in partisan roles. When I struggled several years ago to distinguish between my theological beliefs and convictions on such matters as tax policy and federal bureaucracy, I needed an oasis where I could escape the withering heat of political campaigning. I found it in the community of Capitol Hill Baptist Church. Only here did I associate with anyone from the other party. Only here did I hear a message that would endure forever, long after everyone had forgotten any press releases or speeches I wrote. And when I returned on September 16 for a 9Marks Weekender hosted by the church, I found here again a refuge from the arguments that the world invests with undue importance. Indeed, I heard from senior pastor Mark Dever the best sermon I know on Christianity and government. Thabiti Anyabwile, who formerly worked with Dever, described the sermon as “a biblical theology of Christians and the state, at once full of unction, intellectually challenging, and affecting the heart. I’ve heard a lot of Mark’s preaching, but I don’t know that I’ve ever heard him better.”

Read the entire post HERE.

On Trading the Gospel for Political Power

Okay, I don't hide the fact that I am conservative politically. I believe the federal government is too big and that it taxes people too much. I believe abortion is a moral crime and a national shame and am committed to never voting for anyone who is pro-choice. But I continue to be concerned that some of my fellow conservatives seem to be undiscerning when it comes to the relationship between politics and the Christian faith. Too often it seems that some of my conservative brethren are willing to ignore distortions to the Gospel in order to enjoy the cheap pottage of political power. The political left has done this for generations. Why have we followed suit?

Certainly there were many good and decent people attending the "Restoring Honor" rally this weekend. But brothers and sisters we must clear: Glenn Beck is not a Christian. He is a Mormon. Mormons deny every fundamental doctrine of biblical faith. My fellow conservatives, recall how we fume and fuss when the Christian left partners with universalists, Buddhists, Nation of Islam and other Christ-deniers in order to further political ends? Why are we doing the same thing?

Russell Moore (no liberal!) of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has written a fine article on the subject. I ask you to consider it carefully.

A Mormon television star stands in front of the Lincoln Memorial and calls American Christians to revival. He assembles some evangelical celebrities to give testimonies, and then preaches a God and country revivalism that leaves the evangelicals cheering that they’ve heard the gospel, right there in the nation’s capital.

The news media pronounces him the new leader of America’s Christian conservative movement, and a flock of America’s Christian conservatives have no problem with that.

If you’d told me that ten years ago, I would have assumed it was from the pages of an evangelical apocalyptic novel about the end-times. But it’s not. It’s from this week’s headlines. And it is a scandal.

Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, of course, is that Mormon at the center of all this. Beck isn’t the problem. He’s an entrepreneur, he’s brilliant, and, hats off to him, he knows his market. Latter-day Saints have every right to speak, with full religious liberty, in the public square. I’m quite willing to work with Mormons on various issues, as citizens working for the common good. What concerns me here is not what this says about Beck or the “Tea Party” or any other entertainment or political figure. What concerns me is about what this says about the Christian churches in the United States.

It’s taken us a long time to get here, in this plummet from Francis Schaeffer to Glenn Beck. In order to be this gullible, American Christians have had to endure years of vacuous talk about undefined “revival” and “turning America back to God” that was less about anything uniquely Christian than about, at best, a generically theistic civil religion and, at worst, some partisan political movement.

Rather than cultivating a Christian vision of justice and the common good (which would have, by necessity, been nuanced enough to put us sometimes at odds with our political allies), we’ve relied on populist God-and-country sloganeering and outrage-generating talking heads. We’ve tolerated heresy and buffoonery in our leadership as long as with it there is sufficient political “conservatism” and a sufficient commercial venue to sell our books and products.

Too often, and for too long, American “Christianity” has been a political agenda in search of a gospel useful enough to accommodate it. There is a liberation theology of the Left, and there is also a liberation theology of the Right, and both are at heart mammon worship. The liberation theology of the Left often wants a Barabbas, to fight off the oppressors as though our ultimate problem were the reign of Rome and not the reign of death. The liberation theology of the Right wants a golden calf, to represent religion and to remind us of all the economic security we had in Egypt. Both want a Caesar or a Pharaoh, not a Messiah...

Where there is no gospel, something else will fill the void: therapy, consumerism, racial or class resentment, utopian politics, crazy conspiracy theories of the left, crazy conspiracy theories of the right; anything will do. The prophet Isaiah warned us of such conspiracies replacing the Word of God centuries ago (Is. 8:12–20). As long as the Serpent’s voice is heard, “You shall not surely die,” the powers are comfortable.

Read the entire article HERE.

Republocrat

One of the reasons I like hanging out with Carl Trueman is that he seems to have a reckless disregard for his reputation. What I mean is that he cares more about being truthful than he does about being liked.

I'm looking forward to the release of Carl's latest book, Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative published by P&R. The video below is an interview with Carl from the fellas at Christ the Center. Incidentally, Carl will be preaching at Church of the Saviour on September 5.




Endorsements of Republocrat:
“As Carl Trueman points out in his witty, provocative, and deeply well-informed way, the alliance of conservative Christianity with conservative (neoliberal) politics is a circumstance of our own context in U.S. politics—neither historically nor logically necessary. Tie the faith too closely to right-wing politics, and it’s no wonder that younger Christians think they have to check out of orthodoxy when they move left of center politically. Regardless of one’s own views, this book will delight, frustrate, and encourage healthy dis- cussions that we have needed to have for a long time.”
- Michael Horton, J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics, Westminster Seminary California

“The disturbing alliance of conservative theology and right-wing politics is faced head-on in this timely and brave treatment by renowned historical-theologian and social commentator Carl Trueman. Even if readers disagree with Dr. Trueman’s conclusions, the sharpness of his critique should disturb the most entrenched political consciousness, particularly if the foundations of convic- tion are shown to have little or no biblical support. Writing in a predictably provocative and forthright manner, Trueman pulls few, if any, punches. Republocrat is a timely and robust assessment of a vitally important issue and a cri de coeur for a reappraisal of the conservative church’s current political alliance.”
- Derek W. H. Thomas, John E. Richards Professor of Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary

“What we really have here is a lonely thinker who longs for the truth of a better city that he cannot find on either side of the Atlantic. He lampoons the cherished political idols that dominate our political landscape. I couldn’t suppress chortles of laughter, alongside shocks of disdain and disagreement, all the while admiring Trueman’s unmasking of the well-camouflaged foolishness on all points of the political spectrum. This histo- rian-turned-pundit, with all the force of a prizefighter’s left jab and right hook, leaves the left, right, and center (or centre) reel- ing on the ropes. Therefore, I heartily recommend that you read this book, but you do so at your own peril. Its intensity, as well as its pointed, provocative, and persuasive prose, will force you to look at the Vanity Fair of politics from a pilgrim’s per- spective. It’s just possible that you, too, will begin to yearn for a better city.”
- Peter Lillback, President of the Providence Forum

I appreciate Dr. Lillback's observation. In addition to sounding the alarm about the uneasy wedding of religion with conservative politics, Carl is also no friend of the "religious left." In fact I know of few people who are as perceptive about the problems of the alliance between religion and leftist politics as Carl Trueman.

Inconsistent Pro-lifers...

Randy Alcorn is one of the most articulate pro-lifers I know of. He is also a man who has paid a high price (literally) for his commitment to the weakest, most vulnerable members of the human family. In an interview with Alcorn, Mark Driscoll asks if evangelical pro-lifers are inconsistent in voting for pro-abortion political candidates.

Check it out HERE.

Lying in order to justify what is evil

It is now clear that, while serving in President Clinton's administration, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan lied in official documents in order to push a radically pro-abortion agenda. She knowingly manipulated scientific data to justify the evil of partial birth abortion.

In 2000 the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law prohibiting partial birth abortion. The key document they cited in justifying their position came from a 'select panel' of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). The report from the ACOG stated that partial birth abortion, "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” There is only one problem. That is not what the ACOG wrote. The language was placed in the statement by Elena Kagan who was serving as a policy advisor to President Clinton. Originally, the statement from the ACOG read that they, "could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” The difference, of course, is radical.

In a devastating article written for National Review Online, Shannen W. Coffin writes:

Upon receiving the task force’s draft statement, Kagan noted in another internal memorandum [PDF] that the draft ACOG formulation “would be a disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation.” Any expression of doubt by a leading medical body about the efficacy of the procedure would severely undermine the case against the ban...

Her notes, produced by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee, show that she herself drafted the critical language hedging ACOG’s position. On a document [PDF] captioned “Suggested Options” — which she apparently faxed to the legislative director at ACOG — Kagan proposed that ACOG include the following language: “An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”

Kagan’s language was copied verbatim by the ACOG executive board into its final statement, where it then became one of the greatest evidentiary hurdles faced by Justice Department lawyers (of whom I was one) in defending the federal ban. (Kagan’s role was never disclosed to the courts.) The judicial battles that followed led to two Supreme Court opinions, several trials, and countless felled trees. Now we learn that language purporting to be the judgment of an independent body of medical experts devoted to the care and treatment of pregnant women and their children was, in the end, nothing more than the political scrawling of a White House appointee.

Read the entire article HERE.

So, a supposedly independent and nonpartisan scientific organization whose stated purpose is to care for pregnant women allowed themselves to be co opted by a political appointee in order to advance a political agenda. And now the one who distorted the original report from the ACOG will likely sit on the Supreme Court.