Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(116)
-
▼
Feb 2008
(26)
- Book Review: Machete Season
- Conservative Evangelicalism
- The Second Coming and the End of Suffering
- Children Watching Television
- A Case Against Illegal Immigration
- Bilbo's Alive, and He Lives in Wales!
- Rhythm versus Worship
- Evolution and Creationism
- Presidential abortion policies matter
- Sharia marches on
- The Wolf Speaks...
- PBS and the Emerging Church
- Sticks and stones may break...
- Pluralism debunked
- Finally, an Obama policy... and it's not pretty
- Channeling Chaucer
- Archbishop of Canterbury, Multiculturalism, and Lu...
- Obama ♥ Che
- Case against abortion
- Now THAT was a Concession Speech
- Barbarism in Saudi Arabia
- McCain's Reign, Romney's Campaign, and My Disdain
- Leo on the suppression of diversity
- I Can Do Better! - Part Trois
- Classless loser
- Withering on the vine
-
▼
Feb 2008
(26)
Labels
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Here is a good critique of Jim Wallis' recent interview with the Boston Globe.
No matter how you slice it, Wallis is dodging the fundamental moral issue at the bottom of the abortion debate—that a person can kill an innocent human being with the protection of the law at any point during gestation. Wallis’s rhetoric indicates that he thinks he has staked out some “middle place” between the Democrats and the Republicans. In reality, he hasn’t. His position in this interview is no different from the hackneyed line made famous by former President Clinton—that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”
Calling on the Democrats to press for a “reduction” in abortions is just plain silly in light of what’s at stake. If abortion really is the taking of innocent human life, does it make any moral sense simply to call for a “reduction” in abortions while keeping it protected in law? It makes about as much sense as calling for a reduction in pedophilia while keeping pedophilia protected in law. The point is that if abortion is an affront to human dignity, then the laws (or Supreme Court decisions) that protect it are immoral and should be overturned. The only moral position is the one that seeks to protect the unborn in law, but apparently Wallis thinks this to be an “extreme” position.
What is perhaps even more astonishing is the fact that Wallis speaks of what “most Americans” want as if it provided some kind of norm. It may be true that most Americans don’t want to outlaw abortion, but it also may be true that most Americans are wrong. It is precisely for this reason that most Americans need to hear a clear word about the moral status of abortion. In other words, they need a prophetic word from Christians about what God thinks about abortion. Does Wallis seriously believe that God occupies the “middle place” on this question?
One thing is certain. God is not indifferent about the slaughter of the innocents. If that is not clear to people now, it will be on the Great Day. Shouldn’t faithful evangelicals be about making this truth plain in advance of that day? If Wallis wants to have a “prophetic voice,” he’ll have to do much better than this. This kind of talk is shamefully anything but prophetic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment