The maker of the videos producing so much outrage about Planned Parenthood conducted an interview with Christianity Today. Among the statements made:
How did you get people to talk to you? There have been other undercover videos about Planned Parenthood in the past, so you would think they’d be more skeptical.
It’s reasonable to think they would be skeptical. We were quite surprised, during the course of this project, how trusting and how willing to talk and negotiate and let us into the inner circle Planned Parenthood was.
All we had to do was say two things. Number one, that we supported their work. And number two, that we wanted to buy their fetal body parts. Those were the magic words. And they were willing to bend over backwards to accommodate that. . . .
There are some critics, who share your beliefs about abortion, who are uncomfortable with the techniques you use. They say misrepresenting who you are and using undercover video is unethical. How do you respond to that claim? And what are the laws about undercover recording in states like California, where you recorded video?
California has a recording law that prohibits the surreptitious recording of what are called “confidential communications,” so California’s recording statute is limited.
I think that there are a minority of people who think that any kind of undercover work is prima facie wrong and unethical. I certainly don’t subscribe to that view. Most people don’t subscribe to that view. Undercover work is a pretty common tactic among law enforcement and journalists. I don’t think the techniques that we use are any more extreme than what is done every day by mainstream investigative journalists.
People don’t realize that it’s a common law liberty in the United States to change your name at will. I think it’s a little silly to say that it’s unethical when it is a common law liberty to present yourself however you want to present yourself. . . .
What are your personal beliefs and how do they inform the work you do?
I am Catholic, and I am a really big fan of Pope Francis. He has been a huge inspiration to me over the past couple of years, especially while doing this project.
Pope Francis’s emphasis on not being closed in on yourself but always moving forward and always being willing to go out towards the margins of human experience—in order to bring the gospel to those margins—was a huge inspiration to me during this project. I don’t think there’s any place more on the existential margins of society than an abortion clinic.
I think that when you have a place like an abortion clinic—which is a place where children are killed on an industrial scale—there is almost a sacramental value in bringing a presence to those places. We were there for good, out of love, and to welcome those children for the brief time that they will be in existence before they die. And to be in contact with and pray for all the abortion workers, the abortion doctors who are there.
As a Christian you are part of the body of Christ. So your presence, even in those darkest of places, can bring the presence of Jesus.
Notice the knots David Daleiden ties himself in. It’s “common law” here to change your name, so deceit is okay, saying exactly what you have no intention of meaning, like “we support your work” and “want to buy fetal body parts.” Well, isn’t isn’t it also legal to have an abortion? Not saying that’s a good thing. But if you use state law to justify violating on of the Ten Commandments, haven’t you given up any claim to moral authority against the other side which could argue in a similar fashion.
Then Daleiden claims the inspiration of Pope Francis and Christianity. Isn’t that a reason not to deceive? Think Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons. He could have saved his life if he had lied and taken the oath, right? If you took a 2k view of this and made it less religious calling and more secular vocation, perhaps you could argue that as a journalist you sometimes don’t follow all of God’s laws in order to get a story. But when you want to claim Christian standing for what you do and then violate Christian morality, that’s a violation.
Old Life 
But what about the Israeli spies and Rahab? Maybe all is fair in love and culture war. Did Jonathan Pollard try this defense?
LikeLike
@cw That’s a good counter example. The work of ten Boom and the Dutch resistance is a more contemporary example.
I’m not sure I follow this. If I lie to advance my secular career, aren’t I sinning and in need of confession? While I agree that much of life is in the grey and the church doesn’t have much to say about how I conduct myself, I don’t think it is fair to say that everything is gray and the church has nothing to say about how I conduct myself. It seems to me that prohibitions against lust and rage (much less adultery and murder) apply whether I am at work in a secular job or a religious one. That might also mean that there are some jobs Christians can’t do (Christian hitman?).
LikeLike
Darryl,
You’re assuming that the Ten Commandments prohibit lying under any and all circumstances, a view that is by no means unanimous in the Reformed tradition.
And SDB is right, how does viewing your job as a secular vocation make lying okay?
LikeLike
How is 2K a solution for the very serious ethical problem to which you point? Christ our King has forbidden us to lie. Aren’t believers throwing off His kingship if we say that there is an area of our lives where we may disobey His commands?
LikeLike
The midwives in Exodus who saved little Jewish boys’ lives…
Darryl, you are caught inside an infinite circle,a very tiny one that leads to insanity.
Read Chesterton to understand what I M telling you, if you are able.
LikeLike
sdb, wasn’t really trying to counter — just raising a question, which is what I think DGH is trying to do. The army of a theocracy with a divine mandate might have a little wiggle room. David seemed to have plenty.
LikeLike
Maybe it comes down to whether you see Operation Rescue-style groups as having a divine mandate and prerogatives of holy warriors. MW could find many example of papal troops and papal-inspired troops taking similar liberties, I’m sure. If she so chose.
LikeLike
And what could go wrong?
LikeLike
sdb, all I meant was that in secular vocations Christians do things they wouldn’t do as Christians. Take being a soldier and killing another combatant. I would imagine that as a soldier I might also lie to an enemy interlocutor.
LikeLike
JW, not if he’s king of Saddam Hussein and George Bush.
LikeLike
Mermaid, what did I do now? I didn’t attach your perfect holy apostolic church.
LikeLike
cw, and we need to reconcile Daleiden with Calvin’s Christian option, no?
LikeLike
Darryl,
sdb, all I meant was that in secular vocations Christians do things they wouldn’t do as Christians.
But that’s so ambiguous. Does a grocery clerk cease to be a Christian when he puts on HIs uniform and punches the clock. Does he abandon his faith for an 8-hour shift?
Take being a soldier and killing another combatant.
Is a Christian soldier committing apostasy right before he pulls the trigger? Otherwise, how is he not being a Christian and only a soldier.
I would imagine that as a soldier I might also lie to an enemy interlocutor.
So the ethics depend on some measure on the circumstances. That makes sense and I agree with it. But to say that the soldier is not a Christian or not living as a Christian when doing so seems a tad bit of a stretch, especially if there are circumstances under which a lie is not evil.
LikeLike
Robert, are you defending Daleiden?
LikeLike
She whose feet are webbed, that was obeying God rather than men. How is willfully lying and deceiving that?
LikeLike
Darryl,
I don’t think what Daleiden did was wrong. IOW, the ninth commandment doesn’t prohibit lying or deception in every single circumstance. Others have listed the biblical examples. Hebrews said that Rahab’s lie was an act of faith.
LikeLike
@dgh
I agree that there are things one would do in secular employ that one wouldn’t do in church, and perhaps even go a bit further and say that there are certain endeavors that while not generally sinful should not be open to clergy (maybe). But the fact that I wouldn’t sell a used car “as a Christian” (which I take to mean as part of worship or as a representative of my congregation), doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t be held to Christian norms when selling a car (would the session be justified in hearing charges against me for cheating a fellow congregant by rolling back the odometer on a car I sold him?). Or perhaps a better example is a football player who doesn’t play for the NFL as a “Christian athlete”. Is he justified in neglecting sabbath observance in pursuit of his career? Or am I still hopelessly misreading you here?
LikeLike
Darryl,
“sdb, all I meant was that in secular vocations Christians do things they wouldn’t do as Christians. ”
So I take it you would give up Jews, slaves, domestic abuse victims, etc. you were hiding in your home when asked upon since that’s not vocation-dependent?
Also, the precedent of commended OT figures has already been brought up. Is it your contention those examples were reflecting God’s tolerance and accommodation for those times a la polygamy and thus are no longer applicable in ethical evaluation?
LikeLike
Robert, the biblical examples prove too much. This isn’t redemptive history. This is ordinary human activity. And if lies and deception are kosher in the greater service of burying the abortion industry, I wonder if there’s ever a time that abortion is kosher? It’s part of basic medical training.
LikeLike
Zrim, spot on. If we start choosing lesser evils, we have become utilitarians. And there are no moral dilemnas, times when we must choose a lesser evil, for “when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”
But maybe could you expound on the reference to redemptive history? Are you saying those lies (midwives, Rahab) were righteous, or simply that they were God-ordained (like Judas’s betrayal)?
LikeLike
Walton, I’m saying that when instances like Rahab are cited it often seems like Mack trucks are driven right through. It’s not obvious to me what Rahab has to do with this, and it’s unsettling to give a political cause religious approval. But this is abortion and the rules seem to get rewritten for the sake of the collective cause. Instead of reaching for Rahab to justify, it would be refreshing to at least hear it’s a fair point and does raise moral dilemma on the parts of those who want to believe they’re simply the undisputed champions of morality.
LikeLike
Zrim
Robert, the biblical examples prove too much. This isn’t redemptive history. This is ordinary human activity.
Rahab is given to us who don’t live in the era of redemptive history as a model of faith in Hebrews 11. So if anything, she’s the MOST relevant example of those posted. By faith Rahab hid the spies, and that hiding included lying.
And if lies and deception are kosher in the greater service of burying the abortion industry, I wonder if there’s ever a time that abortion is kosher? It’s part of basic medical training.
If there is a legitimate threat to the life of the mother, then abortion is kosher in that circumstance.
Walton, I’m saying that when instances like Rahab are cited it often seems like Mack trucks are driven right through.
That can be a fair point. One has to do more than cite an example, but it’s hard to do that in a com box. It’s not as if this hasn’t been argued extensively elsewhere.
It’s not obvious to me what Rahab has to do with this, and it’s unsettling to give a political cause religious approval.
Rahab lied to save some lives and she’s praised for it, or at least apparently so. Heb. 11.
LikeLike
Walt,
If we start choosing lesser evils, we have become utilitarians. And there are no moral dilemnas, times when we must choose a lesser evil, for “when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.
It’s not an absence of moral dilemmas that’s being advocated. There are dilemmas in which there is no easy answer, and it is very difficult to know what to do. Personally, I don’t think this is one of them.
But I think it is also wrong to say that there are times in which we choose a lesser evil. The situation has an impact on how the law is rightly applied. Even the Mosaic law recognizes that. Deception isn’t always wrong; even God sent a lying spirit on at least one occasion.
By and large I follow John Frame on this, FYI. But R.C. Sproul takes a similar position, at least on the lying issue.
LikeLike
Zrim’s point about the biblical examples being set in the context of inscripturated redemptive history is apt. Are they descriptive or prescriptive?
Also, isn’t a sound reading of the stories of the Israelite midwives or Rahab simply that if a Christian is placed in a situation where the only options are to obey God or obey man, then the proper choice is to obey God? But even then, I guess you would have to elevate one commandment (murder) above another (lying). At a minimum, these investigative journalists placed themselves in a position of being deceptive. It wasn’t forced upon them. So, I don’t see how the analogy holds.
Before I get blasted by someone, I guess I should add the proviso that I oppose abortion and think PP is an evil institution that should not be funded by the federal government.
LikeLike
Dare I wade in here? There are all sorts of opportunities in legal engagements and financial engagements where wisdom dictates you don’t engage while showing your entire hand. I don’t share the truth with everyone about everything even when they are materially involved, i.e. your kids, your elderly parents, an unstable participant in proceedings, etc. Even in following the law, there are often multiple opportunities and ‘industry standards’ including enforcement expectations and boundaries, that you operate within. Tolerance limits if you will.
LikeLike
Maybe it is because I’m a child of the 60s and 70s, I find it difficult to get upset with CMP. When 60 Minutes was in its heyday—whether it was Morley Safer exposing some corrupt (usually Big) business or Deep Throat ratting out the Nixon administration, undercover reporters were presented as heroes. In the 70s particularly we were regaled, in mass media (TV, novels etc), with stories of valiant undercover cops, whose very life and safety is dependent upon deception. Of course the military lies to its enemies necessary and constantly about what it is doing.
CMP is not the civil magistrate nor the military—but why do they get a pass?—but it is every bit as valid as 60 Minutes or Woodward and Bernstein. Was Dan Rather immoral to go undercover?
Should one lie to the Nazis when they come to the door looking for Anne Frank? Yes. Neighbor love requires me to protect her even if it means lying to murderous Nazis. Can’t that work for CMP? They are loving their little, unborn neighbors by misrepresenting themselves (“going undercover”) to the equally barbaric Planned Parenthood.
LikeLike
Walton,
” If we start choosing lesser evils, we have become utilitarians.”
Graded absolutism is still duty-centered rather than end-centered.
LikeLike
we need to reconcile Daleiden with Calvin’s Christian option, no?
Of course, Calvin’s Christian option includes:
”For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them.”
― John Calvin (Commentary on Daniel, Lecture XXX Daniel 6:22)
LikeLike
Mark Van Der Molen
Posted August 3, 2015 at 6:52 pm | Permalink
we need to reconcile Daleiden with Calvin’s Christian option, no?
Of course, Calvin’s Christian option includes:
”For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them.”
― John Calvin (Commentary on Daniel, Lecture XXX Daniel 6:22)
At last something around here on Calvin’s commentary on Daniel.
LikeLike
MVD and TVD, well, at least they aren’t strange bedfellows.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted August 3, 2015 at 4:32 pm | Permalink
Darryl,
the ninth commandment doesn’t prohibit lying or deception in every single circumstance.
Is lying is synonymous with “bear[ing] false witness against your neighbor?” Seems a good point. The “neighbor” is not being lied about here.
R. Scott Clark
Posted August 3, 2015 at 6:10 pm | Permalink
Should one lie to the Nazis when they come to the door looking for Anne Frank? Yes. Neighbor love requires me to protect her even if it means lying to murderous Nazis.
OTOH:
LikeLike
Tom,
Is lying is synonymous with “bear[ing] false witness against your neighbor?” Seems a good point. The “neighbor” is not being lied about here.
Bingo. In its most immediate context, the command refers to the legal sphere. So at a base level, it’s do not bear false witness in a legal proceeding because that will bring harm to neighbor. Lying in general can be extrapolated from that, but clearly there are lies that do not harm. Eg lying about a surprise party. The commandment can’t cover all deception, otherwise Rahab sinned in faith, and that’s incoherent.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted August 3, 2015 at 4:29 pm | Permalink
She whose feet are webbed, that was obeying God rather than men. How is willfully lying and deceiving that?>>>>>
Zrim, do you know that Planned Parenthood is selling human body parts, and we the people are subsidizing Planned Parenthood? Does that factor in at all?
That is what is happening. Does this concern you? Why are you and Darryl changing the subject, here? The ones doing the undercover work are willing to pay whatever price they have to pay to expose this great evil. That is part of what civil disobedience is about.
Besides, have they broken any laws, human or divine?
It seems to me that some of you are so anxious to give a black eye to Catholics that you do not even know the teachings of your own religion.
Mark Van Der Molen
Posted August 3, 2015 at 6:52 pm | Permalink
we need to reconcile Daleiden with Calvin’s Christian option, no?
Of course, Calvin’s Christian option includes:
”For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them.”
― John Calvin (Commentary on Daniel, Lecture XXX Daniel 6:22)
BTW, Mark Van Der Molen, do you have any relatives in So. America? Just wondering…
————————–
Here are some wise words from R.C. Sproul Jr.. :
That said, the majority report of the church over the ages has been more nuanced. While truthfulness ought to be the order of the day among Christians, there are contexts wherein a failure to tell the truth is actually praiseworthy. The church has argued not that we must always tell the truth, but that we must tell the truth to whom the truth is due. Even if this is correct, and I believe it is, we are left with the difficult task of determining to whom the truth is due. Those who take this position would note that in the context of war, especially just war, the enemy is not due the truth. Thus Rahab, who made it into the great hall of faith in Hebrews 11, lied about the spies she was hiding. Or, one could argue that the Hebrew midwives likewise did well in lying to the Pharaoh. In like manner, the false “camp” established by the allies to trick the axis powers into believing the assault on France would not come at Normandy is also just. The same principle, of course, would give us the freedom to lie when the Nazis are at our door looking for those we are hiding.
http://rcsprouljr.com/blog/ask-rc/rc-circumstance-righteous-truth/
LikeLike
Robert, I am actually saying “there aren’t moral dilemmas.” God does not put us in situations where the only options are sin. So, either lying is okay sometimes, or there is a third way (like the Augustine example). I am pushing back against the lesser-of-two-evils argumentation.
LikeLike
BTW, Mark Van Der Molen, do you have any relatives in So. America? Just wondering…
Paco Van Der Molen is my cousin. Just kidding. I highly doubt it.
LikeLike
at least they aren’t strange bedfellows.
That’s what I was thinking of Calvin contra the predictable cherry- picking attempt to make Calvin a strange bedfellow with Calvin.
LikeLike
MVD, right. The counselor to the Huguenots, Calvin. Well, I’ll affirm you in the lesser distinction. Not sure about the magistrate part, however.
LikeLike
Scott, Dan and Morley never claimed to be championing the whole law of God. That’s the point here. I actually can see plenty of room for believers to be selective in their vocations. The problems arise when they want simultaneously to play the right-side-of-righteousness card. Ever heard of the Secularists for Life group? There’s a lot more integrity in not claiming God for your political side and doing what CMP did than in so claiming and doing.
LikeLike
She whose feet are webbed, gee, no, I missed it. Planned Parenthood is doing something that rattles pro-lifers’ cages? I’m a Christian with a Facebook account, so the cup of outrage porn floweth over. But enlighten me–where does my Protestant religion say I have to bow the knee to political correctness and never ask questions of the hyperventilating bandwagon for life? And you say “civil disobedience” as if it’s a virtue. It’s a vice per the Bible.
LikeLike
Mark, did you miss the commentary on Timothy?
https://oldlife.org/2015/08/the-christian-option/
LikeLike
Calvin’s convictions on this subject [civil disobedience] were, on the whole, strikingly conservative. In an extended series of discussions toward the close of the Institutes, he hailed the honor and reverence due to magistrates as a consequence of their appointment by God [ICR 4.20.22-29]. Calvin exhorts Christians that they must “with ready minds prove our obedience to them, whether in complying with edicts, or in paying tribute, or in undertaking public offices and burdens, which relate to the common defense, or in executing any other orders.” [ICR 4.20.23]. He goes on to make clear that this applies to bad rulers as well as good: “But if we have respect to the Word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject not only to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty toward us, but all princes, by whatever means they have so become, although there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes.” [ICR 4.20.25]. “The only thing remaining for you,” Calvin adds shortly thereafter, “will be to receive their commands, and be obedient to their words.” [ICR 4.20.26].
David VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms (pg. 121)
LikeLike
Mark, did you miss the commentary on Timothy?
No, but if you put 2 + 2 together, you might see that I specifically had that in mind, hence the red flag on DGH’s cherry picking. And citing the laughable historical sock-puppeteer Van Drunen only digs your hole deeper.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted August 3, 2015 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
She whose feet are webbed, gee, no, I missed it. Planned Parenthood is doing something that rattles pro-lifers’ cages? I’m a Christian with a Facebook account, so the cup of outrage porn floweth over. But enlighten me–where does my Protestant religion say I have to bow the knee to political correctness and never ask questions of the hyperventilating bandwagon for life? And you say “civil disobedience” as if it’s a virtue. It’s a vice per the Bible.>>>>>
Planned Parenthood is selling human body parts. You are changing the subject.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot
Posted August 3, 2015 at 10:53 pm | Permalink
Zrim
Posted August 3, 2015 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
She whose feet are webbed, gee, no, I missed it. Planned Parenthood is doing something that rattles pro-lifers’ cages? I’m a Christian with a Facebook account, so the cup of outrage porn floweth over. But enlighten me–where does my Protestant religion say I have to bow the knee to political correctness and never ask questions of the hyperventilating bandwagon for life? And you say “civil disobedience” as if it’s a virtue. It’s a vice per the Bible.
“Planned Parenthood is selling human body parts. You are changing the subject.”
It is rather bizarre what goes on around here sometimes, Mrs. Webfoot. Who could stand before God and feel they have to apologize for lying to try to save some of His children? In what cosmology???
The left-wing scum are circling the wagons, attacking the defenders of human life on every front with every lie and sophistry they can find, as though “spying” and exposing Josef Mengele were some sort of ethical breach.
Human beings–“potential” or otherwise–are being carved up for spare parts. Do some of you have to troll your Bible first before knowing this is hideous? Before saying this is hideous and standing up to defend those with the guts to expose the horror?
Bloody Pharisees.
As one fellow put it on the internet today
Per usual, Darryl Hart takes the wrong side: https://oldlife.org/2015/08/the-un-christian-option
Afraid of offending your lefty pals in the academic establishment, Doctor? This the best you’ve got? C’mon, dude. Scrotum check.
2K Radical Darryl Hart gets it wrong, 2K Common Sense @RScottClark gets it right. the-un-christian-option/comment-page-1/#comment-339858…
___________
She whose feet are webbed, gee, no, I missed it. Planned Parenthood is doing something that rattles pro-lifers’ cages?
You too, Mr. Z. This addiction to callowness and mockery hereabouts is heartbreaking and stomach-turning. Men Without Chests, sitting back condemning better men than yourselves.
LikeLike
TVD
Posted August 4, 2015 at 12:01 am | Permalink
Mrs. Webfoot
Posted August 3, 2015 at 10:53 pm | Permalink
Zrim
Posted August 3, 2015 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
She whose feet are webbed, gee, no, I missed it. Planned Parenthood is doing something that rattles pro-lifers’ cages? I’m a Christian with a Facebook account, so the cup of outrage porn floweth over. But enlighten me–where does my Protestant religion say I have to bow the knee to political correctness and never ask questions of the hyperventilating bandwagon for life? And you say “civil disobedience” as if it’s a virtue. It’s a vice per the Bible.
“Planned Parenthood is selling human body parts. You are changing the subject.”
It is rather bizarre what goes on around here sometimes, Mrs. Webfoot. Who could stand before God and feel they have to apologize for lying to try to save some of His children? In what cosmology???
For the record, Darryl, I wasn’t referring to you as the
Your 1-link limit obliged me to cut this Google of the media
https://www.google.com/search?q=attack+planned+parenthood&oq=attack+planned+parenthood&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2.5952j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8
which shows how the left-wing scum in the media cannot defend this horror, so they attack those who are sickened by it, and divert attention from this outrage by all means necessary.
As for you, Dr. Darryl [“MEEeeeeeeeeeee”] Hart, I think once again, you’re helping to do their dirty work, instead of keeping your eye on the ball. I’m not the only one who thinks you’re doing more wrong than right here by shooting at the wrong side.
Dude.
LikeLike
I have no issue with sting journalism, PP got its dark underbelly exposed. But, some of the hyperventilating on the right seems disingenuous – I didn’t hear the same loud protests when Bush Jr. allowed stem cell research that opened this Pandora’s box.
I get that 2k allows us to hold principled positions without confusing politics and church, and that Christians can disagree on how to approach political matters. That said, abortion is a pox on our culture – an indictment on how flippantly we treat life. I support those that seek to forge a more sensible way forward.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart:
Notice the knots David Daleiden ties himself in.>>>>>
He tied himself to the cause of righteousness. Yes, I noticed. Good for him! That took courage and a whole lot of intelligence. I am in complete agreement with his beautiful words about praying for the abortion workers and being there to love and receive those babies. Beautiful, soaring, Christian words. Have you ever participated in a prayer vigil outside an abortion clinic? You might want to do that in order to get a feel for what that is like.
D.G. Hart:
It’s “common law” here to change your name, so deceit is okay, saying exactly what you have no intention of meaning, like “we support your work” and “want to buy fetal body parts.” >>>>
He was role playing in order, for one thing, to expose the potential criminal activity of Planned Parenthood. He did nothing wrong.
Partial birth abortion is indeed illegal. Is PP performing these illegal abortions, deceiving their patients about the true nature of the procedure, and then profiting from the sale of the very human body parts of unborn babies? Also, is PP deliberately deceiving the woman – mostly poor, young, minority women – into thinking that their babies are not as far along as they really are?
Then, are they modifying the procedure in order to maximize the quality of the parts they are able to harvest from the unborn child? That is, as one PP rep. stated in one of the videos, do they sign a contract with the woman to do one procedure, and then do a different one, thus breaking contract with the mostly young, poor, minority women?
I could also ask why the taxpayers are helping to fund this since PP is making money off the abortions as demonstrated by the sale of unborn human beings’ body parts. They don’t need our corporate welfare.
Besides, even if PP did nothing wrong as far as our laws go, they are certainly involved in some of the most evil activity imaginable.
It seems that you are, in effect, saying that the taking of innocent human life in violation of the Commandments of God is on a par with a guy pretending he is someone he’s not in order to expose evil. We the people have a right and a need to know what is being done with our tax money. PP is not going to tell us. How are we going to find out?
D.G. Hart:
Well, isn’t isn’t it also legal to have an abortion? >>>>>
Taking the lives of healthy, unborn babies and dehumanizing their mothers is legal. Yes, it is. Playing on the emotions and fears of young, poor, minority women, convincing them that they are not in any position to be mothers is still legal here in the US. Denying that many of these women suffer guilt for the rest of their lives is also one of PP’s specialties, and it is also legal. PP lying to women about their options, about the procedures themselves, about the effects abortion will have on their emotional lives and even their reproductive systems, and about the nature of the unborn child they are carrying is, unfortunately, all legal and all done by Planned Parenthood on a regular basis. They prey on women who feel they have no way out. Often these women are coerced by a third party – sometimes a boyfriend, sometimes a mother or father. Sometimes they are sex slaves, even, and have no choice and no say in the matter – or at least they feel they have none. Sometimes they are underage girls.
All of this is well known, especially if you spend any time at all listening to women who have had abortions or reading their stories. Are they all lying? Now, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you have not studied this issue in depth. I have not always been as sensitive to women who have suffered under the burden of guilt and shame that is caused by falling into the web of deceit that is Planned Parenthood. I had to learn the hard way. So, I believe that you can learn as well. I am doing my best to share with you some of the things that I have had to come to terms with.
Should it be something that Christians turn a blind eye to? It is certainly not Christian by any definition of Christianity that I recognize. I do not think it should be legal, but it is.
D.G. Hart:
Not saying that’s a good thing.>>>>>
You are not saying it is a bad thing, either. Why not? You are pretending that there is some kind of moral equivalency between a brave, Christian man who pretends to be someone he is not in order to save lives and those who deliberately, without any qualms, and evidently for profit, take lives.
D.G. Hart:
But if you use state law to justify violating on of the Ten Commandments, haven’t you given up any claim to moral authority against the other side which could argue in a similar fashion.>>>>
Let them argue what they want. They are taking the lives of unborn babies and selling their body parts to the highest bidder. PP has no moral authority, and never has had.
D.G. Hart:
Then Daleiden claims the inspiration of Pope Francis and Christianity. Isn’t that a reason not to deceive? Think Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons. He could have saved his life if he had lied and taken the oath, right?>>>>>>
St. Thomas More refused to violate his conscience and deny his faith in order to save his own life. It would have been a denial of Christ.
Daleiden played a role much like an actor does on stage in order to save lives. He may very well pay a price for what he did, but he was very much inspired by his faith in Christ. Your readers have given you several Scriptural examples of those who did not tell the truth and were commended by God. My favorite example is the midwives of Exodus who saved the little Hebrew babies. Rahab is another one. Jael another. There is Biblical precedence for what Daleiden did, even, for you who follow sola scriptura.
D.G. Hart:
If you took a 2k view of this and made it less religious calling and more secular vocation, perhaps you could argue that as a journalist you sometimes don’t follow all of God’s laws in order to get a story. But when you want to claim Christian standing for what you do and then violate Christian morality, that’s a violation.>>>>>
Be careful that you do not implicate God in wrongdoing. Check out the examples that have been given to you.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted August 4, 2015 at 2:18 am | Permalink
I have no issue with sting journalism, PP got its dark underbelly exposed. But, some of the hyperventilating on the right seems disingenuous – I didn’t hear the same loud protests when Bush Jr. allowed stem cell research that opened this Pandora’s box.
I’ll agree with you if you have your facts right, Jed. Do you? Seems the box was open and George W shut it.
[Then Barack Obama re-opened it? And will a Democrat ever shut it again? Careful with that “pox on both houses” shit, bro. That’s lazy morality.]
http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/21/legitimate-rape-todd-akin-and-other-politicians-who-confuse-science/slide/bush-bans-stem-cell-research/
George W. Bush and the Stem Cell Research Funding Ban
By Alice Park @aliceparknyAug. 20, 2012
In 2001, President George W. Bush restricted federal funding for research on stem cells obtained from human embryos because the technology required the destruction of human life. “At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science,” Bush said.
“My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs,” he said. “I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator.”
Bush’s ban limited government funding for research on embryonic stem cells — which have the potential of curing diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and Parkinson’s — to already existing stem cell lines. Federal dollars could not be used to start any new cell lines or to conduct research on any newly derived cell lines.
Because embryos must be destroyed in order to extract stem cells, Bush cited concerns that such research devalued human life. Sane people will disagree over when life actually begins — at conception? at birth? — but either way, the embryos from which scientists obtain stem cells, unneeded embryos created by couples undergoing IVF, would have been destroyed by IVF clinics regardless.
Experts say Bush’s policy hampered progress in the field of stem cell research by depriving it of government funding, and drove some of the U.S.’s best scientists to set up labs abroad. In 2009, President Barack Obama lifted the restriction, making it possible for federally funded scientists to use excess embryos from IVF procedures to obtain stem cells for study.
LikeLike
Robert, you would sit down with PP officials and say “I support your work” and “I want to buy body parts.”
Is that what you’re saying?
LikeLike
sdb, I’m wondering how you self-identify as a Christian (okay, Roman Catholic) and openly lie. I get it if you’re a journalist and that is your primary identity while lying (I guess). But the former is troubling. And if that troubles a Christian, how do you think the pro-choice people view this?
LikeLike
James Young, the issue here is whether you’d say to PP that you support them and want to buy body parts. Would you?
LikeLike
Scott, isn’t this a public sin? What about doing it in Christ’s name (or the pope’s)? What about damaging the church’s reputation?
LikeLike
vdm, m it’s easy to find that quotation everywhere on the internet. Have you read the commentary?
Daniel was praying. Daleidan was lying. Doesn’t a society require honesty from its members for society to work?
LikeLike
sean, vd?
LikeLike
Robert, no Daleiden is lying about himself. That violates the ninth commandment. We’re to preserve our good name.
LikeLike
zrim, civil disobedience yes. ecclesiastical disobedience big wopping no.
Go figure.
LikeLike
vdm, m you cherry picked from quotations on the interweb. You didn’t read Calvin’s commentary on Daniel. You learn well from Rabbi Bret.
LikeLike
Mermaid, so what’s to prevent you from shooting officers of PP?
No problem with taking the law into your own hands? How about taking a law against lying into your own hands?
Was this the kind of moral reasoning that took you cross the Tiber? Sheesh.
LikeLike
vd, t, “It is rather bizarre what goes on around here sometimes, Mrs. Webfoot.”
Tru dat. A person who doesn’t go to mass and doesn’t believe in the assumption of Mary defends papal infallibility and 12% of things Roman Catholic — the other 88% aren’t really Roman Catholic, like Garry Wills, Michael Sean Winters and vd, t.
LikeLike
Mermaid, so if you can break the 8th (yours) commandment for righteousness sake, how about the 5th?
The 6th?
Hey now.
LikeLike
What Mr. Daleiden was certainly ethically questionable. And, yes, God is a God of truth who forbids us to lie. At the same time, in a time of holy war God instructed Joshua to lay an ambush against the city of Ai — arguably a deceptive tactic (as warfare, whether common or holy, often involves trickery, deception, and deceptive tactics, like the use of camoufllage, etc.); see Num. 8:1-23. While I would disagree with Mr. Daleiden’s view of his work as a “sacramental” or holy work, it could be argued that his use of “deceptive” investigative journalism was a form of “cultural warfare” that was conducted for the purpose of ultimately saving human life, and therefore was justifiable. (I’m not saying I would necessarily agree with this form of reasoning, but I can see how some Christians might view it as being within the bounds of a biblical ethic.)
Whatever one thinks about the ethical pros and cons of Mr. Daleiden’s investigative work, it seems that in God’s good providence these videos are raising public awareness of important issues in connection with the abortion “industry.” (Remember the Bible’s teaching that our sovereign God has often chosen to use even evil and unscrupulous men for ultimately good purposes; so even if Mr. Daleiden was sinning in using deception to get this film footage, God in His providence can use this sinfully-obtained footage for good purposes.) From what I understand, the majority of millenials lean in the pro-life direction, and these videos could bring the abortion issue back into the forefront of our culture, thereby potentially making it an important issue for millenials in the 2016 election. (Mr. Daleiden is himself a “millenial.”)
LikeLike
I was reading Doug Wilson’s blog while the When Did Christian America End comments were getting out of hand, and a guy in the comments brought up the question of killing abortionists. The argument was basically if you saw someone on the street being murdered, wouldn’t you be obliged to step in and stop them, regardless of the law? And stopping them might entail killing the murderer. So why can’t killing abortionists be justified? Aren’t these both instances of loving your neighbor?
I don’t have a really well thought out answer to this, but I don’t think the difference is results. There will always be another abortionist, but there will also always be another murderer on the streets. So in one sense, the goal of the action is doing your duty to your fellow man, not necessarily saving their life.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
It’s OK to lie to abortionists. It’s OK to compare Obama to Hitler. It’s OK to talk in bumper stickers that conceal as much truth as they reveal. About the other side, I mean. We must win.
But doesn’t it kinda suck that “we’ve” been doing these for years but still lost every major battle? Let’s just double down and lie more until victory is secured.
LikeLike
“The argument was basically if you saw someone on the street being murdered, wouldn’t you be obliged to step in and stop them, regardless of the law? And stopping them might entail killing the murderer. So why can’t killing abortionists be justified? Aren’t these both instances of loving your neighbor?
I don’t have a really well thought out answer to this, but I don’t think the difference is results.”
I’ve been thinking thinking thinking and I think I have an answer. That’s murder and perhaps revolutionary upheaval. The man who kills the abortionist or bombs a clinic needs to be put away for a long time and Christians need to applaud the verdict against him.
FYI, I’m seeing Twitter twerps saying “hey, if the American Revolution was justified certainly a rebellion is justified now.” If only we had a modern-day Luther to denounce them.
LikeLike
Muddy, right. Why is that murder but defending someone from a murderer (and possibly killing the would-be murderer) is not? Or maybe it is. I’m asking.
LikeLike
a much more highly broadcasted news story to discuss if you want more consensus on ethics would be Cecil?
The U.S. Senate has rejected a bill to defund Planned Parenthood and transfer its estimated $500 million in federal funds to other women’s health sources. Senate Bill 1881 failed to get the 60 votes required to have debate closed and a vote on the proposed legislation granted, with the results largely falling along party lines. Harry Reid: Here we are once again, faced with another Republican attempt to limit women’s access to ‘health care’.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/planned-parenthood-defund-bill-fails-in-senate-democrats-claim-baby-parts-harvesting-group-aids-womens-health-142230/
LikeLike
W, most obviously it’s the law of the land. Period. Enough said.
But then think of a world in which pro-lifers kill abortionists, animal-rights activists kill cattle farmers, and anti-war protesters kill politicians or generals. One of our blessings in this country is that we can largely go about our affairs without being disturbed. If every man is his own law that’s gone. New Testament Christianity was decisively against civil revolution.
LikeLike
Walton, the comments here drove you to Doug Wilson’s blog? I will be praying for you.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Robert, you would sit down with PP officials and say “I support your work” and “I want to buy body parts.”
Is that what you’re saying?
If I were a journalist and it was my calling to get the truth of what PP, or any organization for that matter, is doing, then yes.
Undercover stings, military spying, and other such things are all lawful, from what I can discern from Scripture. I understand that some people may have scruples against Christians participating in such things, but I’m not convinced exegetically that those scruples should be mine.
sdb, I’m wondering how you self-identify as a Christian (okay, Roman Catholic) and openly lie. I get it if you’re a journalist and that is your primary identity while lying (I guess). But the former is troubling.
So are Christians forbidden from being police officers or journalists or military spies?
And if that troubles a Christian, how do you think the pro-choice people view this?
The hardened pro-choicers don’t have a good enough moral compass to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of whether it is right or wrong to lie under these circumstances. Those whose pro-choice beliefs are more abstract and who don’t know the truth need to know what is going on, and their hearts may or may not be changed.
As some have already noted, you don’t really get anyone condemning Corrie Ten Boom and her family for lying in order to save lives. For those who aren’t enslaved to the culture of death, I’m not really worried about how they will view this if they see the intent is to save a life.
There are some people that are simply not owed the truth. God sent a lying Spirit. God gives people over to a spirit of deception. Obviously, there are some things God can do that we can’t, but if lying was intrinsically wrong in every possible case, He could not participate in it.
LikeLike
AdD, that week DG was on vacation was a dark time in everyone’s life.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Robert, no Daleiden is lying about himself. That violates the ninth commandment. We’re to preserve our good name.
But there are people who hate even the kindest and gentlest abortion opponents who would never utter such lies. We can bend over backward to preserve our good name, and people will hate us. Just look at the pro-choice rhetoric against such things as crisis pregnancy centers and others who work more quietly to save babies. They don’t have a good enough moral compass to evaluate us, their minds have been so darkened by sin.
We’re seeing this in the pro-homosexual movement. The Boy Scout compromise is not enough—all must affirm homosexuality. Gay marriage isn’t enough—now you must reveal yourself as a supporter of all things gay rights. Gay rights parades are known for harassing people who are peacefully trying to share the gospel. Do you really think we should put a lot of stock in what a guy walking around with a sign saying “Jesus had two dads” thinks about us?
Obviously, we shouldn’t go out of our way to piss people off, but there are some people that will hate us no matter what. We shouldn’t care all that much if they think we have a bad name.
Jesus didn’t much care what the hardened opposition thought of Him. And He even says things like this:
” And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth,[d] so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.” (Luke 16:9).
Go ahead and explain that one in light of the eighth commandment.
Don’t misunderstand me; this isn’t easy and I understand why some have scruples. But don’t let the extremes of pro-life rhetoric and far-right crazies control all of the 2K thinking on this matter. Whether you all mean to or not, that’s often what it feels like.
LikeLike
Imagine if URCNA officers spit on magistrates. Then kids would start spitting on school teachers, traffic stops would escalate into spitting arrests, and soon the most influential citizen in your town will be that kid in 8th grade who can hock a loogie 15 feet. Not pretty. Romans 13 better.
LikeLike
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/fool-for-the-truth/
http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/fl/Is-Lying-Ever-Justified.htm
LikeLike
The selective commitments to strict purity and resulting selective outrage on this site, motivated not by jealousy for the name and reputation of Jesus Christ, but by devotion to a certain cherished theology, is truly something to behold.
LikeLike
“But if you use state law to justify violating on of the Ten Commandments, haven’t you given up any claim to moral authority against the other side which could argue in a similar fashion.”
But in a sense it’s a bit worse than that.This person appealed to a precedent that doesn’t even work for him. It’s not necessarily a violation of the moral law to change one’s name legally. Therefore, the appeal of this RC reduced to “If people may work within the civil code while *not* violating the moral law, then why should I not break the moral law as long as it’s not illegal?”
LikeLike
Walton,
The argument was basically if you saw someone on the street being murdered, wouldn’t you be obliged to step in and stop them, regardless of the law?
Yes you’re obliged, but in whose place are you going to step in front of? The mother or the doctor? The correct analogy here, if you want to push this logic, is to kill the mother since she is the one making the decision. Would you advocate for that?
And are you in the clinic? What are you doing about the hundreds of black men and women murdered in the inner-cities every year? How do you propose we deal with that one? Killing the black folks who kill each other? Really?
The issue isn’t as easy to resolve as the Wilsonites might like it to be.
LikeLike
Geoff, on the other side, this kind of duplicity does nothing for the name of Christians among pagans. I understand Daleiden’s outrage. He has more reason to be outraged than the pro-choicers. But don’t we need to play by the rules if we want a hearing?
LikeLike
Walton, stopping a murder is not the same as killing the murderer. Plotting the execution of an abortionist is to me impermissible. And it seems like what Daleiden did is comparable with the 9th commandment.
LikeLike
Muddy, your forgot the proof text. 1 Peter 3:11.
LikeLike
@MG Your comment brought to mind this cartoon.
I know some folks here (tvd? mwf?) seem to think that the failure of social cons to hold back the wave of the sexual revolution is all the fault of the 5 or 6 2k’ers in the world. I think not. The strategy has failed over and over because the strategy is wrong. 90% of RCs reject their own church’s teaching and 90% of protestants have adopted either “liberal” (i.e. mainliners) or “conservative” (i.e. evangelicals) modernism. We confessional protestants and traditional RCs can’t win the argument in our own churches among people who are at least in principle sympathetic to our priorities, yet they expect to transform society.
I guess pointing that out and thinking our priority should be strengthening the church makes me a cowardly enabler. Whatever.
LikeLike
Robert, “If I were a journalist and it was my calling to get the truth of what PP, or any organization for that matter, is doing, then yes.”
So your identity in your secular calling would trump your duty as a Christian before God. That’s my point. But then do you justify your deceit on the basis of your Christian duty? That’s the non-sequitor.
LikeLike
Robert, my point was simply that the ninth commandment extends to me as much as my neighbor. Does reputation matter? Are public sins worse than others? Can we bring disrepute to the name of Christ?
Someone could argue that Daleiden is doing that. But he’s Roman Catholic so it’s not my problem (sort of).
LikeLike
Greg, behold!
LikeLike
I’m probably late with this, but Hebrews states that Rahab’s faith was demonstrated in her welcoming and hiding the spies. This general commendation does not have to apply specifically to her lie. Someone back a page stated that sinning in faith is incoherent, but certainly all of us have committed individual sins while performing a larger act of faith (for lack of a better term), no? I mean, even our good works are defective and need to be justified.
I’m not condemning CMP necessarily, just pointing out that Heb. 11 may not justify lying for a “good cause”.
LikeLike
@GTT
I know. Almost as crazy as Paul, who wrote,
Seems to me that worrying that some heathen is doing what heathens do while neglecting discipline in our churches (including God’s commands to keep the Sabbath holy and to worship Him the way he instructs us to worship him) is very unwise. But I guess pointing out that playing Lynyrd Skynyrd as part of a worship service may be more than a bit problematic isn’t as exciting as telling the heathen how to be better whitewashed tombs. I guess I missed the epistles where Paul railed against lax Christians who didn’t do enough to speak out against the sexually immorality of their leaders and the widespread infanticide.
LikeLike
d-etc, some may point to David’s various deceptions and feigning of insanity, but we’re talking narrative of the life events of sinful man who might not have been (theoretically) in these bad circumstances had he followed the law properly in the first place. All these events were sovereignly ordained/allowed, but not necessarily to warrant us to act or sin in the same ways.
LikeLike
The behaviour of the Patriarchs and descendents and kings in the “thin red line” preserving Covenant(s) through the birth of Christ is absolutely disgusting.
Only the promises of God to certain elect individuals has kept the Church intact, it certainly wasn’t for any good they did.
LikeLike
“I know some folks here (tvd? mwf?) seem to think that the failure of social cons to hold back the wave of the sexual revolution is all the fault of the 5 or 6 2k’ers in the world.”
The 2k blamers you will always have with you. Statistics and probability are not their strong points.
LikeLike
But d4, that’s virtually all we know about Rahab, and she is praised. IMO the starting point for that conversation is that her lie was commendable.
LikeLike
She whose feet are webbed, how am I changing the subject? That PP sells body parts is part of the topic. Or is this the political correctness: PP is selling body parts, that’s all you need to know, so quit asking questions and wave that Nazi card high!
LikeLike
Walton, so then the open gunning down of George Tiller is morally kosher? But most pro-lifers concede it isn’t because they know it’s not really that simple. But hypotheticals and analogies like that only turn up the heat, which may help the already convinced feel warm inside but it also contributes to the splintering of society. This is the part where some are dinged for caring about Christian witness in wider society (and even the health of society).
LikeLike
Darryl,
So your identity in your secular calling would trump your duty as a Christian before God. That’s my point. But then do you justify your deceit on the basis of your Christian duty? That’s the non-sequitor.
If Christian duty conflicts with secular duty, you choose the Christian duty every time. But what I’m saying is that in this specific case, the Christian duty isn’t opposed to the secular one. Personally, I’m not a journalist and not apt to be faced with this specific problem, but if I were faced with the Nazi situation, I believe my Christian and secular duty would be to deceive the authorities in order to save a life.
LikeLike
It’s the end of any internet conversation whenever Hitler or the Nazis are invoked.
So people actually have time and energy to sit there and determine (and then proclaim) how they think they would behave if the Nazis came to their town….
Wow…. just wow….
LikeLike
Daniel was praying. Daleidan was lying.
You still don’t explain that Calvin was talking about defying. Rather, you got Calvin (never mind Beza & Knox) as “un-christian”. Present balanced history much?
LikeLike
Zrim, no I don’t think it is kosher at all.
I think it applies to this situation about lying though because if the 9th commandment permits lying (under certain circumstances), doesn’t the 6th commandment permit killing (under certain circumstances – self-defense or defense of your neighbor or defense of the unborn)?
I want to know how those who justify lying journalists can condemn murderous pro-lifers. The logic seems similar. And if it’s simply because only one of those is legal, then is the only objection to killing abortionists really that it is illegal?
LikeLike
MVDM, first a footnote and now an outlier statement in a commentary – you sure put heavy loads on slender reeds. You might be more credible if you quoted Calvin’s view of the magistrate in his Institutes, last revised in 1559.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted August 4, 2015 at 11:16 am | Permalink
She whose feet are webbed, how am I changing the subject? That PP sells body parts is part of the topic. Or is this the political correctness: PP is selling body parts, that’s all you need to know, so quit asking questions and wave that Nazi card high!>>>>
In the first place, I did not wave any Nazi cards. I waved the “defund Planned Parenthood” flag. There is no law that says we have to fund Planned Parenthood. I also waved the “love the abortionist and pray at your local PP outlet” flag. IOW, the “call sinners to repent” flag. The “love the sinners, but hate the sin” flag.
The subject of the role playing on the part of the journalists is not the main subject. The main subject is the morality of PP lying to women about the baby they are carrying, lying to women about the effects the abortion may have on their emotional lives and on their reproductive systems, coercing women to have abortions, and especially, the taking of innocent human life.
Now, try to defend that if you are able. Instead, D.G. Hart and you, his faithful follower are quibbling over whether or not the ones exposing PP for what it is are guilty of some sin against God.
Play-acting in order to expose the fact that PP is selling human body parts is not the same as killing the babies and then breaking up their bodies looking for hearts, lungs, and other useful “tissue samples.”
Watch the videos, and then get back to me.
LikeLike
Robert, you just switched the situations, from journalist to German citizen. My point is what you said. To justify deceit, you’d go to your secular vocation’s duties, not to Christian ones not to lie. That’s okay. But you don’t cite Christianity to justify lying, right?
And here I thought IIIIIIIIIIiiiiiii was the antinomian.
LikeLike
vdm, m, wrong. You didn’t read the original.
LikeLike
Mermaid, why won’t Pope Francis comment on this? He speaks about most everything else (though no word yet on Ireland).
LikeLike
it seems that arguing for a commitment to The 10, even when a good can arise out of a violation, is a commitment to the sovereignty of the Giver of the commands. On the other hand, I can’t quite see the other sides position as equally demonstrating faith in said sovereignty.
If a Christian avoids lying, they avoid being undercover agents, vice cops, polititions, statisticians, etc. on the grounds that these endeavor s are not for the believer. At the least, one who has a refugee forcibly removed from their home because they could not protect them without a lie, can still rest on the sovereign and oftentimes merciful act of God, that He is well capable of orchestrating world events without our assistance, especially in the form of violating what he commands.
The other side, seems to have to say that the Lord is fully capable, and in some cases desires, to use human devised subterfuge and deliberate disobedience to further His sovereign plans.
Obviously, if it can be shown the understanding of the commands to allow some forms of lying, the point is moot. Apart from that, how can one justify the second position over the first?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 4, 2015 at 6:51 am | Permalink
Mermaid, so what’s to prevent you from shooting officers of PP?
No problem with taking the law into your own hands? How about taking a law against lying into your own hands?
Was this the kind of moral reasoning that took you cross the Tiber? Sheesh.>>>>>
In the first place, you have to prove that any law on the part of the journalists was broken – of either God or man. You have not done so. You have raised the question, and in doing so, have painted them in the worst possible light.
If they will lie, then they will also murder. Not only that, but if I think that what they did was noble and right, then I will also be willing to murder. There is no evidence for any of that, yet you freely make that assertion. In fact, Catholics say very clearly that they love the abortionists, pray for them, and hope for them to repent, but in no way condone violence done against abortionists. Does your morality allow for that? Are you able to hate the sin, but love the sinner?
The fact that the Catholic Church is the main leader, and maybe only true leader in the pro life movement was one of the main reasons I crossed over. Respect for motherhood, the unborn, and life created in the image of God is the greatest kind of moral reasoning.
Love for women and men – mothers and fathers – who have been victimized by the abortion industry as well as love for the abortionists is another example of the kind of moral reasoning that the Church engages in.
You should try it sometime. Sure, for you it must be entertaining to try to get your followers to think in tiny little circles. They willingly obey. They must be attracted to your kind of moral equivalency reasoning. Sure, it is logical, but it is also deadly. It kills the soul. It kills morality. It eventually destroys all ability to reason.
LikeLike
now an outlier statement in a commentary
Outlier if your are a selective reader, but pretty representative if you read Calvin’s sermons. Theodore Beza thought so.
LikeLike
Mrs W. don’t mean to take away from your appeals nor deflect from this particular post but this I read this am is very difficult:
Bringing Jesus to Planned Parenthood Through Mary: Since the angel in the bible reveals that Mary was “full of grace,” she was given extraordinary gifts from God. In this campaign, we call upon Mary to use those gifts to put an end to the reign of terror that is Planned Parenthood. http://www.stopp.org/article.php?id=7034
LikeLike
I don’t know of a better explanation for the Rahab passage. The following exonerates her without making the passage an example to be followed outside the OT theocracy.
_________
According to the fifth commandment, Rahab owed obedience to the civil authorities of Jericho. When information was requested of her concerning the enemy spies it was, by normal standards, her duty to supply it. Nevertheless by faith she united herself to the cause of the Theocracy and so played her part as an agent of the typical Judgment, denying to the obstinate foes of God that respect for their authority which was their due under Common Grace. For so doing, Rahab receives inspired approbation (Heb. 11:31; Jas. 2:25).
By the same token the enemies of the Theocracy lost the ordinary right to hear the truth as that is guaranteed by the ninth commandment. In so far, therefore, as the theocratic agent did not deny God (or to put it differently, did not violate the immutable principles of the first table of the Decalogue) he might with perfect ethical propriety deceive such as had hostile intent against the Theocracy. There is, accordingly, no necessity from the analogy of Scripture to avoid what seems the plain impression of certain passages to the effect that such deception was practised with divine approval (e. g., the deception of Pharaoh by the Hebrew midwives — Ex. 1:15-21) or even by express divine command (e. g., Samuel’s deception of Saul — I Sam. 16:2).
– Kline
LikeLike
SDB, your point missing prowess continues, unfortunately unabated. I made no pronouncements on any side about any view of ANY of this. What I DID express, was the glaring nature of the personally interested indignation regarding selected areas of morality. I may or not agree with anything anybody has said here.I have not as of yet made of those views known.
Incidentally, just the day before yesterday, I left a detailed exposition of the central points of 1 Cor 5 on this very site HERE
I had a specific unhappy occasion, unrelated to this site, for writing it and thought it might be interesting to leave it here as well. I promise you. I know what that chapter is about.
LikeLike
“Incidentally, just the day before yesterday, I left a detailed exposition of the central points of 1 Cor 5 on this very site HERE.”
Greg, since you’ve shown the decency to be as honest as assault and battery laws will allow, I feel compelled to return the favor. There are people who know the original languages, religious history, and theology. They write commentaries. You don’t have those qualifications. Don’t try to write a mini-commentary and don’t expect people to treat it like a pearl of great price. Now go back to ranting.
LikeLike
A person is as qualified as the accuracy and reliability of their work Muddy. Also, I had no particular expectations, but as I said, just thought it would interesting to see what if any response I would get. You have, with your sophomoric spitballs, as usual not let me down.
LikeLike
“You have, with your sophomoric spitballs, as usual not let me down.”
Atta boy.
LikeLike
@gtt I took your point to be that our purported selective indignation was rooted in our commitment to 2k theology over and above our commitment to Christ. If that wasn’t your point, you need to work on your command of the English language. If that was your point, then I didn’t miss it. My response was to point out that while our indignation toward sin is selective, it is so because of what we understand our savior teaches us in the scriptures. We of course may be mistaken, but you are wrong to assert that our selectivity is rooted in our commitment to a particular theological system over and above Christ.
LikeLike
The subject of the role playing on the part of the journalists is not the main subject. The main subject is the morality of PP lying to women about the baby they are carrying, lying to women about the effects the abortion may have on their emotional lives and on their reproductive systems, coercing women to have abortions, and especially, the taking of innocent human life.
SWFW, hmmm, nope, the subject of this post is the journalists’ behavior and not PP’s. That’s part of my point about political correctness and how it bullies. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, etc. You’re sweeping the point under the rug and forcing your own to center stage. I get it and along with EJ Dionne and Hilary Clinton find these tapes deeply disturbing. But there are other angles to consider here. Have you considered that you might win more of a hearing if you demonstrated a little more moral dilemma in how the tapes were ascertained, especially by members of your own communion? Or is a hearing not really what you’re after and more an opportunity to wave the collective finger in society’s face, imagining heaven patting you on the back for it?
LikeLike
Can politics get a soul out of purgatory?
I mortal and venial sins really are sins, then shouldn’t Roman Catholics look beyond political usefulness and worry about the state of Rubio’s and Daleiden’s souls?
LikeLike
From Woodward and Bernstein (vs. Nixon) to Daleiden (vs. PP):
So it’s wrong even for journalists to lie (at least in connection with the GOP).
LikeLike
Brianj, sometimes seeing the big picture (w-w?) comes in handy.
LikeLike
DG – Agreed we need to stay honest. There are a lot of borderline cases, but I don’t see this as one of them. Not sure what his religion has to do with it being ‘not your problem sort-of,’ though.
Muddy – Agreed Christians shouldn’t be promoting revolution or plotting the deaths of murderers (the State has the responsibility here). Social stability is a good.
Robert – in this specific case, the Christian duty isn’t opposed to the secular one. Personally, I’m not a journalist and not apt to be faced with this specific problem, but if I were faced with the Nazi situation, I believe my Christian and secular duty would be to deceive the authorities in order to save a life.
Lots of borderline cases when the government and government-supported orgs do systematic evil. The RCC issued false baptismal certificates to Jews, dressed some in priest’s garb, etc. I’d probably have done the same thing, and been with von Stauffenberg in plotting Hitler’s death were I in a position to assist.
LikeLike
Mermaid, Daleiden said he supported PP and wanted to buy body parts. Have you become illiterate since converting?
So he lied.
Is it okay for him to shoot the PP leaders?
So you’re one of those converts. What good with the church’s stance on abortion (admirable though it is) do you on judgment day? You never know how the popes are going to spend those treasury of merits. I’d book a meeting with the pope asap.
LikeLike
Muddy, brilliant.
vdm, m and Kline together.
LikeLike
Kevin, if your point is about Rubio, isn’t it a mortal sin not to obey the hierarchy? But the article says that in the context of today’s politics, we need to give Roman Catholics a pass if they don’t line up with the magisterium. I get that if you are a Roman Catholic excusing votes for a Protestant, maybe. But how can you turn a blind eye to sin for the sake of political advantage?
LikeLike
DG –
I mortal and venial sins really are sins, then shouldn’t Roman Catholics look beyond political usefulness and worry about the state of Rubio’s and Daleiden’s souls?
At a love-one-another level, sure, but more importantly because personal morality impacts how a person does his job. I wouldn’t vote for anyone with serious sexual morality issues whatever their religion.
Better a leader who can contribute toward a well-ordered society – whether Mormon, agnostic, secular Muslim – than one who is of unimpeachable personal morality and religious orthodoxy but ineffective or interfering.
Trying to increase GDP per capita is not at all what I mean by ordering society, btw.
LikeLike
“know original languages, religious history, theology; write commentaries”
in all these situations it would be very easy to adopt an attitude of pride or superiority toward others who have not made such a study. But how ugly it would be if anyone were to use this knowledge of God’s Word simply to win arguments or to put down a fellow Christian in conversation, or to make another believer feel insignificant in the Lord’s work(excerpt, Systematic Theology Wayne Grudem)
LikeLike
Kevin, but what about Rubio’s soul. Should he sacrifice that for a well-ordered society?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 4, 2015 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, Daleiden said he supported PP and wanted to buy body parts. Have you become illiterate since converting?
So he lied.
Is it okay for him to shoot the PP leaders?
So you’re one of those converts. What good with the church’s stance on abortion (admirable though it is) do you on judgment day? You never know how the popes are going to spend those treasury of merits. I’d book a meeting with the pope asap.>>>>>
You are giving tacit support to Planned Parenthood by not saying a word against the killing of unborn children and then selling their body parts.
You are not really concerned about what you call lies. You then make a moral equivalency argument about how terrible it is to lie, maybe even worse than the killing of innocent human beings made in the image of God.
But that is not your real reason for presenting this alleged moral dilemma – which is easily answered even on the basis of Reformed teaching.
You are using this as I said at the beginning, to give a black eye to the Catholic Church. Now who is misrepresenting their true motives? You have blown your cover, Dr. Hart.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 4, 2015 at 6:53 am | Permalink
vd, t, “It is rather bizarre what goes on around here sometimes, Mrs. Webfoot.”
Tru dat. A person who doesn’t go to mass and doesn’t believe in the assumption of Mary defends papal infallibility and 12% of things Roman Catholic — the other 88% aren’t really Roman Catholic, like Garry Wills, Michael Sean Winters and vd, t.
You lie about Catholicism and you lie about me all the time [like now], Dr. Hart. I don’t understand why lying to abortionists bothers you.
LikeLike
DG –
Kevin, if your point is about Rubio, isn’t it a mortal sin not to obey the hierarchy? But the article says that in the context of today’s politics, we need to give Roman Catholics a pass if they don’t line up with the magisterium. I get that if you are a Roman Catholic excusing votes for a Protestant, maybe. But how can you turn a blind eye to sin for the sake of political advantage?
Apologies, I should have quoted to be clear – I was agreeing that the journalist shouldn’t have lied to get a story.
Catholics cannot vote for any “Catholic” candidate who takes a public stand against any articles of the faith- even if they are otherwise a better candidate. Choosing as a leader an individual hostile to religion is to participate in scandal, regardless of the quality of governance.
There may be exceptions, but I don’t think we’re anywhere near them.
It’s a sin not to obey the hierarchy when they are teaching infallibility on the faith. Cuba is a mixed situation – just got back from Miami where I spoke with over a dozen Cubans regarding the Castros. Prudential, not dogmatic.
My problem with Rick Santorum and Paul Ryan is foreign policy – too many potential wars. Rand Paul if anyone. I’m definitely not a libertarian though.
LikeLike
Guys, Troll Life is doing important work here in raising awareness about ethics in under-cover journalism that mainstream Christian media outlets are ignoring. And I know a lot of other people in the past have written stuff on the morality of telling lies to try to prevent murder, but until today, such a serious, thoughtful, treatment of this topic has never been made in such detail or with such care. It’s a shame some of you are being so flippant in response to a point that was made in such sincere good faith.
LikeLike
Right, Ali, absolutely.
Do you do any part time work as a surgeon?
LikeLike
Mermaid, I’m not sure how this gives a black eye to your church only. It’s hard to go to any Christian website and not find outrage over these videos.
So the question as it often is at OL is one of selectivity. When you don’t have 2k, you wind up committing yourself to law breakers (lying) in defense of God’s law. Huh?
There’s a better way. It’s 2k.
LikeLike
Daleiden is a Romanist who arguably is willing to do evil that good might result, Rom. 3:8 or at least he hopes so and so do I, but I got my doubts.
(But if Rome is a slaughter house of souls, does that justify shooting up a Roman church? Or just the DVD bros? Hey, just kidding. Calm down. This is an anger free combox. )
However whack some people think R. Paul is, his recent “Politics Is Not the Path to Pro-Life Victory” in light of the PP expose, is not optimistic. American politics is too compromised.
While passing legislation may help limit abortion, the pro-life movement will never succeed unless it changes people’s attitudes toward the unborn. This is why crisis pregnancy centers, which provide care and compassion to women facing unplanned pregnancies, have done more to advance the pro-life cause then any politician. By showing women they have viable alternatives to abortion, these centers have saved many lives.
Still, if abortion is a symptom of godlessness, ultimately the gospel is the only real solution.
But to return to the real topic. According to Lifton’s The Nazi Doctors, abortion wasn’t a real big item per se. Hitler wanted the Aryans to reproduce; the Jews and others not so much, so being pregnant was an immediate death sentence in the camps. The prisoners who were doctors often aborted babies to try to save the mother’s life.
Which is not to say PP’s policy on abortion and profiting off dead babies isn’t equal to the barbaric medical experiments of the nazis. But we already knew that even before the Silent Scream video. More than a few pro choicers are more than willing to admit that it is a baby. Except the mother’s life/convenience trumps all. (So much for evidentialist apologetics.)
IOW never underestimate human depravity. Herr Wilhelm Gosnell went to jail, but that’s about all the fallout there was from that grisly episode.
Besides this is
AmerikaAmerica.By definition it can’t happen here.
Even as it is happening. Grim’s scruples not withstanding, you go with what you’re given. In a day and age when there is no God, no devil, no right or wrong, the
National SocialistsNazis are the only thing across the board that everybody, the liberal progressive SJWs included, can agree on as the epitome ofsatanicgenuine evil.Only problem is, while the Nazis were racist, sexist and anti-semites, they weren’t really homophobes at all – like Abrams and Lively who wrote The Pink Swastika expose.
(Hmmm. IOW The Nazis were homosexuals that would be against ssm now, so yeah, they really are bad.)
But hey, three out of four is good enough and Adolph had a Roman Catholic baptism.
That works for the rest of us bigots.
LikeLike
Johnny, much appreciated.
LikeLike
He wasn’t lying. He was performing. Playing a role. In order to expose a murderer. The ethical hoops Christians jump through when common sense might simplify things…. I wonder if it would be ok to lie to keep a child molester at bay while the cops arrive? PP is not a business, it is a predator.
LikeLike
Tom,
Sorry, not weak sh*t moral reasoning, honest opinion here brosef.
Bush’s ban limited government funding for research on embryonic stem cells — which have the potential of curing diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and Parkinson’s — to already existing stem cell lines. Federal dollars could not be used to start any new cell lines or to conduct research on any newly derived cell lines.
Where you see a ban, I see Bush legitemizing stem cell research by approving, in however limited a capacity, use of embryonic stems. Like I said it was a Pandora’s Box scenario, once the Federal Gov’t opened it up, there was little legal means to going back and permanently keep that lid shut. By lending Federal recognition of stem cell research, the door was open for a Democrat administration to later re-open the box with little effort. I remember the decision well, it wasn’t an easy one by any means, but anyone who thought that it was going to halt future stem cell research in perpetuity was naive. The better part of wisdom might have been to not open the box in the first place, setting no precedent for later administrations. The pro-life lobby wasn’t happy as I recall, but the protesting was fairly muted as much as I can remember, because GWB was their guy. A little more foresight, and more cycnicism as to the motives of politicians might have served the lobby well – it seems to me (at least at a practical level) that GWB was simply throwing his constituency a bone while kicking the can down the road for a later administration to deal with on a more permanent basis.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Humor me here, but I wonder if you aren’t spiritualizing this a bit much from the opposite angle. Investigative journalism has commonly employed such tactics in order to report on a broader concealed truth. Last time I checked journalism, which is loosely what the PP stings were, isn’t a concern of the church. I don’t assume that the PP revelations moved the ball forward an inch in terms of the spiritual Kingdom, which is moved forward by it’s own ordained means. But, the revelations do serve to unmask the civil kingdom actions of PP, that is inserting its own skewed morality into the social and political spheres.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not all up in arms because the OL faithful have not been roused from their alleged moral slumber here. All I am saying is, insofar as this issue is concerned, I think you might be on the wrong side of this one politically. No spiritual indictments, no hyperventilating – I just happen to think that journalistic convention wasn’t violated here, and the revelations are politically useful in shedding light on the abortion industry. To condemn this sort of journalism calls into question all sorts of professional and political activities that necessarily play loose with the truth for clear political and/or moral objectives – such as espionage/intelligence services, political manuvering in the legislative process, undercover policing, etc. I don’t think it is wrong to question the perameters and limits of such activities to prevent overreach, but I also think they all serve important social functions.
LikeLike
Muddy: Do you do any part time work as a surgeon?
surgeon, Mud? ok, revised then –
in all these situations (medical school, internship, research, publications etc.) it would be very easy to adopt an attitude of pride or superiority toward others who have not made such a study. But how ugly it would be if anyone were to use this knowledge of medicine simply to win arguments or to put down a fellow patient in conversation, or to make another patient feel insignificant, (rather than heal)( adapted excerpt)
LikeLike
vdm, m and Kline together.
And DGH left out in the cold again.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted August 4, 2015 at 3:41 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Sorry, not weak sh*t moral reasoning, honest opinion here brosef.
Easy there, tough guy. You wrote
which was wrong. Bush didn’t open Pandora’s Box–he prevented the expansion of stem cell lines, no different than when Lincoln stopped the spread of slavery–eradicating it wasn’t doable. Both did what they could at the time.
As for the “alleged” moral slumber of those who train their fire on the people trying to do something about abortion instead of the abortionists themselves, there’s your “weak sh*t reasoning.”
LikeLike
Ali, if you’re Greg’s wife, you go girl!
LikeLike
Jed, the thing is, though, when that journalist is religiously motivated to sting PP and seems selective about God’s morality. PP can’t kill babies and sell their parts, but CMP can lie and misrepresent to expose it? Yes, PP’s moral failures can be judged worse in comparison to CMP’s, but that doesn’t mean CMP’s are null and void when compared to God’s law (you know, that thing they want to bring to bear on PP). If CMP wants high standards then how about exposing without lying? It can be done, can’t it?
Gives new meaning to cafeteria Catholic.
LikeLike
Muddy: Greg’s wife
we have the same ‘boyfriend’ don’t we, Mud? – don’t make me send a song
LikeLike
Tom,
As for the “alleged” moral slumber of those who train their fire on the people trying to do something about abortion instead of the abortionists themselves, there’s your “weak sh*t reasoning.”
Sorry, but I think that the pro-life movement needs good questioning. Most of what I have encountered in the movement is a lot of talk, even more outrage, and less meaningful action. I have also met solid, thoughtful people who actually prevent abortions through an alternative pregnancy center that my family business and church helped regularly – these folks have my utmost respect. On the other hand, I have a hard time taking online outrage seriously, since it is rarely productive. I don’t think anyone at OL has damaged ‘the cause’, so much as expressed opinions you don’t like.
We’re just going to have to disagree on Bush Jr’s role in stem cell research, if he was meaning to end it, there were better ways to go about it.
LikeLike
Zrim, Is there any pro-life activity that you would condone? Just asking. It seems whenever the abortion subject comes up on this blog you use a broad brush to paint pro-lifers in a something less than favorable light. Having been involved myself, I have seen some of the horrible excesses and some of the damage done to churches that have replaced the gospel mission with their own social causes. At the same time, I can’t say that the pro-life movement hasn’t done a lot of good. Here in Ohio it is becoming harder to find an abortionist because of the political pressure that has put restrictions and limitations on the practice. I honestly can’t say that would have come about if we did nothing. What would you advocate?
LikeLike
Zrim,
Look, If you want to say investigative journalism of Daleiden’s sort is wrong I am not going to get my boxers in a bind. I disagree, I think a controversial institution such as PP is worth this sort of scrutiny. I will qualify that by saying I think there are better ways to go about exposing PP practices here, but at the end of the day their practices are odious to a good portion of society and deserve to come to light. Journalists, I think, are well within the constraints of their profession when they use cover stories and identities in order to report on their story. In this case, I am not sure citing a violation of the 9th Commandment would hold up even in church courts.
Ethics gets sticky sometimes, there are cases when the truth can and should be obscured for higher moral and ethical principles. There are even instances in Scripture, discussed somewhat already, where the 9th Commandment is superseded by other principles (Rahab). I think it is rather simplistic to say that this is a straightforward case of lying.
LikeLike
Jed, but conservatives get upset all the time when journalists fib. See Pat Buchanan on Woodward and Bernstein. And now the same people who can’t stand CNN or NPR are going to defend the antics of mainstream journalistic practices?
You don’t see the rub?
I’m not spiritualizing. Come on, what do you take me for? I’m just spotting one more time the inconsistencies of those who don’t like 2k.
LikeLike
vdm, m, not so. According to your hero, Dr. K, I’m always with Kline. And don’t forget Misty.
LikeLike
Jed, be careful when talking about ethics, boxers, and stickiness all in the same comment.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I agree that conservatives are disingenuous when they gripe over journalistic standards and practices that grate against them. No problem there. This kid just jumped in the muck and raked it up for the world to see – I don’t have an issue with that, it’s journalistic fair game.
All I am pushing back on is whether or not this was a violation of the 9th commandment, and whether his journalistic practices constituted a violation that the church should have concern over. The young man’s moral reasoning doesn’t seem too well thought out, but with that in mind I think that he brought valuable information regarding PP practice to light, especially since it receives Federal funding.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted August 4, 2015 at 5:15 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“As for the “alleged” moral slumber of those who train their fire on the people trying to do something about abortion instead of the abortionists themselves, there’s your “weak sh*t reasoning.”
Sorry, but I think that the pro-life movement needs good questioning. Most of what I have encountered in the movement is a lot of talk, even more outrage, and less meaningful action. I have also met solid, thoughtful people who actually prevent abortions through an alternative pregnancy center that my family business and church helped regularly – these folks have my utmost respect. On the other hand, I have a hard time taking online outrage seriously, since it is rarely productive. I don’t think anyone at OL has damaged ‘the cause’, so much as expressed opinions you don’t like.
We’re just going to have to disagree on Bush Jr’s role in stem cell research, if he was meaning to end it, there were better ways to go about it.
Your online outrage is noted.
As for attacking anti-abortionists instead of abortionists, that moral inversion can only be defended if public discussion is useless. But I don’t think it is. The pro-life cause is gaining, and it’s done one person and one discussion at a time.
http://journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/628769/Pro-life-cause-continues-to-gain-momentum.html?nav=5061
LikeLike
Darryl,
Just be thankful that I didn’t get into describing the bouquet of those sticky ethical boxers.
LikeLike
…I’m always with Kline. And don’t forget Misty.
Well, easy enough to see you aren’t with Kline on weighing the 9th when lives are at stake. As for Misty, maybe you know whether she agrees with you that the Christian reaction to Obergefell and Planned Parenthood is just “outrage porn”.
LikeLike
Mark,
FWIW the thing that gets me is the supposed “Christian” reaction to Obergefell and Planned Parenthood.
I am not saying Christians shouldn’t have a reaction or opinion, but a pagan Hippocrates understood long before video footage was available that doctors were not to be doing abortions. And if homosexuality has been around at least since Sodom and Gomorrah, since when has there ever been any thing like ssm before?
LikeLike
Unstoppable Terminator of broken vows everyone.
LikeLike
Darryl doesn’t need to be ‘exposed’, he is rather transparent in his opinions and basically always has been, there is no secret game here. It’s one thing to disagree, and at some point we can all find issues where we could and do disagree, still another to put so much energy into ‘exposing’ others.
It only validates the need for 2k, so these kinds of political and social disagreements aren’t used as a means to promote disunity in the church, or unduly bind others consciences’. The church will continue on whatever comes of the abortion issue. I hope and pray it does come to an end someday soon, but even if that day comes it doesn’t change the church’s mission at all.
LikeLike
Bob S.:
Daleiden is a Romanist who arguably is willing to do evil that good might result, Rom. 3:8 or at least he hopes so and so do I, but I got my doubts.>>>>>
You have not proven that Daleiden has done anything evil. Did God tell you that what he did was evil? If not, then you are in the dangerous position of judging the servant of another. You have doubts because your sense of morality is being corrupted by the company you are keeping.
In fact, the men here defending Planned Parenthood – which is what they are actually doing whether they want to or not – are not even representative of good Reformed teaching. The position presented by the owner of this blog is the un-Christian option. Attack those who are exposing evil instead of the evil itself.
Besides, the verse you reference here has been taken out of context and somehow twisted to make it mean something it does not mean. This is a good example of where sola scriptura can lead.
————————————————————-
Muddy Gravel
Posted August 4, 2015 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
I don’t know of a better explanation for the Rahab passage. The following exonerates her without making the passage an example to be followed outside the OT theocracy.>>>>
How convenient. What about the midwives who saved the lives of little Hebrew babies in the book of Exodus? Did you forget them? The OT theocracy had not been set up yet.
Besides, be careful what circles you scribe for yourself. Seems like they’re getting awfully tight around you. Again, your version of sola scriptura + some kind of Reformed tradition shows the weakness of your religion.
You really think that God is angry with the ones who are exposing evil? What is His opinion of those who are deceiving and coercing mostly poor, young, minority women, killing their babies, telling them that they would not make good mothers anyway, and then selling the body parts of their children to the highest bidder?
Think in those terms, why don’t you? It may change your perspective. Maybe your religion is flawed.
Exodus 2
15 Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, 16 “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. 18 So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this, and let the male children live?” 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” 20 So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. 22 Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every son that is born to the Hebrews[a] you shall cast into the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live.”
LikeLike
Jed, technically for Deleiden it’s the 8th commandment. RC’s can’t count.
And I agree that in some cases a journalist may practice a kind of deception — or at least doesn’t tell the whole truth. Heck, I’m not completely honest in the classroom about my Christian identity — for a number of reasons. But when someone does this in the name of Christ, at least you admit there’s a tension?
LikeLike
Jed, as the King said, “thank you, thank you very much.”
LikeLike
vdm, m, well if the former is easy enough to see, the latter should be easy peasy.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted August 4, 2015 at 7:40 pm | Permalink
Darryl doesn’t need to be ‘exposed’, he is rather transparent in his opinions and basically always has been, there is no secret game here. It’s one thing to disagree, and at some point we can all find issues where we could and do disagree, still another to put so much energy into ‘exposing’ others.
It only validates the need for 2k, so these kinds of political and social disagreements aren’t used as a means to promote disunity in the church, or unduly bind others consciences’. The church will continue on whatever comes of the abortion issue. I hope and pray it does come to an end someday soon, but even if that day comes it doesn’t change the church’s mission at all.
The moral cowardice of Pontius Pilatism won’t get the unity you want. There is only one truth.
LikeLike
Here’s vd t’s moral courage.
LikeLike
Bob- And if homosexuality has been around at least since Sodom and Gomorrah, since when has there ever been any thing like ssm before?
~ How does one consumate a same sex marriage? ~
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 4, 2015 at 8:28 pm | Permalink
Here’s vd t’s moral courage.
Where’s yours, tough guy? How did she put it?
She’s sure got your number.
LikeLike
Jed said, “To condemn this sort of journalism calls into question all sorts of professional and political activities that necessarily play loose with the truth for clear political and/or moral objectives – such as espionage/intelligence services, political manuvering in the legislative process, undercover policing, etc. I don’t think it is wrong to question the perameters and limits of such activities to prevent overreach, but I also think they all serve important social functions.”
I think that calling these things into question perfectly acceptable thing to do. When some behavior is proscribed by Scripture, does putting on a different hat change whether it is acceptable? I have no doubt that some would say that chattel slavery is a sinful practice, but at the same time have no problem with military conscription though these seem to be nearly identical practices. That shows the illegitimacy of even using the office to justify actions. The Bible talks about the duties of masters, so shouldn’t wearing the hat of master justify owning people?
LikeLike
eVaDe.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 4, 2015 at 9:25 pm | Permalink
eVaDe.
Yes, but you’re not doing a very good job of evasion lately, without henchmen to hide behind. They finally saw through you, and now everyone else is, too. Repent.
LikeLike
Kevin,
So are you saying Clinton didn’t have sex with that woman?
LikeLike
The latest video is even more appalling than the others. On one hand one might conclude they are political geniuses baiting senate democrats into support of PP, then turning up the heat. I wonder what the next five videos hold. I’msure there are more than a few outraged senators who just went to bat for pp who want to know what other surprises await.
On the other hand, the election is a ways off and nothing is going to happen until the presidency changes hands. Perhaps the public will be saturated on abortion atrocities and the news cycle will shift to sonething else (a transgender man will die from a pregnancy complication because s/he couldn’t get abortion access in TX…or maybe just another spate of shark attacks). Nothing changes, we grow more calloused, and the under cover videos inspire a tit for tat guerrilla war of investigative reporting. This could blow up in our face.
Given the track record of social-cons snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I suspect thiswill do little more than keep social-con, economic/military moderate/libs (ala Dreher) voting Gop. I don’t think those 14 votes are swinging elections. But then I’m no poli-sci expert.
LikeLike
John, you must have missed my point made to Kevin recently about PRCs, which from what I know are charitable works that try to actually help women and their families more than score political points. That might actually mean I also have some sympathy for quarters of PP, though when it comes to that quarter which traffics in elective abortion it’s on its own in terms of defense.
LikeLike
Jed, I don’t want to say investigative journalism of Daleiden’s sort is wrong nor that this is a straightforward case of lying. What I want to say is that if you’re going to sting an operation because you think you’re doing some kind of grand Christian service (beyond investigative journalism) in doing so then you’d better tread carefully ahead if by doing so means you’re also going to violate another section of the moral code you see yourself serving. One option is to deep six the Christian crusade complex and simply do investigative journalism.
LikeLike
“How convenient…. be careful what circles you scribe for yourself. Seems like they’re getting awfully tight around you. Again, your version of sola scriptura + some kind of Reformed tradition shows the weakness of your religion.You really think that God is angry with the ones who are exposing evil?… Maybe your religion is flawed.”
Webster, you assume that what interests you interests me. What interests me is the best way of understanding the Rahab story. You suppose, impute and try to find some leverage for your denomination but it’s all stuff you made up out of thin air. Anyway I think your denomination is no more than baptized paganism so you’re wasting your time on me.
LikeLike
vdm, m, well if the former is easy enough to see, the latter should be easy peasy.
Indeed, Darryl, it is clear as a bell where you stand.
LikeLike
Zrim,
One option is to deep six the Christian crusade complex and simply do investigative journalism.
Completely agree. Seeking to end abortion is not a “Christian” problem to be solved, it is a human problem. I think that this is a case of mixed motives, and it does ride the fine line of ethically permissible activities, but so is most of what happens under the sun.
LikeLike
Sdb,
a transgender man will die from a pregnancy complication because s/he couldn’t get abortion access in TX
Amusing hypothetical – or perhaps:
“Bigamy? In Waynesboro, VA [West of Charlottesville], Keyshana Rae Childress received two years probation for marrying a woman without first divorcing her husband.” Culture Wars, (July 2015).
under cover videos inspire a tit for tat guerrilla war of investigative reporting. This could blow up in our face
Do you have potential cases in mind? ‘Exposing hate speech/crimes’ perhaps?
LikeLike
Newark, polygamy litigation – probably initiated before 2015 is over, although it will take longer for higher courts to hear the case.
LikeLike
Joel,
I think I get where you are going, and it seems far too simplistic to me. I am not a relativist by any means but I do think, especially if you examine the Wisdom literature in Scripture, that there is a fluidity to moral and ethical reasoning. The situation we are discussing is a prime example, do you place more moral weight behind truthfulness or behind preservation of life? Both are moral goods, and in this case, to get to the facts of what PP was doing, Daleiden made a judgement call based on the preservation of life (thinking this could in some way do damage to the abortion industry).
I don’t think the young man was as ethically careful as he could or should be, but those inclined to such reasoning might not be inclined to take the chance that he did. Is there some room for criticism for his tactics? Sure. Can we call it flat out wrong, or conversely morally praiseworthy? That’s where it isn’t so clear-cut.
I’m sure we can agree that Scripture clearly teaches moral absolutes, however in the ethical realm where those absolutes are applied in the human sphere, things are far less straightforward than they appear at first glance.
LikeLike
Muddy-
Newark, polygamy litigation – probably initiated before 2015 is over, although it will take longer for higher courts to hear the case.
Thanks for pointing that outt, I didn’t even consider motivation. Any predictions on how this is likely to play out and over what period?
LikeLike
TVD
Posted August 4, 2015 at 9:53 pm | Permalink
D. G. Hart
Posted August 4, 2015 at 9:25 pm | Permalink
eVaDe.
Yes, but you’re not doing a very good job of evasion lately, without henchmen to hide behind. They finally saw through you, and now everyone else is, too. Repent.
“Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices — mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!”>>>>>>
Yes! See, what really gets to me is that men like Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop – both in the Reformed camp – were pioneers in the pro life movement. I KNOW that the owner of this blog and his followers are not representing the best of Reformed ethics and morality with their gnat straining arguments.
It breaks my heart, it really does.
LikeLike
Ali
Posted August 4, 2015 at 12:48 pm | Permalink
Mrs W. don’t mean to take away from your appeals nor deflect from this particular post but this I read this am is very difficult:
Bringing Jesus to Planned Parenthood Through Mary: Since the angel in the bible reveals that Mary was “full of grace,” she was given extraordinary gifts from God. In this campaign, we call upon Mary to use those gifts to put an end to the reign of terror that is Planned Parenthood. http://www.stopp.org/article.php?id=7034>>>>>
The 5 Sorrowful Mysteries seemed especially meaningful to me today – Tuesday.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted August 4, 2015 at 10:55 pm | Permalink
Zrim,
“One option is to deep six the Christian crusade complex and simply do investigative journalism.”
Completely agree. Seeking to end abortion is not a “Christian” problem to be solved, it is a human problem. I think that this is a case of mixed motives, and it does ride the fine line of ethically permissible activities, but so is most of what happens under the sun.
Jed, I think you hit on something key, though not what you aimed at.
The “human problem” is no less or more than the “Christian problem.” How could it be otherwise? Why did the Creator put us here instead of deposit us in heaven, no muss, no fuss?
The fact is that modernity has destroyed classical philosophy and “natural law” [Romans 2:14] along with destroying Biblical morality. How many non-[Judeo-]Christian anti-abortion people are there? At democratsforlife-dot-org, there’s only 6 people at their pro-life rally!
2k “non-political” theology is not a “You say Potato, I say Potahto” dilemma anymore, as if it’s a prudential and debatable choice between 1) evil, 2) a lesser evil, and 3) let’s call the whole thing off.
3) is no longer an option. Not only Biblical morality but the natural law have only one home and one refuge left against modernity: Christianity. You’re quite the erudite fellow, a scholar, you know what I mean here.
Thx for the principled discussion, JP, which took me to the above. If only there were philosophers today who could argue Plato and Aristotle against the madness that is modern “philosophy,” but almost all of them are now Christians.
The court didn’t just overrule Biblical morality in Romer v. Evans, it overruled Plato
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1222&context=yjlh
overruled not just theology but philosophy. Overruled truth and logic.
Do you want your children growing up in a moral madhouse? Or anyone else’s children? These are the stakes, Jed, not just my neighbor buggering his roommate/wife/husband.
This is hardly a discussion of
because we don’t even know what you mean by “ethical,” ‘permissible’ or even ‘activities.’ If applied to my neighbor buggering his/her/its roommate/wife/husband [or vice versa], well, they seem like nice neighbors and it’s none of my business as long as they keep their sidewalk clear.
Selling aborted/euthanized/murdered fetal corpses, well, even Mary Shelley was revolted by graverobbers. If you want to get Dr. Hart’s back, why not put your defense in the form of a proper defense? Here, let me get you started, bro:
Floor’s yours. Strain that gnat, swallow that camel, Jed. I know you’re a solid intellectual, but this…
LikeLike
zrim, or link Daleiden to John Brown, investigative vigilantism.
LikeLike
Newark, my crystal ball sez polygamy will eventually be allowed. It also says the SCOTUS will be hesitant to take a polygamy case so by 2020 there will be a sprinkling of polygamous states. This will hurt the ratings of reality shows based on polygamy so we’ll begin to see I Heart My Robot and the like.
LikeLike
Jed: if you examine the Wisdom literature in Scripture, that there is a fluidity to moral and ethical reasoning.
really, examples from there?
LikeLike
@Muddy
I don’t understand the conservative objections to polygamy. It’s already legal in all 50 states. Moreover, I think one would be hard-pressed to articulate any cogent biblical case against the practice. It strikes me that the opposition to polygamy is rooted less in Scripture than in a romantic-Freudian construal of marriage. Ironically, that’s the very construal of marriage that Justice Kennedy relied upon in Obergefell.
Evangelicals can’t seem to make up their mind whether they want marriage to be a traditional institution or a modernist institution. If the former theory prevails, then one necessarily has to remain open to polygamy. If the latter theory prevails, then one necessarily has to remain open to same-sex marriage.
Or you could simply dispense with the paternalism, get the state out of the marrying business, and allow such arrangements to be governed by common-law contract principles.
LikeLike
Mrs W: “The 5 Sorrowful Mysteries seemed especially meaningful to me today – Tuesday.”
those were in the voice of Mary, Mrs W. Was that someone’s speculation of what she said or did she actually speak those words to someone?
Mary: I am praying for you, my children and I will guide you in loving Jesus for those who will not love Him.
Mary: Finally He looked at me and at John: He told me, “Woman, behold your Son” and to John, “Behold your mother.” My spiritual motherhood is Jesus’ gift to you: Jesus gave me to His disciples and to the whole Church to be mother and intercessor for everyone who calls himself a Christian.
Mary:Come, my children,come to the foot of the cross and there I will pray with you and for you that your sins will be blotted out: that you will experience the redeeming power of my Son.
Mrs W – there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man CHRIST JESUS(1 Tim 2:5)
LikeLike
Bobby: I report, you decide. But I don’t think the SCOTUS is going to be falling all over themselves to get to the case. Think of the plaintiffs: a bearded white guy from Utah with 5 women who look related and have all the joie de vivre of Russian babushkas. But then I suppose it could be Muslims taking over Michigan, where, lo & behold there are at least two or three 2k’s to blame.
LikeLike
When trying to follow the nuance and hairsplitting, just keep the overriding interpretive principle for understanding the Old Life faithful at the forefront — they’re liberals.
Planned Parenthood is a quasi-religious institution for liberals.
Mystery solved!
LikeLike
In the history of OL there have been dozens of jerks. Only two have been big enough jerks to be regulated. Of those two, only one is so impoverished in his life that he comes back anyway.
LikeLike
Good Avatar – Man for All Seasons (Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More)
LikeLike
Muddy,
If you had any stones (instead of just protecting Darryl’s) you might point out how big of a hypocrite he is for “regulating” me. He needs to get over himself and his ego and recognize a foe who can generate discussion and improve his web site hits.
The personal b.s. is all out there and is over. Now it’s just about his wounded, fragile pride.
Darryl needs to get over himself. Let’s debate issues.
Unless he thinks 2K can’t handle intense scrutiny…
Also, if I want to oppose you guys, why should I just go away because you ask? What’s next, a slap across the face with your white gloves? Liberals!…
LikeLike
Erik, your thinking is strictly binary so you try to cram apolitical statements into your left/right categories.
I’m not going to drag this out but you really need to come to grips with the reality that you are a rung below Doug Sowers. Step back and get some perspective.
LikeLike
Muddy,
Suck it.
Oh, and have a nice day!
LikeLike
EC: The personal b.s. is all out there and is over . . . Let’s debate issues.
EC: [Old Lifers a]re liberals. Planned Parenthood is a quasi-religious institution for liberals.
Mystery solved!
!
LikeLike
Jed,
I don’t think I’m being simplistic about it. Perhaps you reading too much into what I’m saying. I wouldn’t be a politician because of moral scruples, but I also wouldn’t be a slaveholder. On the other hand, if a patient, gentle slaveholder or a believing politician came to church, I wouldn’t act as though they were unbelievers, either. What Daleiden did may be even the right thing to do, you are probably right. It seems beneficial for Christians to not get used to the idea that having a certain title gives you moral license, especially those in a high position. Utilitarian thinking does not make the cut, because both the means and the ends should be blameless. No one should do evil that good may come.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Robert, you just switched the situations, from journalist to German citizen. My point is what you said. To justify deceit, you’d go to your secular vocation’s duties, not to Christian ones not to lie. That’s okay. But you don’t cite Christianity to justify lying, right?
I switched the situation because that is the easy example. But in the case of the journalist or the German citizen, I would say it is my Christian duty not to tell the truth.
One simply cannot bifurcate his duties in such a manner. If so, then we could have Christian pole dancers, strippers, mobsters, etc. I’m not sure that saying “I’m stripping as my secular vocation but not as a Christian” is going to hold up before God.
To use a less grievous example, if my 2-year-old hands me a picture and says “look daddy, it’s a picture of mommy, isn’t it beautiful” and all it is is a scribble, I’m going to tell him it is beautiful anyway. Is that a lie? Perhaps. Is it bearing false witness? Not necessarily, because I’m not deceiving in order to cause harm. Now if my son was 20, and he wants to invest all of his money in his art career and I know that nobody is going to want a scribble, I’m not going to tell him that his scribble is beautiful. If I did, it could cause him great harm.
The situation has an impact on how we apply the law. The old covenant law recognizes this in many ways. Even Paul recognizes it in his teaching on Christian freedom and when we are allowed to eat meat and when we should abstain.
If one may violate a Christian duty in the course of doing his secular work, then we’re in heaps of trouble. Again, I’m not saying this is easy, and I’m very sympathetic to 2K thought. But I’m reading you—perhaps unfairly—that it is okay to violate a duty to God if your secular vocation demands it.
Determining whether or not your secular duty is a violation of your Christian duty is the hard part, and there are no hard and fast rules in most cases. At times it is extremely difficult. But if we are to reject Caesar’s demands if they interfere with our duties as Christian citizens, surely we cannot bifurcate our callings in such ways.
LikeLike
E, I recoil at Wilson and the Baylys (the latter more than the former). Religiously motivated political activism equals conservatism just because some of the pet causes overlap? I’m not so sure.
LikeLike
Robert, I’m not saying it’s okay to violate God’s law in one’s vocation. I am saying that I act differently as a husband from how I act as an elder from how I act in the classroom. Telling the truth doesn’t require me, I believe, to disclose to students that I am an elder in the OPC or to answer a question about Calvin the way I might in Sunday school. For some Christians that’s dishonest.
But I thought you were saying it was okay not to tell the truth either as a journalist or as a citizen in some cases.
So I’m not sure I understand.
LikeLike
@KiN
Let’s say an activist from the other side hears that some guy in Newark is pretty selective about who he rents to. This group hears about similar cases around the country (perhaps people sympathetic to something like Dreher’s Benedict Option), and posing as co-travelers schedules meetings with such folks to discuss ways to revitalize neighborhoods by renting only to people who are committed to the community. A handful of such conversations include sound bites that sound like the landlord is comfortable discriminating against some couples and suddenly these guys jare getting the Memories Pizza treatment.
I’m not saying the PP sting videos aren’t justified or that they might not be successful. They could be justified and they might be successful. But then again, maybe they won’t be. I honestly have no idea whether these videos will be a net positive or negative. I know it may break mwf’s heart to question the wisdom of those fighting the good fight, but good intentions and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Conservatives are supposed to be circumspect and ruled by prudence. I’m not so sure the current right-wing enthusiasm for co-opting the tactics of Saul Alinsky’s and Michael Moore’s is prudent (or circumspect). I hope to be proven wrong. I would love to find a strong cultural shift towards valuing life at all stages. I’m not confident these videos will do that and I worry the consequences won’t be all benign as the ubiquity of cameras and social media make privacy impossible.
LikeLike
Sdb –
Sounds plausible and sensible to me.
I don’t see how these videos could significantly impact the legality or (much more importantly) demand for abortion, and am unconvinced the means employed to get them were ethical.
“Journalistic ethics” may not be ethical. Torture is commonly enough practiced and justified for a greater good, but may not be ethical. I don’t want to imply answers easy in this area, though.
The only part of your proposed backlash case that seems unrealistic, alas, is getting unity of action amongst those who both see that religion has an impact on the well-being of the community and that there may be value in acting in concert.
LikeLike
@kevin
I suspect you are right, though I think this is what the Benedict option is all about.
I recently came across a quote purportedly by Milton Friedman (the provenance of which I cannot attest),
Whether he actually said this or not, I am inclined to agree with the sentiment. Incentives matter (economic and political) whether we think they should or not. The PP sting is unlikely to shift the political climate in ways that get the wrong people to do the right thing.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Robert, I’m not saying it’s okay to violate God’s law in one’s vocation. I am saying that I act differently as a husband from how I act as an elder from how I act in the classroom. Telling the truth doesn’t require me, I believe, to disclose to students that I am an elder in the OPC or to answer a question about Calvin the way I might in Sunday school. For some Christians that’s dishonest.
Okay, but do you act differently as a husband than you do as a Christian, and if so, how? If there are some things that husbands do that aren’t uniquely Christian, okay. But its one thing to say that and another to say that by doing that it is okay not to do one’s Christian duty or that one has no right to claim that one is doing his Christian duty in doing those common things. I love my wife, which is not a uniquely Christian thing. But in loving my wife, I am also doing my Christian duty in a way that the non-believer is not.
But I thought you were saying it was okay not to tell the truth either as a journalist or as a citizen in some cases.
That is what I’m saying. If I know the information will be used illegitimately to harm another person, I have no obligation to tell the truth and I’m not sinning if, for example, I tell the Nazis that the Jews went “that way” down the street even though they’re hiding out in my basement.
That’s a more passive example, but I think it applies actively in cases such as journalism, an undercover sting. A Christian isn’t necessarily violating his duty to keep God’s law if he lies in the course of an undercover sting if the purpose is to get the bad guys. If it is, then Christians can’t be undercover cops, journalists, espionage agents, etc. Maybe they can’t be.
It would be a stretch to say that what CMP has done is an obligatory Christian duty for all Christian journalists, but I don’t see where what he has done has broken the ninth commandment. I think the error would be saying that all Christian journalists are required to do such investigations. But I don’t think it is an error either for CMP to claim that they are doing this out of a sense of their duty to God.
In this specific case, I think he has biblical justification for what he has done, and if he doesn’t, he shouldn’t have done it.
What I am saying is that in some cases, a lie is the way that we keep the ninth commandment not to bear false witness to our neighbors. I respect those that have scruples otherwise, but it’s not so easy to say a Christian is necessarily breaking the ninth commandment and not doing his Christian duty if he tells a lie.
So if your point is that we act differently in different roles, then I agree. Our roles and responsibilities definitely have an impact on what the Lord requires of us. If you want to say it is the journalist’s duty to lie in some cases but you are not sure if it is the Christian’s duty, I can be okay with that as well. What I can’t agree with is that one may ever violate his Christian duty in the course of his secular vocation.
These aren’t easy questions; and some situations are more complex than others. But I don’t see this as one of them.
LikeLike
Sdb –
Thanks for the quote – This looks like the origin:
Seems to me an amusing puzzle, a bit cynical, but useful with certain audiences.
LikeLike
sdb,
I would love to find a strong cultural shift towards valuing life at all stages. I’m not confident these videos will do that and I worry the consequences won’t be all benign as the ubiquity of cameras and social media make privacy impossible.
Great comment. I think that while conservatives feel as if they have won a battle in the larger culture war, and are caught up in the momentum of a sort of political bloodlust to defeat the enemy, some circumspection is in order. I don’t think that even if the exercise of the nuclear option (in journalistic terms) was justified that it should be celebrated. The only thing that made such deception permissible was the information, and the information is even more gruesome than the tactics used to uncover it. I think there are appropriate “What now” kinds of social and political questions that need to be answered. The big danger in all of this is to let this turn into a more heat than light scenario that only ratchets up the stakes of the culture war.
LikeLike
Robert,
If it is, then Christians can’t be undercover cops, journalists, espionage agents, etc. Maybe they can’t be.
If these positions contain irredeemable evils, then they ought not to exist. I think we’d have to look at the conditions that make them “necessary” and locate what else can be changed to render them unnecessary.
Why is international espionage considered necessary? CIA hitmen? Torturing terrorists? Immodest airport security? Extensive domestic surveillance? Drug ring stings? Government financial system bailouts (transfer of wealth)?
Basically, what did we permit to happen to our society that allowed it to get into the mess it is in – what could have been done to keep these things from being “necessary” – what would we like to be going forward?
Not 2k to ask?
LikeLike
If Rubio fails, there’s a Roman Catholic Bush as backup:
LikeLike
As an aside to this discussion, I think the issue of abortion is emblematic of the current culture wars in a similar but not identical way that slavery was emblematic of the struggles of antebellum America. There are other issues involved for each side, but abortion seems to be the watershed issue where the sides part. I am not saying that we are going to end up in a civil war, but I do think that this conflict goes down to the heart of the divide in the American republic, and our deeper desires for union might lead to ugly conflict before there is some kind of resolution or settling of the score.
LikeLike
Robert, I’m supposed to love my neighbor as myself. But I’m supposed to love my wife exclusively. There’s a tension (not contradiction). It’s a complicated world out there.
LikeLike
kevin – Basically, what did we permit to happen to our society that allowed it to get into the mess it is in –
Gen 3:6 When the Woman saw that the tree looked like good eating and realized what she would get out of it—she’d know everything!—she took and ate the fruit and then gave some to her husband, and he ate.
sorry to put a spiritual perspective on it…
LikeLike
Kent –
re: Original sin
I don’t disagree, but still we can vote for George Bush the 1st despite his participation in the Iran Contra Affair, etc., or decide Rand Paul or Pat Buchanan or another would probably be at least a step away from libidinous government.
To me what’s important in the political context is recognizing where our own behaviour (e.g., voting, casual conversation) encourages others to bring about unnecessary problems.
But pursuing this would, I fear, lead back into the same old argument- from my perspective, that the “2k position” looks a lot like dogmatic inaction presented as Biblical and virtuous, unjustly labeling the “responsible citizen” position (as I propose it) an abuse of Christianity.
LikeLike
Jed, jumping off your point, some have said that the abortion controversy seems to divide those who would champion the right to liberty from those those who would champion the right to life, both of which are deeply embedded American virtues, then asks the general public to decide between the two. Upshot: socio-political schizophrenia and frayed social fabric. Makes one wonder if the champions of either side realize how destructive ideology can be.
LikeLike
So R.S. Clark joins Kline and mvdm on the side of the journalist exposing the baby butchers. Must be getting lonely in “Old Life” land.
LikeLike
Kevin in Newark
Posted August 5, 2015 at 2:15 pm | Permalink
But pursuing this would, I fear, lead back into the same old argument- from my perspective, that the “2k position” looks a lot like dogmatic inaction presented as Biblical and virtuous, unjustly labeling the “responsible citizen” position (as I propose it) an abuse of Christianity.
LikeLike
Kevin, it was a mean and bad bad world centuries before the first politician you idolized let you down…
LikeLike
Mark Van Der Molen
Posted August 5, 2015 at 6:24 pm | Permalink
So R.S. Clark joins Kline and mvdm on the side of the journalist exposing the baby butchers. Must be getting lonely in “Old Life” land.
“Proudly Straining at Gnats since 2006”
LikeLike
Tom,
To your comment from last night, I think we have a fundamental disagreement over what power the church has to shape political realities. I am far more pessimistic than you in what can actually be accomplished on that plane. God is sovereign, if the odious affairs of the world are so awful, he has the power to make changes – yet he has allowed evils like abortion to persist. I won’t even squabble over how bleak the current situation is. I am not particularly thrilled that this is the world I am raising my kids in, however to me it is far more important to show them what faithfulness in a fallen world looks like than to incrementally change its fallenness.
I am pretty sure you see this as a cop out, and if I thought these matters were of ultimate importance you would be closer to right. But, I think that the realities of the life to come are more important, and I am very confident in God’s ability to bring righteous judgement against all human evil. We just happen to live in an age of suspended judgment, so that men can be afforded the opportunity to repent.
Practically speaking, the church when she is faithfully present in society does have positive effects, by simply carrying on in the limited things God has truly called her to. These changes are far more organic, often escaping the macro view of world events, but are more than obvious whenever you see Christian individuals faithful in their earthly vocations. I do think that regardless of the means of acquisition these videos are valuable in the abortion debates in society, truly I do. I don’t think abortion will ever be made illegal until a vast majority of Americans demand it. The fact is, opinions are gradually swinging more in pro-life directions, but change will take time. In the meantime, preventing abortions, giving women sound alternatives where abortion might seem like the wisest or only choice is a far more productive way to work for a solution than discussing the matter on the internet. I am not saying there is no value in such discussions, just that they don’t accomplish as much as we think they do.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted August 5, 2015 at 6:39 pm | Permalink
MVDM,
There is diversity in 2k, and how its adherents apply it. Your bigger problem is the inability to countenance dissenting viewpoints, or even probing questions into the sacramental value of political cows. I might be wrong here, but I can’t ever recall you commenting here on anything but matters where you think the church/Christians need to get on board with a political agenda.
2k is not threatened because its adherents disagree on its application in cultural matters. Inasmuch as we keep these matters out of the affairs of the church, the better chance folks like you have in pursuing political ends that align with your conscience without making the body of Christ beholden to earthly political maneuvering.
While it’s true some go overboard–either with social gospel politics or [more questionably IMO] divine sanction for free-market economics–the larger portion quite understand the difference between the universal principles of the natural law and the partisan means attempting to achieve them.
But it’s also inexcusable laziness to put a pox on both houses as though the truth lies squarely in the middle. That’s the issue here. To do nothing about evil, and worse, condemn those who do, is moral imbecility. No harm or injustice was done to these butchers, except to expose their butchery.
LikeLike
I’m not claiming the truth is in the middle somewhere, if you think that’s what I am saying, you have really misunderstood me. To riff of of Muddy, you’re assuming that the issue can be reduced to a binary antithesis of pro vs. anti. I reject that. As a Christian I am far more convinced that the truth resides in Scripture and is expounded by the church. I get that it frustrates many, but the role of the church is fundamentally a pilgrim mission – we’re just passing through. Auxiliary benefits to society is gravy, but we can get on fine without it.
LikeLike
There is diversity in 2k, and how its adherents apply it. Your bigger problem is the inability to countenance dissenting viewpoints, or even probing questions into the sacramental value of political cows. I might be wrong here, but I can’t ever recall you commenting here on anything but matters where you think the church/Christians need to get on board with a political agenda.
Your memory is faulty, as is your definition of “political agenda”. The discussion is over a moral issue (one that has political dimensions for sure), but I did not bring up what I believe the political resolution should be, nor what the church’s role could encompass. I see no probing question of a “political cow”, but a vacuous moral equivalence that if acceptable within your diverse world of “2k”, then only confirms the trajectory I’ve been predicting for years.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted August 5, 2015 at 7:27 pm | Permalink
I’m not claiming the truth is in the middle somewhere, if you think that’s what I am saying, you have really misunderstood me. To riff of of Muddy, you’re assuming that the issue can be reduced to a binary antithesis of pro vs. anti. I reject that. As a Christian I am far more convinced that the truth resides in Scripture and is expounded by the church. I get that it frustrates many, but the role of the church is fundamentally a pilgrim mission – we’re just passing through. Auxiliary benefits to society is gravy, but we can get on fine without it.
What is the Church’s duty to the natural law? To its own people? To innocent others?
You guys get awfully abstract and intellectual about other people’s safety, other people’s lives. This situation is precisely analogous to the ox in the pit.
Even the Pharisees wouldn’t leave it there, Sabbath or no. Do you people even read the Bible? Are you so morally inverted and apathetic that you put the law above human beings? Do you understand a word Jesus said?
“for danger of life drives away the sabbath”
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-12-3.html
LikeLike
Jed, MVD skipped over your bigger point of not binding the church to his particular political maneuvering. It’s ok, it’s how he does, organic church bleeder that he is. But I got your back, until I don’t.
LikeLike
sean,
But I got your back, until I don’t.
Thanks man, knew I could count on you
LikeLike
vdm, m, so lonely that comments are open.
LikeLike
With all the naked assertions and hot air surfacing in this pocket of the internet it’s not hard to tell that MVDM has come in for a drive-by.
If The Dream of the 90s is Alive In Portland does that mean The Dream of an Imminentized Eschaton is Alive In Kuyperianville?
LikeLike
“naked assertions and hot air surfacing.”
Again, what kind of book are you writing?
LikeLike
Jed Paschall
Posted August 5, 2015 at 6:54 pm | Permalink
Tom,
To your comment from last night, I think we have a fundamental disagreement over what power the church has to shape political realities
The Church is the only reality. The natural law, God became human, mankind–at least you lucky “elect” 😉 –will have eternal life.
But it does make one wonder, why did God bother even creating Creation? You’re going to heaven and the rest of us are cosmically f***ed. What’s the point of this kabuki?
I am far more pessimistic than you in what can actually be accomplished on that plane. God is sovereign, if the odious affairs of the world are so awful, he has the power to make changes – yet he has allowed evils like abortion to persist.
God does not permit evil, mankind does. We’re into the theodicy thing now, going back to the Book of Job, perhaps the earliest book of the Bible.
That God permitted the Holocaust made all but 10% of the world’s Jews lose their faith, as near as I can figure. The Orthodox, some Conservatives, “Reform” Judaism [called “Liberal” Judaism in the UK], good luck with that.
Israel is a “Jewish” state but it’s also a secular one. Perhaps this is the most promising vein [I have no idea of how rich or empty it might be].
I won’t even squabble over how bleak the current situation is. I am not particularly thrilled that this is the world I am raising my kids in, however to me it is far more important to show them what faithfulness in a fallen world looks like than to incrementally change its fallenness.
At last someone brought up the moral cesspool that our kids are bathed in. You know, Jed, it’s not worrying about them making mistakes that will get them damned [and you “elect” don’t believe that anyway], but that they will make mistakes that will bring misery upon them and on their children.
hey, we know how the story comes out–you and hopefully your children and your children’s children’s children will enjoy eternal life so all this
goes without saying, especially to the believer in predestination/election.
But what of the rest of us? Why were we created? Shall we just sit here waiting annihilation, or worse? Not lift a finger against evil in the meantime?
Jed, as always, thx for the thoughtful reply. But if lying to fucking abortionists to try to stop the horror displeases God, then bring on your theologizing and your Gospel According to St. Bastard. And that goes for you too, Dr. Hart.
The Holocaust was man’s doing, not God’s.
LikeLike
vd, t, “the moral cesspool that our kids are bathed in.”
Does that include Hollywood?
LikeLike
With all the naked assertions and hot air surfacing in this pocket of the internet
The irony obviously escapes you.
LikeLike
The upside of the videos:
But will Alan’s liberal friends get past the speck in Daleiden’s eye?
LikeLike
Muddy: But getting analytical, what was the payoff that justified the lie?
Faithfulness?
expose the deeds of darkness Eph 5:11
LikeLike
“Faithfulness” is merely a descriptive conclusion that can as easily (more so?) be a way to describe truth-telling. By “expose the deeds of darkness” you might mean it is intrinsically good for everyone to know what PP is doing, but if any situation would suggest “tell the truth and trust in providence” it would be the payoff of merely (you did not include any consequences) exposing bad deeds.
LikeLike
if any situation would suggest “tell the truth and trust in providence”
not sure all you’re saying Muddy ; apparently ‘the situation’ ‘ suggested’ to him that he must do what he did; the Lord will confirm or not whether it was trusting and faithful.
LikeLike
and , Mud, we all can have our own opinion – mine: the Lord wanted many woken up from slumber about this
LikeLike
Ali, if one believes that God utilizes even our sin for His glory, the outcome(end) doesn’t become the ethical barometer for the evaluation of D’s means. The crux of the discussion, to me, is whether he should’ve traded on his Christianity to justify his means. It would’ve been better, for the sake of the gospel, to have just left it out. It would seem now, he’s muddied the gospel with worldly means( our warfare is not with flesh and blood) so that, the gospel is just another power play, in fact a mere tool in service of a greater end-culture victory, among many other ideologies fighting for position.
LikeLike
Kevin,
I’m not sure anything can be done to make these positions unnecessary short of worldwide conversion to Christ, and some of them are more problematic than others. I’m fine with saying there are some jobs that one cannot hold if one is a Christian; it’s just that traditionally journalism and the police force aren’t some of the. For many of the positions you list, I’m not sure how a Christian could hold them, but I could be wrong.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Robert, I’m supposed to love my neighbor as myself. But I’m supposed to love my wife exclusively. There’s a tension (not contradiction). It’s a complicated world out there.
Sure. Which is why I find it odd that many commenters are coming out of the gate with “He shouldn’t link his work to his Christianity.” If all we’re doing is asking that question about whether he should, then it’s less of an issue for me. But the assumption that he is automatically giving a bad witness to the gospel or to Christ by appealing to his Christian faith is unnerving to me. If he lies and says, “I’m doing this as a journalist” but people know he claims to be a Christian, is he doing a better service to the gospel than if he says his faith makes his lie justifiable? I don’t think so. If non-Christians believe Christians may never lie, they will see that as two faced. So the only way we avoid the problem is to say “No Christian can be a journalist or ever engage in a profession that requires deceit” (such as undercover investigation). Maybe that IS the answer, but if people are going to be up in arms about him appealing to his Christian faith, it seems to me they need to take the next step and say he shouldn’t be a journalist to begin with.
LikeLike
Sean :the outcome(end)
outcome was inserted in the discussion-‘what did/does it accomplish’ was a comment, so I commented on that.
Sean: the crux of the discussion, to me, is whether he should’ve traded on his Christianity to justify his means.
and others even here have stated another opinion about journalism ethics
Sean: our warfare is not with flesh and blood
and so implication? how many of us are praying much about this really; if we ‘trusted’, we would.
Sean: the gospel is just another power play,
That’s what the gospel is – the power play
Sean:in fact a mere tool in service of a greater end-culture victory
A greater end-culture victory? the stopping of killing human God image bearers would be a culture victory? sheesh
LikeLike
Here’s the description of Center for Medical Progress (doesn’t the name traffic in deceit – does a conservative believe in progress?)
Is this really bland enough or does it send enough cues for the Planned Parenthood folks to be trustful? Did “unequal legal status of any class of human beings” and “the goods of human nature” fool PP?
LikeLike
Btw Sean, who are those who seem often consistently praying outside PP clinics – Catholics; had joined them until their consistent prayers to Mary
LikeLike
Robert, isn’t it possible to be a journalist and not lie? If a Christian kills, that’s a problem. If a Christian lies, that’s a problem.
There may be extenuating circumstances. The Christian killing is a soldier. The Christian lying is a journalist. But service in the military inherently involves killing. Journalism doesn’t inherently involve lying — that’s why journalists have codes of ethics.
So for Christians to defend Daleiden so unqualifiedly is troubling to mmmmmmeeeeeEEEEEE.
LikeLike
Ali, English is a beautiful language — try it some time. Grammar is cool. And punctuation is next to cleanliness.
LikeLike
I saw the whole issue as something that made me upset for a few seconds, but not surprised, then life went on.
I did not see the energy in it to attack theological systems as a whole.
Back to work.
LikeLike
Darryl,
There may be extenuating circumstances. The Christian killing is a soldier. The Christian lying is a journalist. But service in the military inherently involves killing. Journalism doesn’t inherently involve lying — that’s why journalists have codes of ethics. Journalism doesn’t inherently involve lying — that’s why journalists have codes of ethics.
Service in the military doesn’t inherently involve killing. Many, many people serve in the military without ever killing anyone. Their broader objective of national defense may at times involve killing. So one can actually be a soldier and never kill anyone, but under the right circumstances, (situation), killing might be necessary.
Journalism doesn’t inherently involve lying. Many, many people serve in journalism without ever lying to get to the truth. But the broader objective of getting to the truth that serves the public interest may at times involve lying in an undercover sting or something like that. One can be a journalist and never lie to get to the truth, but under the right circumstance, lying might actually be required.
And the Journalist’s code of ethics allows deception in the case of truth that is vital to the public interest. So for CMP to have been unethical, one would have to prove that PP’s actions aren’t vital to the public interest.
The answer may very well be that no Christian journalist can ever lie even to get a story for the public interest. If that is the answer, make that argument.
So for Christians to defend Daleiden so unqualifiedly is troubling to mmmmmmeeeeeEEEEEE.
Defending him without thinking simply because abortion is bad and we should stop at nothing to end it no matter the cost would be bad. But if what Daleiden has done is ethically permissible, then what kind of qualification would you want?
You have even pro-abortion journalists such as Camille Paglia talking about how good it is that this information has come to light. When that happens, one has to wonder how much of a qualified defense CMP would done.
Basically, we need to settle whether it is ever appropriate for Christians to lie. If it is, then what Daeldein did needs no defense. We might question the wisdom or at least try to learn how to do something like this more wisely, but we can’t say it’s wrong. However, if it is never appropriate for Christians to lie, then what he did has no defense.
LikeLike
cw l’unificateur :Ali, English is a beautiful language — try it some time.
morning cw.not sure what you mean; and wouldn’t there be just a bit more credibility to the ‘2k’ purity absolutes of disdaining ‘lies’, if reviling wasn’t so acceptable here?
LikeLike
CW, when a dot’s content is at best a nuisance and then he quibbles about being coherent.
TIME…. TO… IGNORE….
LikeLike
Ali G, I think you mean “revelling” with this crowd.
LikeLike
Ali, as bad as I am with sentence structure in a combox, even I can’t quite follow you. However, yes, even the killing of babies in the womb pales in importance to the sanctity of the gospel endeavor. The gospel isn’t a power play in the culture wars. See, 2k, spirituality of the church, nature of the KOG, and our pilgrim journey as a covenant community.
LikeLike
aw cw, you guys are so predictable
sean – tell me what you don’t follow and I’ll clarify?
gotta go for now though, have a great day.
LikeLike
Ali, I got the gist, I’m good that way.
LikeLike
Kent –
[kc:] re: Original sin – I don’t disagree, but still we can vote for George Bush the 1st despite his participation in the Iran Contra Affair, etc., or decide Rand Paul or Pat Buchanan or another would probably be at least a step away from libidinous government.
[Kent:] Kevin, it was a mean and bad bad world centuries before the first politician you idolized let you down…
Your statement does not follow from mine. Americans knew the neocons including Bush I were bellicose and underhanded, and yet we have continued to tolerate and even elect them. This needn’t be a permanent state of affairs.
Rand Paul makes statements suggesting he has compromised with Sheldon A. and will toe the neocon party line, but on the whole I think would be a better choice than the others running. Buchanan I find in a number of ways congenial – but I’ve given no grounds to be accused of unrealistic estimation.
My position is both principled and pragmatic, as is appropriate for politics (and inappropriate for theology). The principles are Biblical – at heart, love thy neighbor.
Any reaction to TVD’s quotes above from CSL?
LikeLike
Robert – Kevin, I’m not sure anything can be done to make these positions unnecessary short of worldwide conversion to Christ, and some of them are more problematic than others.
I’m fine with saying there are some jobs that one cannot hold if one is a Christian; it’s just that traditionally journalism and the police force aren’t some of the. For many of the positions you list, I’m not sure how a Christian could hold them, but I could be wrong.
I know quite sincere and serious Christians who engage or have engaged in some of these morally complex law-and-order activities – most acknowledge the issues, some think the good outweighs the bad, some get out.
We’ll never be free of moral complexity, but we can minimize the alleged necessity of spying on Angela Merkel, overthrowing the government of the Ukraine, assassinating foreign leaders, etc. – to pick a few:
1) Stop demonizing Iran and Russia and the Vatican (the NY Times “Axis of Evil”) and encourage an Iran-Russia coalition to bring relative stability to the middle east (Obama is doing some good work on this with Iran, and Russia assisted with Syria a few years ago).
2) In the process, attempt to establish an Assyrian state (i.e., a framework for the protection for Christians) which may well end up a Russian client state- we haven’t had a better opportunity to do so since the end of colonialism;
3) Abandon Israel (let the UN step in if it so chooses) and perhaps recognize a Palestinian state (as has the Vatican);
4) Stop promoting worldwide immorality via our embassies (via “anti-bullying programs”, i.e., lgbt “cultural activities”) and foreign aid requirements (e.g., birth control).
Others will disagree with these positions, of course, but if followed, I believe they would require significantly less covert action on the part of our government.
I do believe a conversion of hearts is the best or only basis for bringing all of this about (with voting the more proximate cause), and that this conversion has benefits of immeasurably more important eternal significance than minimizing professional immorality. Nevertheless, the latter is a worthwhile good to pursue.
The answer may very well be that no Christian journalist can ever lie even to get a story for the public interest. If that is the answer, make that argument.
Let your yea be yea, nay nay? I’m not sure I have an argument beyond that expressed by Muddy plus my earlier comments. It seems to me fundamentally a principle of moral action.
LikeLike
Hi Tom,
You said:
“Basically, we need to settle whether it is ever appropriate for Christians to lie. If it is, then what Daeldein did needs no defense. We might question the wisdom or at least try to learn how to do something like this more wisely, but we can’t say it’s wrong. However, if it is never appropriate for Christians to lie, then what he did has no defense.”
Usually we lie in order to hide our own wrongdoings, wrong doings that are truths about our behaviors or thoughts and so their is a lack of humility in ourselves when we lie to save face or when we exaggerate to make ourselves look better than we are. So I don’t know that Daeldein did lie. He may have deceived, but then I don’t think all deceptions are lies. If I dressed as Santa Claus and a child asked me if I were actually the real Santa, I could respond by asking them if they thought I was, or something like that without having to tell the truth. I know that if a Nazi asked me if there were Jews hidden in my house, I wouldn’t tell them just because they wanted to know. I don’t owe them a truth if they don’t have a lawful right. They would be sinning against the common good as well as against every individual person they were seeking to uncover and so my silence would be protecting the Nazi perpetrator as well as the Jews. I might respond with something like, “Let your god tell you whether or not this is so”. I mean they are going to search whether or not I give them my permission, since they don’t care about rights in the first place. It would be morally worse that I ratted on a friend. All lying is a sin and I have committed that sin many times to save my own butt because I knew exposure of the truth would reveal my lack of moral rectitude and therefore my dignity( ironic yes?), and I have felt bad afterwards and confessed it. But could you imagine that the one time you felt overwhelming compunction about lying was when asked if you were protecting human persons from evil? May none of us face such a test! It seems to me that if we have a right to kill in order to protect ourselves or another when attacked, that trying to find a way to expose the deeds of darkness without doing harm is less morally egregious than killing an attacker. That’s just my thoughts on it, and I don’t know if I’m right, but man it seems like a diabolical ploy to focus on the “how” than the evil what uncovered being committed by people at Planned Parenthood.
LikeLike
Sorry for my mistake. It was Robert I was responding to(and agreeing with)
LikeLike
Tom,
Thanks for the honest response, it actually cuts to the heart of how I see Reformed orthodoxy in general, and 2k theology specifically places believers in a dynamic tension of sorts. I’ll get to that shortly, but let me address some axillary issues first.
But if lying to fucking abortionists to try to stop the horror displeases God, then bring on your theologizing and your Gospel According to St. Bastard.
I don’t pretend to speak for God here, but I think what Daleiden did was ethically permissible. What PP is doing is morally reprehensible, and the lengths that he went to to expose them was warranted. Obviously not everyone here agrees, but Christian beliefs aside, bringing this to light was humane, and I would even say in keeping with solid NL reasoning.
But it does make one wonder, why did God bother even creating Creation? You’re going to heaven and the rest of us are cosmically f***ed. What’s the point of this kabuki?
That’s the real question isn’t it? When I survey history, aside from intervening to establish Israel, God has not done much to interfere with human politics. Even that, as the NT teaches was for spiritual reasons, to establish patterns of how he establishes his spiritual Kingdom. There is an eschatological thrust to history, it is moving somewhere, and it exists primarily as a vehicle for God to reveal himself to his people primarily and to the world secondarily; the former for salvation, the latter for judgment. He is offering a solution to the problem of evil, and I believe it is very real, however it will not be solved in the present age. He gave his Son as his final word on the matter, and Christ bore up under the weight of that evil, and is establishing his Kingdom on the basis of his victory over it. Even as he was ascending, the disciples were asking when he would set things right, and his answer was that they were to be his witnesses of that victory which was inaugurated, yet awaits consummation at the end of the age.
Since its inception, the church has constantly struggled with trying to be a religion for this world, trying to answer the problems that this world presents. However, every time it wanders into this realm, it wanders away from that original mission Christ charged her with. Our solutions are beheld by faith, not sight, for hereafter, not here. Of course there are auxiliary benefits of people in the process of being sanctified in society, but I see no indications in the NT that Christ or the apostles were offering a means for social or political transformation. Quite the opposite, Christians were charged with existing faithfully in the existing political structures, which in their context was the often oppressive and pagan Roman empire.
Things like holocausts and abortion are clearly evil, and Scripture’s teaching demands such an appraisal. However, the church is not imbued with the authority (i.e. the political authority) to stop this evil. The church can call it evil, Christians can expose such things as contrary to God’s law, but beyond calling men to repentance for such things, there is no mechanism given to the church to stop human evil. I do believe God restrains human evil in his providential rule so that things are not as bad as they possibly could be, and we do have a semblance of order even in the present age. However, I see no indication that God is halting every wicked inclination of either individuals or societies. Of course he will judge these perfectly, but the day of judgment has not arrived, and we exist in a period of Divine forbearance where God is giving men the opportunity to repent before the coming judgment.
How this relates to the current social and political situation is that we must be prayerful that God can reverse some of the effects of evil through his providential rule. Moreover, as dual citizens, it behooves us to seek the welfare of our earthly home. I do think this means engaging the political process, being good citizens, trying to do our part to ensure chaos is not unleashed. This is not part of the spiritual mission of the Church, or a requisite part of the Christian’s eternal destiny, but it does go a long way toward helping us maintain a good witness to Christ’s saving work, and the church’s mission on earth. However, when we exert ourselves and evil still persists, the temptation is to somehow baptize the cause in the name of the church or God, but historically disaster has almost always come from the church intervening in worldly affairs, since this isn’t her calling. When evil persists, God just might be allowing it for his own mysterious purposes, and as hard as it is for us here on the ground to comprehend, our job is not to understand but to trust and seek to be faithful witnesses in the face of such evil.
Like I said earlier, abortion is a human problem far more than it is a Christian problem, and as much as those of us who see it for what it is are able, we ought to oppose it, and seek its end. But, this will by no means eradicate the problem of evil on the human plane, no more than the end of slavery solved it a century and a half ago.
BTW, you might want to compare your view of the problem of evil with your beloved St. Thomas, I think he has a slightly different view than you on the matter.
LikeLike
Jed,
Can you elaborate or clarify how it is that “abortion is a human problem far more than it is a Christian problem”? Thanks.
LikeLike
Susan:
So I don’t know that Daeldein did lie. He may have deceived, but then I don’t think all deceptions are lies…
I know that if a Nazi asked me if there were Jews hidden in my house, I wouldn’t tell them just because they wanted to know. >>>>>
I think that the distinction between lying and deception is a good one and the example of hiding Jews from the Nazis is appropriate.
Corrie Ten Boom was a Dutch woman who, along with her father and sister, hid Jews in their home. They had to engage in a lot of deception in order to pull this off. None of the Jews that they hid were ever discovered, if I remember right, and all of them made it out of the country safely.
They made the commitment to never outright lie if asked a direct question. However, they were what you could call deceptive in their actions. They role played. They manipulated the ration card system. They pretended that all was normal in their household, even when authorities came to their door. They had to do a lot of things that maybe weren’t exactly following the letter of the law – either human or divine – in order to save lives.
All of them, Corrie, her father, and her sister were eventually found out and taken to the concentration camps. Her father and sister died there, but Corrie was miraculously set free.
I don’t see that what David Daleiden did was any different from what the Ten Booms did during WW II. He may pay a price for it, but doing the right thing often comes with a high price tag.
What I find odd and even disturbing is the silence on the part of the blog owner about the evil of Planned Parenthood. I have no good way to interpret that until and unless he clarifies his own position on the subject of the killing of tiny, unborn boys and girls and then the sale of their body parts to the highest bidder.
That is what I find indefensible – the blog owner’s silence on the real monstrous moral issue being discussed here – the actions of Planned Parenthood.
LikeLike
Petros,
Christianity is, until the return of Christ, endowed with primarily a spiritual mission – the salvation and nurture of souls on their earthly pilgrimage. It is governed by the strictures of Scripture, and will be evaluated on the basis of its fidelity to the revealed Word of God. As such it is apolitical in its aims. The only thing the church can do regarding abortion is to keep her members from participating in or encouraging it, noting that abortion is a very grave sin for which men & women should repent, and by supporting diaconal type activities that could prevent abortions. The church can also (from a Reformed perspective) serve to advise governments on abortion policy in extraordinary circumstances, but even then the church’s power is only advisory.
The human situation is presently more encompassing than the Christian religion, as it accomodates all sorts of cultures, beliefs, and political arrangements. Broadly speaking the standard by which God will judge the world is the Natural Law, and we see elements of the NL in every human legal institution, even if imperfectly. Abortion is a clear violation of the NL, and a great evil in our time that affects every civilization that allows it. I see it as the responsibility of citizens to address this issue primarily, without baptizing it into a religious cause, to show just how damaging abortion is to society on moral, social, economic, and ethical levels and to seek more equitable legal arrangements. Seeking the end of abortion needn’t be a religious or spiritual quest, and I happen to think the less it is, the more chance it has at being effective. Part of the blowback against the pro-life movement is against its religious motivations, and many see pro-lifers as trying to impose religious standards as a basis for governance. The more secular the pro-life reasoning, the more it can appeal to common human concerns, the more likely it is to gain legal traction, because I firmly believe it is bad for society on a great many levels, and that is without bringing my spiritual convictions into the equation.
I don’t know if you’ll agree, but do you at least see where I am coming from here?
LikeLike
Jed: “Part of the blowback against the pro-life movement is against its religious motivations, and many see pro-lifers as trying to impose religious standards as a basis for governance. The more secular the pro-life reasoning, the more it can appeal to common human concerns, the more likely it is to gain legal traction, because I firmly believe it is bad for society on a great many levels, and that is without bringing my spiritual convictions into the equation.”
Why is that so hard to understand?
LikeLike
Muddy,
Again, what kind of book are you writing?
Historical Christian RomCom fiction. It’s a cool period piece detailing a (sanctified) love triangle between Calvin, Beza, and a buxom Huguenot refugee who fell for Calvin initially, but when Geneva expelled him, Beza swooped in. Hilarity, hi-jinx, and heartache ensue upon the stern reformer’s return to Geneva. I think it’ll be quite the yarn.
LikeLike
She whose feet are webbed, no difference? I understand the enlisting of anything Third Reich related is designed to invoke the utmost sympathies among 21c westerners as well as as much fear and loathing as possible. But what lives has Daleiden preserved? What risk did he take to his own life and limb? I ask as one as disturbed by the videos as the next gal. Abortion is a great blight on our society, etc., etc. But I still fail to see how Daleiden even comes close to a Frank or Ten Boom.
LikeLike
Come and listen to a story from a man named Jed….
LikeLike
Jed, so Secularists for Life? Not sure how much traction they get, but something tells me Christian worldviewers have a hard time giving them club cards.
http://www.secularprolife.org/
LikeLike
Hi Jed,
I”m reading the exchange between you and Tom, and I don’t understand what moral responsiblites 2K people think Christians have.
When you say: “Things like holocausts and abortion are clearly evil, and Scripture’s teaching demands such an appraisal. However, the church is not imbued with the authority (i.e. the political authority) to stop this evil. The church can call it evil, Christians can expose such things as contrary to God’s law, but beyond calling men to repentance for such things, there is no mechanism given to the church to stop human evil. I do believe God restrains human evil in his providential rule so that things are not as bad as they possibly could be, and we do have a semblance of order even in the present age. However, I see no indication that God is halting every wicked inclination of either individuals or societies. Of course he will judge these perfectly, but the day of judgment has not arrived, and we exist in a period of Divine forbearance where God is giving men the opportunity to repent before the coming judgment.”
I wonder how you think God accomplishes moral order. He gave man minds and hearts to recognize right from wrong, a free will to choose this day whom we will serve, and He wants us to work towards peace with all men for all men who are suppose to have inaliable rights, and that means establishing governments that reflect His moral order. Why can’t a Christian preach the gospel that is God’s while also making the moral law, that is also God’s, incumbant on mankind, for the sake of the common and temporal good?
If you believe in an invisible church then why can’t those invisible members also serve God in this life by trying to make good societies? It seems to me that seeing just laws only glorifies the beautiful justness of our Lord. Abortion may be legal but it sure isn’t just. We have a government that inacts unjust law and that is a moral outrage and we are stupid if we have a way to alter them and don’t even try.
LikeLike
Jed,
Thanks. In the broader scheme, I understand the 2K perspective on the church’s distinct role vs the magistrate’s role. And, if, indeed, using secular arguments proves to be more efficacious in the public square than biblical arguments, that’s all well and good, too. But, how does abortion violate NL? How does NL weigh in on the “human-ness” of a fetus versus viewing a fetus as an overgrown toenail to be removed?
LikeLike
Susan,
All 2k teaches is there is a distinction between the two kingdoms, it doesn’t say that the Christian has no duties to the earthly kingdom. Quite the contrary, we are supposed to try to do good in and by the earthly kingdom. However, all kinds of problems ensue from blurring the distinction between the earthly and heavenly kingdoms. I constantly see opponents of 2k acting as if 2k is trying to swing the pendulum towards extreme inaction on civil matters, this simply isn’t the case, 2k is trying to balance the Christian’s duties to the church and to the world – they aren’t the same.
Of course Christians can oppose abortion, but as earthly citizens, who care for the affairs of this world and see the created sphere as still retaining some good even after the fall. Upholding and maintaining that good is worth contending for, but this is something we share with everyone. Christian’s aren’t the only ones who want a good, decent, and orderly world, and the cause needn’t be baptized to be worth pursuing.
LikeLike
Petros,
But, how does abortion violate NL? How does NL weigh in on the “human-ness” of a fetus versus viewing a fetus as an overgrown toenail to be removed?
Whether one employs NL reasoning, or just common sense, the preservation of human life is one of the highest ethical values our species holds, and only trouble ensues from not upholding this value. Whatever level of personhood we want to grant to the unborn, to terminate a pregnancy is to take a human life. Everyone knows this, the question is do we have the right to terminate a human before it is born as a function of a woman’s choice over her body? Of course there’s all kinds of evasions around this question, but it is the fundamental issue at hand.
God made man with a conscience, we don’t have to consult Scripture to figure this one out. In our legal context, we can’t. We have to us sound human reasoning if we want to see abortion ended.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Thanks for the link. If there is any hope for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, these are the kind of folks who are going to be needed in the process. “Because God says so” is a non starter in today’s legal context.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: I see it as the responsibility of citizens to address this issue primarily, without baptizing it into a religious cause, to show just how damaging abortion is to society on moral, social, economic, and ethical levels and to seek more equitable legal arrangements. Seeking the end of abortion needn’t be a religious or spiritual quest, and I happen to think the less it is, the more chance it has at being effective.
Jed: Does this mean you think a Christian should be hide their witness because it might set others against us and also not be ‘effective’? I guess we each need to decide what we understand will burn up and what will remain. Some think whatever you do in word or deed, it is to be done all in the name of the Lord Jesus Col 3: 17… openly
LikeLike
Ali: Matthew 10:16
LikeLike
Ali,
There’s a time and place for everything, and if you think wearing religion on your sleeve is necessary, by all means go ahead. You’ll just be largely ignored. Christ called us to be wise as serpents, not just innocent as doves. I am not saying “hide” your witness, but I am saying don’t be naive about it either.
LikeLike
AdD and Matthew 10:32-33
LikeLike
Jed, this last response is a big improvement. It was tighter and more concise and I didn’t almost slip into a coma. Way to suck less.
LikeLike
So sweet of you to say sean. Anytime you have a problem with my comments, just remember I truly, deeply care.
Stay prickly amigo.
LikeLike
It is no doubt proper for the disciples of Christ, surrounded as they are by dangers on every hand, to maintain the strictest caution; but as they are in extreme danger of being kept back by slothfulness, he bids them move forward honestly wherever their calling leads them. This is pointed out by a twofold comparison, wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Serpents, being aware that they are hated, carefully avoid and shrink from every thing that is hostile to them. In this manner he enjoins believers to take care of their life, so as not to rush heedlessly into danger, or lay themselves open to any kind of injury. Doves, on the other hand, though naturally timid, and liable to innumerable attacks, fly in their simplicity, imagine themselves safe till they are struck, and in most cases place themselves within the reach of the fowler’s snares. To such simplicity Christ exhorts his disciples, that no excess of terror may hinder them from pursuing their course. There are some who carry their ingenious reasonings still farther as to the nature of the serpent and of the dove, but this is the utmost extent of the resemblance. We see that Christ condemns that carnal wisdom, or rather that trickery, in which the greater part of men are too fond of indulging, while they look around them on every hand to discover how far it will be safe for them to proceed; and thus, from an unwillingness to encounter danger, they renounce the call of Christ.
Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible
LikeLike
Sean-
Do you have an objection to Jed’s Church-State comments? I read back through your own comments on this thread just now.
LikeLike
Kevin, sean thinks I am a bit of a whuss, that’s all. I’m pretty comfortable with my wall sized Richard Marx and Elton John posters.
LikeLike
Jed-
On my smartphone, so this isn’t thorough, but I believe I am in agreement with your Church-State thoughts. Seems intuitively correct.
If the Church has or can have an advisory role regarding legislation and judicial decisions, it is certainly accurate insofar as it sticks to clear Biblical statements and ‘good and necessary inferences’ from them? If so, wouldn’t it be required to make these statements if governments are acting otherwise (as a part of its duuty to proclaim the Gospel)?
And wouldn’t governments have an obligation to listen, and a duty to God to make law accordingly?
What is the basis for the obligations of government?
LikeLike
Jed,
Thanks for clarifying for me. I too am in agreement about there being a heavenly kingdom and an earthly kingdom, because not everyone will be saved in the end.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.(Matt 7:21)
Wouldn’t the “now and not yet tension” of our living include believing in life before our deaths, and thinking about how our temporal deeds can influence people to adopt laws in accordance with natural law, as well as bearing witness of the fact that our God is Good? You know, magnify our ministry to move our countryman to jealousy so that some will be saved.(Romans 11:14)
Do the Reformed think that making statutory laws that accord natural law is too much of the church trying to make God’s Kingdom being done on earth as it is in heaven? Kevin had a good followup question about governments having an obligation to listen to the church and make positive laws in accordance with God’s eternal laws and so I will just stay out of the way and read your back and forth. Thanks!
LikeLike
Jed, is there a Paschall bro named Blaise? If not, why not?
LikeLike
Kevin, mind your own business, unless you’d like me to start having a problem with you too. Just stick to violating fair housing in building your RC commune and I’ll stick to peddling water vouchers to the Paschall chillun.
LikeLike
Kevin in Newark: “If the Church has or can have an advisory role regarding legislation and judicial decisions… .”
Well, actually in America ca. 1787 and forward, Churchmen WERE the politicians, and one would be hard pressed to find a better example than Samuel L. Southard, as his CV cited below so well illustrates his Theological and Political career. Typical of the Princeton trained government officers of his day.
With his knowledge of Civil Government defined by a required study of the Westminster Confession of Faith (ex. Chap. 22, Lawful Oaths and Vows, and Chap. 23, Of the Civil Magistrate), the Larger Catechism questions on the Commandments, (5 through 10 notably) and Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Southard and his generation governed with a Constitution designed to operate under the concepts of Biblical Christianity.
Note the Constitution’s closing credit “Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”. Christ is cited in the Constitution… .
I have posted some nuggets of his philosophy as given to Princeton Politicians in training in his 1837 speech to the Whig and Cliosophic society there… .
AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE AMERICAN WHIG AND CLIOSOPHIC
SOCIETIES [ at Princeton ]
SEPTEMBER 26, 1837.
BY SAMUEL L. SOUTHARD, LL.D.
http://commons.ptsem.edu/id/addressdelivered01sout
One quote to pique interest:
“I desire to address, not my elder but my you younger brothers; and to make to them a few suggestions upon a subject of abiding interest in their future career—the importance of the study of the Bible, in forming the character of literary and scientific men, of scholars of every guide and every occupation—suggestions, which I hope, will not be inappropriate to the first literary exercise, in this edifice, which has been reared from its ashes, for the worship of the Author of that Book.” Pg. 7
About the Author…
Samuel Lewis Southard, A.M., LL.D.* Presbyterian
b.1787-d.1842
Education:
B.A. Princeton, 1804
A.M. Princeton, 1807
LL.D. University of Pennsylvania, 1832,
M.A P.S. ( Member, American Philosophical Society)
Boards Served:
Trustee, Princeton College, 1822-1842
Trustee, Princeton Seminary,1822-1842
Vice President, Board of Trustees, Princeton Seminary,1832-1840
President, Board of Trustees, Princeton Seminary,1840-1842
New Jersey Government Offices:
Member, New Jersey, Assembly, 1815
Judge, New Jersey Supreme Court, 1815-1820
Attorney General of New Jersey, 1829-33
Governor, New Jersey, 1832-33
U.S. Government Offices:
U.S. Secretary of the Navy, 1823-29
Acting U.S. Secretary of Treasury and War, 1825
U.S. Senator, from New Jersey, 1821-1823 & 1833-1842
President, U.S. Senate, 1841-42
Any thoughts?
LikeLike
Sean –
Kevin, mind your own business, unless you’d like me to start having a problem with you too. Just stick to violating fair housing in building your RC commune and I’ll stick to peddling water vouchers to the Paschall chillun.
Hmm. Just trying to get additional O.L. perspective on Jed’s comments.
No idea what you’re getting at in the last clause. We all decide how to spend our time, I suppose. O.L. for me, for now.
LikeLike
Robert, if you can’t see the difference between soldiers and killing as part of what they are called legally to do and journalists and lying as not what they are called legally to do, then I can’t say much more.
LikeLike
Any thoughts?
Yes, Russell. Plenty. How early did 2K theology begin? If as early as St. Augustine, then why did Southard( and any other mainline Protestants) invoke the secular magisterial power?
LikeLike
Susan, “So I don’t know that Daeldein did lie.”
Are you reading? He told Christianity Today that he told PP he supported what they were doing and wanted to buy what they were selling. But he’s pro-life and Roman Catholic.
Black is white, white is black. Didn’t Ignatius say something about that?
LikeLike
Kevin, I’m just changing it up a bit. Jed and I basically agree, which makes for boredom, so, I find other things to bust him up about. Plus, he’s soft, so, he deserves it. As for the last part, California is in a nasty drought and in Texas our water tables are full, so, I’m selling Californians, like Jed, water vouchers they can redeem in Sacramento. It’s a good deal.
LikeLike
Mermaid, with all your concern for the truth or not, please recall that I wrote this just the other day:
None of this means that Daleiden doesn’t deserve some credit for exposing a truly despicable aspect of American society.
You’re just an anti-Calvinist bigot.
LikeLike
Susan, again I ask, do you read? Do you comprehend?
How about 2kers defending telling the truth? Did that ever occur to you?
LikeLike
Susan:
Any thoughts?
“Yes, Russell. Plenty. How early did 2K theology begin? If as early as St. Augustine, then why did Southard( and any other mainline Protestants) invoke the secular magisterial power?”
Actually, all the Founders WERE the secular magisterial power, as established by every State Constitution, which required office holders to affirm to the basic Bible doctrines.
This alone is a shocking and foreign concept to modern Americans, who should ask why they weren’t taught the original doctrines in HS/College/Las School/Grad school… .
I chose Southard’s Discourse as it reflects the status quo on this subject, and it is a worthwhile read.
A perusal of the State Constitutions can be made here, at Yale, if one wants actual proof… .
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/18th.asp
Also, John Maclean’s History of the College of New Jersey, Vol. 1 + 2 (1877) covers the time period up to 1854. Just a study of Dr. Witherspoon may prove a challenge to a dichotomized 2k view, where the “worldly secularists” are supposedly in charge, and Christians…only tolerated, at best.
Nope, not in Dr. W’s time, or for the first 300 years beginning with the Mayflower landing is that a valid historical view of American civil Polity, and I spent many hours perusing hundreds of books and pamphlets typically on file at the old Universities seeing the proof that now is freely available via internet.
Maclean’s History is here:
http://commons.ptsem.edu/id/historyofcollege01macl
http://commons.ptsem.edu/id/historyofcollege02macl
After reading the above , any thoughts ?
LikeLike
“Susan, again I ask, do you read? Do you comprehend?
How about 2kers defending telling the truth? Did that ever occur to you?”
Why does that keep getting asked? Of course I read. But no, I’m sorry, I didn’t read that Daeldein lied. I’m pleased that you defend telling the truth. You also defend observance of the Sabbath, and that is, of course, good. I believe that you are on my side( and the Pope’s) and are appalled over the murder of , dismemberment of and selling of the parts of human children too. I think the ethics that you bring up are worthy of discussion, but only because I think all morality and ethics are worthy of discussion. Is there a reason why you focus on lying, while I focus on abortion? Doesn’t common sense and human decency demand that our cooperative focus and effort be on stopping murder and, or( at least) solidarity with that cause?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 6, 2015 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, with all your concern for the truth or not, please recall that I wrote this just the other day:
None of this means that Daleiden doesn’t deserve some credit for exposing a truly despicable aspect of American society.
You’re just an anti-Calvinist bigot.>>>>
What is that “truly despicable aspect of American society? Please describe it.
I have said that your position does not represent the best of Calvinist teaching. I praised Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop for their pioneer work in the pro life movement.
LikeLike
Susan, remember James O’Keefe and Acorn?
LikeLike
Mermaid, abortion.
LikeLike
DG-
Black is white, white is black. Didn’t Ignatius say something about that?
Think the Scintillating Grid Illusion:
If even our faculties of perception can be deceived, how much more so theological speculation.
Typically it is pride which has us commit to initially-plausible false positions. The cure is being teachable / docile.
While Ignatius didn’t know this illusion in particular, I wouldn’t sell short anything associated with the (Jesuit) University of Salamanca- from international law to economics, Suarez’s psychology / philosophy of mind included.
the Lingelbach illusion or the scintillating grid illusion, was discovered in 1994 by Elke Lingelbach, the wife of a German mathematics professor, and has not yet been fully explained.1 Curiously, the effect of the scintillation is lessened by tilting the head through 45°!
LikeLike
Russell-
Well, actually in America ca. 1787 and forward, Churchmen WERE the politicians, and one would be hard pressed to find a better example than Samuel L. Southard, as his CV cited below so well
This is an extremely distinguished individual. He looks prima facie to be a model statesman. Thanks for choosing a New Jerseyan, btw, he was born and raised about 30 min from Newark.
I have no problem with Presbyterian clergymen going into governance, particularly if (hypothetically) their educations should fit them particularly well for honorable service.
My main questions are with regard to 2k principles behind “the church” providing Biblically-based moral teachings to the government.
If the OPC missions were so successful as to convert, e.g., most of St.Kitts-Nevis (soveriegn state in the Caribbean), would 2k principles interfere with a popular vote endorsing a constitutional amendment stating that no laws can be in conflict with OPC teachings on morality? (perhaps with Woolley and anyone who thinks ssm is a step or two forward set aside).
How about a formal structure such as an advisory body made up of Presbyterian ministers which provides either justices or the legislature with clarification on basic principles which are acknowledged to be determined in the Bible?
I’d prefer to set aside the argument “no, this will probably lead to abuse” if possible.
LikeLike
I realize that some recoil at 2k because they really are committed theonomists. But I wonder if the problem others have getting their head around 2k is just that the category doesn’t apply to their church experience. Conservative P&R churches take discipline pretty seriously – certainly more so than your typical evangelical megachurch (in my experience), mainline church, or RC parish (from what I hear). If the consequence of a church extolling members to take up this cause or that is that you simply have one more thing to tune out in church, well maybe 2k doesn’t make much sense.
The other challenge I see is that a lot of folks seem to confuse 2k with the anabaptist approach that specifically prohibits political action. 2k just says that the church can’t compel such action and should restrict its activities to what the scripture prescribes. That doesn’t limit what individual church members can do though. This is different from say the Mennonite approach.
I get that this can frustrate activists who see churches as convenient recruiting grounds for their causes and zealots who just can’t understand why everyone doesn’t want to respond to this issue or that just like they do.
LikeLike
Thanks again for the verse (Matt 10:16), AdD… still reading on it this am
“How do we respond? be wise, be harmless, beware, be calm, be real, be gone.”
“What is the sum of our Lord’s instruction to us? This: we have no right to provoke animosity or destruction. There is too much work to be done and too many places to reach. Life is too precious. Every one of us matters to God’s Kingdom. We have to move to the receptive places and keep moving, knowing that God is with us all the time. In the power of the Spirit, He will help us to say the right things and have the effect that He wants us to have.” gty.org, sermon 2279-80
LikeLike
@KiN
I think it is really helpful to think about 2k in light of Paul’s discussion of the morality of eating meat sacrificed to idols. Of course it is wrong to sacrifice animals to an idol. No question. If you do, the church should discipline you accordingly (in short – call you to repentance, bar you from the table until you repent, remove you from church membership if you persist in your sin and treat you like an unbeliever). But what about buying the meat sacrificed to idols? Here Paul is really interesting. It isn’t sinful in and of itself to eat such meat, so the church cannot forbid you from doing so. But if your conscience accuses you, then it is sinful for you to eat that meat. So the sinfulness of subsidizing idolatry by purchasing meat sacrificed to idols is left up to the conscience of the individual believer. Of course there is an ancillary concern about what this might do to your fellow Christian’s conscience that you should be cognizant of. Here the church does have the authority to advise you on that.
Now you might ask, should the church call on you to work to ban animal sacrifice? I don’t think this would be appropriate. Part of church discipline is binding the conscience of believers by preaching the word of God. Going beyond God’s word is inappropriate. That doesn’t mean that you can only recite bible verses – expounding on the implication of certain principles in light of contemporary circumstances is certainly legit, but the minister should always keep other bounding principles in mind.
That being said, if you were in a community dominated by P&R guys (~*shudder*~) who dominated the government (double ~*shudder*~), it may not be surprising that their political priorities would be heavily influenced by their religious commitments and they would be free to pass laws banning animal sacrifice if they thought it good for society, but they shouldn’t be compelled to do so by the church. In principle, one could be a faithful P&R strict subscriptionist and politically be a socialist (perhaps a bit dim, but there isn’t any thing wrong with that), libertarian, anarchist, communist, republican, democrat, green, etc…. The fact that something is wrong doesn’t mean that it is wise to outlaw it. One’s priorities on what should be outlawed, how to balance trade-offs, etc… is not determined in scripture. Paul did not speak out against the evil of slavery, despotic governors, human sex-trafficking, or infanticide (though his teaching for the church certainly had implications for all these things). Indeed, his response was that the church has no business judging those outside the church. We should follow his example. Our political activities should be secular in orientation in my estimation. Not every thing that is sinful should be dealt with by the state, the existence of a problem no matter how severe does not entail a solution, and “just do something, something is better than nothing” is a terrible approach to activism.
LikeLike
I don’t know how to help you get your head out of the sand, D.G. Hart, but please research the issues more. You are dreadfully uninformed, or misinformed about what Planned Parenthood is doing – all that it is doing. Many Christians – I am sure even in your own beloved denomination – are sucked into this. If for no other reason than to be a more effective elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, giving leadership to church members who may be confused about the nature of PP.
Forget the 2 Kingdoms for a moment. Focus on your kingdom. Focus on your people. As far as I can tell here, if some of those who are posting – Jed is an exception – they are woefully ignorant or willfully ignorant of the threat that PP is to your little kingdom. If you don’t protect the flock, who will?
By focusing on the alleged lies of those who are exposing PP instead of the very real threat that PP is to your churches, you have tacitly given approval to their policies. As TVD likes to say, you may not be interested in government, but government is interested in you.
“Five seconds before the baby emerges, it has no moral worth. Five seconds after — all moral worth. That is untenable logically and pitiless psychologically. No one who has a passing familiarity with man’s inhumanity to man can be completely surprised that people who consider themselves humane can pull bags of body parts out of the freezer and pick through hands, eyes, lungs, and hearts on a light tray.”
–
———————————————————–
“For decades, I’ve believed that displaying grisly photographs of aborted babies was the wrong way to make the pro-life case. Disturbing images, I thought, would only repel viewers, not persuade them. I now think I was wrong.
There are many ways to make an argument. The Center for Medical Progress has demonstrated that a two-by-four has its uses. These videos, precisely because they are graphic, shatter the complacency and denial that are essential for a regime of mass violence to proceed. They undermine the reassuring fiction that birth is a bright moral line.
Five seconds before the baby emerges, it has no moral worth. Five seconds after — all moral worth. That is untenable logically and pitiless psychologically. No one who has a passing familiarity with man’s inhumanity to man can be completely surprised that people who consider themselves humane can pull bags of body parts out of the freezer and pick through hands, eyes, lungs, and hearts on a light tray. As the footage was released, defenders of Planned Parenthood rushed to explain that many medical procedures are grisly.
Writing in The New Republic, Dr. Jen Gunter protests that “These are not ‘baby parts.’ Whether a woman has a miscarriage or an abortion, the tissue specimen is called ‘products of conception.’” Oh. If they’re not baby parts, why are they valuable for research and sale? CNN’s Errol Lewis insisted that, “Most of us would freak out if we listened to professionals . . . discuss details of how a dying person’s request to have their body parts donated . . . actually gets carried out.” No, we wouldn’t. It isn’t the gore that that causes us to recoil; it’s the intentional killing. It’s knowing that if the abortionist’s hand were stayed for just a few more weeks, that child could live out his whole life.
Following the release of the first video, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, blindsided and unaware of what was still to come, apologized for Dr. Deborah Nucatola’s tone. Nucatola is the Director of Medical Services who spoke of “less crunchy” techniques and getting intact “calvariums” (heads) and other organs. Euphemisms are as critical to Planned Parenthood’s work as forceps, and as the other videos are demonstrating, pretty much everyone in that business adopts the same breezy tone about “products of conception.”
They are so callous that they don’t recognize the gut-punch impact of a clinic worker casually noting that one of the samples was “a twin” or “a boy.” Another key fiction these videos retire definitively is that second-trimester abortions are vanishingly rare. As a Planned Parenthood employee assures the filmmakers, one clinic alone does 40-50 “procedures” (euphemism again) per month on 16-to-22-week-old fetuses. At 23 weeks’ gestation, according to the March of Dimes Foundation, the chances of survival outside the womb are about 17 percent. By 26 weeks, the chances are 80 percent.
Just three weeks’ difference. When a pregnancy ends in miscarriage after 20 weeks, many states require a fetal death certificate. These rules do not apply when the death is intentional. Strange. The logic of Planned Parenthood is that human dignity and membership in the human family is completely contingent on the feelings of others. The most hardened abortion supporter (and we see that they are very hard) agrees that when the mother or both parents of a “product of conception” wants that “product,” the loss of a pregnancy is a tragedy.
Who would be so cruel as to deny that the parents of a 23-week-old baby should have a funeral and burial if they request it? The logic of Planned Parenthood is that human dignity and membership in the human family is completely contingent on the feelings of others, specifically mothers. Never mind that millions of couples wait impatiently for the chance to adopt infants.
(There are even waiting lists to adopt Down Syndrome children.) MORE PLANNED PARENTHOOD MITCH MCCONNELL: NO GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN OVER DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS LEGAL, BUT DON’T EXPECT THE COURTS TO ACT LIKE IT HOW THE FIGHT TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD COULD LEAD TO ANOTHER GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
Well, reply the abortion absolutists, such as the Reproductive and Sexual Health and Justice group, adoption is not a “universal alternative” to abortion. Some women who place their babies for adoption do so with a “heavy heart.” Yes, and some women who have abortions grieve for years. But subjective feelings are irrelevant to human decency. People who care for parents suffering from Alzheimer’s and other disabilities also have mixed feelings. They would not be human if they didn’t sometimes wish for the ordeal to come to a rapid end. Such feelings, however intense they may be, do not justify violence. Planned Parenthood’s defenders, including Hillary Clinton, stand exposed for their radicalism and evasion.
Abortion, as Senator Elizabeth Warren put it last week, is “the most difficult decision a woman will make in her entire life.” There’s the core dishonesty: If it’s a “product of conception” and not a baby, why is it so difficult? — Mona Charen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. © 2015 Creators.com
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422181/planned-parenthood-videos-defense-logic?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Jolt&utm_campaign=MorningJolt08072015A
LikeLike
@MWF I’m confused I guess. You wrote,
So you’re saying that Darryl was wrong to call abortion and Planned Parenthood’s actions a “truly despicable aspect of American society”?
LikeLike
A little late with this……. “….. a poor student-waiter, barely kept his family fed ….”
LikeLike
Darryl,
Robert, if you can’t see the difference between soldiers and killing as part of what they are called legally to do and journalists and lying as not what they are called legally to do, then I can’t say much more.
I think you’re moving the ball. Soldiers are legally called to kill in the right circumstances. But they are also legally required to refrain from killing if the enemy can be stopped another way without harming the objective. It’s why we typically frown on soldiers randomly killing civilians or prisoners of war/
Journalists are permitted legally to lie in certain circumstances, and in light of the Constitution’s reasoning for having a free press, it is arguable that they are called to legally do so when there is a legitimate public interest. Which is why we don’t often see journalists thrown in jail for undercover investigation. The only reason to have freedom of the press is to keep the governing authorities from hiding the truth and ruling via propaganda.
If the journalist’s mission is to uncover truth that is legitimately being hidden from the public and there is no other way to uncover it besides deception, then he’s failing as a journalist AND as a Christian for not doing his job. He is supposed to submit to his editor is he not? His editor isn’t calling him to do anything that violates the journalist’s code of ethics. And if he truly is permitted under some circumstances to lie by Scripture, then he’s obligated to follow his editor if in fact the occasion warrants a lie that Scripture would sanction.
The situation might be more murky with CMP, and I accept that, because CMP isn’t a journalistic outfit. But when the “real” journalists collude with the authorities to hide the truth, what else are people supposed to do? Does not the 1st amendment permit the formation of a new press that actually makes good use of its freedom?
So it really all comes down to this: Are Christians ever permitted to lie, and if so, under what circumstances? If they are but non-Christians get offended when they do lie, that’s mostly the fault of the non-Christian for not knowing Christian ethics, especially when most of them would have the very same ethic for the causes they favor. The pagans don’t get to define what being a good witness to Christ means. I’m all for being sensitive, but let’s not be foolish.
LikeLike
John, indeed. But if the rom-com novel involves Calvin and Beza I think it might have one hijink at most, hijinks is surely overstated.
LikeLike
John,
No longer a student-waiter, now substitute teacher working on teaching credentials. I do feed my family occasionally – last night was my favorite tri-tip recipe.
LikeLike
Webfoot: I don’t know how to help you get your head out of the sand, D.G. Hart… ou are dreadfully uninformed, or misinformed about what Planned Parenthood is doing – all that it is doing.
Webfoot isn’t even pretend to give the square root of sweet beggar all to what we are saying on here.
This is just beyond pathetic, we are into mental patient rambling from Webfoot now.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I agree with the author of the article about O’Keefe practicing a guerilla theater type of journalism. Please understand that I do not think that lying is okay and that I do not agree that the end justifies the means. But I also keep in mind that O’Keefe is a kid growing up in a nihilistic culture where the family as a bedrock is broken and where the campus authority promotes activism antithetical to Christian morality( Vagina Monologues, abortion, LGBT…), and so kids are desperate for their lives to have meaning beyond the naturalist and materialistic. Nothing new under the sun. This is why they cut themselves, they want to “feel”. His methods are more activist than professionally journalistic, that’s for sure( thanks to or no thanks to his professors, pastors, parents, or mentors), but as misguided and quixotically idealistic as he is, his aim is at least toward the good. He’s interested in justice and is not shooting people in theaters, schools and churches…..or promoting abortion. His parents may not be proud but they aren’t having to issue apologies to victims or visit their son on death row.
But I’m not here to be defending the means, because I don’t, I just want to promote that we all have responsibility to care about the importance of every human life, and that should cause us to have a righteous indignation, leading us to pray more, get involved more or address it through our writings if we own blogs and so forth. IOW’s I do not believe that you are pro-abortion, I just think your radical 2K belief has made you indifferent about this life. You restrict Christian values to be only within the church because it is the community of the church where people are expected to have Christian values and I agree with you that people who profess Christianity are expected to follow the ways of our Savior. However, if all good actions are manifestations of God then moral injunction is not restricted to professing Christians( the world is in danger of judgement). Professing Christians have the same injunction plus some for we are suppose to be intimate with the Master, and growing in holiness as we take up our crosses) Its tougher, not easier, although we do not do it alone, being aided by supernatural grace. That’s why we have to count the cost of being a disciple(Luke 14). It is possible to walk away and leave Him.
In other words, when a pagan does a good he, unbeknown to himself, nevertheless manifests a Godly/Christian good. The inverse is true for him( as well as for us). Our actions are our profession. You don’t believe that we participate in our own salvation or of that of others, so you have a sort of temporal nihilism, and that affects how your view Christian involvement in this world. This is the result of the theology that you have been given. Whether the proponents are right or wrong is the question that needs to be asked, rather than asserting that Rome is Pelagian or semi-Pelagian, snce the Church clearly condemns both.
I assume if you (or anyone else) wants to understand these things better and not simply regurgitate what you’ve been taught, you will be diligent to do your homework.
.http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2009/02/monocausalism-and-temporal-nihilism.html
Anyways, I have a busy rest of the day. Have a wonderful weekend.
LikeLike
Susan, nor am I debating abortion. I am wondering out loud why the pro-life side is so willing to overlook flagrant disregard for truth telling. Can’t you be anti-murder and anti-lying? What is that hard?
LikeLike
DGH, I understand your thinking here.
I don’t necessarily agree fully, but I understand it.
LikeLike
Robert, I don’t think you have journalism right. I know we don’t like them, generally. But it’s not as natural for them to lie as it is for sailors to swear:
So says Michael Gerson.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Sure, and you should be anti-murder and anti-lying. I don’t think that everyone is overlooking flagrant lying. All sin is bad, but not all sin is equal. It’s worse to commit murder than to have a murderous thought( that we desire; sometimes because of concupiscence we get thoughts that we don’t want and so we can resist it by our will). If all we did in this life was to have bad thoughts, that would still be condemnable, but it would still be a nicer world to live in.
If a love one of yours was held hostage for ransom, strapped with bombs and some brave person broke in and told the hostage takers that the place was surrounded with police and that there was no way of escape and so the bad guys gave-up, would you talk be upset that the rescuer told a lie? No, you would rejoice that your loved one was safe. Easy-peasy.
Maybe lives will not be saved because of what David Daleiden did, but now the responsibility falls on everyone else since ignorance is no excuse.
LikeLike
Susan, has it ever dawned on you that just because I am against Daleiden’s tactics, I’m not pro-choice.
This is where we are as bad as the Soviet Union. Group think. If you raise a question, your guilty of free markets. So much for the home of the brave and the land of the free.
LikeLike
El Unificatoro,
As far as I know, no-one named Blaise in the family. We do have a cousin named Blaine if that scratches your itch. If you recall from Waiting for Guffman if you jumble up the letters of Blaine, it spells Nebali, which is a planet way far, far, far away.
The Paschall’s are of Huguenot stock out of the Auvergne region in France, where Blaise Pascal was from. During the Reformation, my part of the family made the trek across the English Channel, and added an “H”. We added an “L” around the time my first American ancestor made his way to Philadelphia in the 1680’s in the region that became known as Paschallville (don’t know if it still exists in Philly today). Pascal was a somewhat common last name in the Auvergne region, so I don’t know if there are any family ties to Blaise, but many in my family have claimed that he is related in some way.
You’re welcome for the history of the clan Paschall – I am off to the beach for the day with the family, which means I’ll be cleaning sand out of the minivan until October.
LikeLike
Darryl,
But my point has been that this isn’t the “normal” practice of journalism but that it is permissible in exceptional circumstances. I just happen to think this is one of them. Do people really know that babies with arms are being chopped up or have they just been told its a clump of cells? Do they know that PP haggles over the price of these baby parts and that it views them only as line items? No, and there is no way that any of the other media out there would actually try and figure out whether PP’s statements are true.
So if your point is that maybe we should think about the ethics of this thing, then I agree. We shouldn’t endorse an ends justify the means response. But neither should we be hard on CMP because they’re right wingers and right wingers are inconsistent and do stupid things sometime. Welcome to life.
LikeLike
Robert, the more I think, the more I wonder if CMP is journalism. Can you appoint yourself editor? Is “gonzo” journalism journalism? And are Christians consoling themselves that Daeleiden’s lies are okay because he’s a journalist (even when most Christians aren’t fans of journalism)?
Not expecting you to answer this. Just throwing out more evidence of my guilt.
LikeLike
And the question about this episode is SO WHAT? Nothing will come of it, and ammo is given against the pro-life movement for AGAIN being untruthful, just like they messed around with frames of that documentary back in the 1980s (and lied about that as well.)
LikeLike
It’s a common lament that things have changed so much so fast, with the reference being to things like “their” gay marriage. But things have also changed quickly with “our” truth-telling as well. It seems like 20 years ago there was a strong presumption that truth should be told with one of the few exceptions being lethal situations. Now truth-telling is, like, whatever, as long as it’s for “us.”
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 7, 2015 at 1:46 pm | Permalink
Susan, nor am I debating abortion. I am wondering out loud why the pro-life side is so willing to overlook flagrant disregard for truth telling. Can’t you be anti-murder and anti-lying? What is that hard?
Because it’s morally obtuse if not juvenile. Murder is 100 on the meter and “lying” in this case is about a 2. Further, the “lying” serves the truth–exposing this horror–far more than “truth-telling” can.
LikeLike
@TVD So what do you think the end result of this expose is going to be? I would love for it to mean that society turns more against abortion and we see a lot less of it. But I doubt that will be the case.
To be sure, telling a lie is not nearly as bad as killing a defenseless baby. No argument there from anyone I would think. But that doesn’t mean being dishonest or that everything done to stop the killing of babies is a good idea. It might be that your favored tactic doesn’t save any babies and makes something else worse.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted August 7, 2015 at 5:09 pm | Permalink
@TVD So what do you think the end result of this expose is going to be?
Defunding Planned Parenthood, either now or after the 2016 elections. Even if its effect were not as palpable, it wouldn’t support Dr. Hart’s argument. No false witness was borne against anyone’s neighbor, and a blanket condemnation of undercover journalism–which by definition requires deception–is very questionable theology, the case for which that has not been intelligently made here.
LikeLike
kent
Posted August 7, 2015 at 1:07 pm | Permalink
Webfoot: “I don’t know how to help you get your head out of the sand, D.G. Hart… ou are dreadfully uninformed, or misinformed about what Planned Parenthood is doing – all that it is doing.”
Webfoot isn’t even pretend to give the square root of sweet beggar all to what we are saying on here.
This is just beyond pathetic, we are into mental patient rambling from Webfoot now.
With all the respect due to you, sir, you’re the one who is rambling here.
LikeLike
Hi Darryl
“Susan, has it ever dawned on you that just because I am against Daleiden’s tactics, I’m not pro-choice. ”
It has dawned on me, in fact, I told you that I know you do not defend abortion.
LikeLike
Darryl,
You just don’t want anyone to know that you’re a decent fellow. I will keep it hush hush.
LikeLike
@tvd huh? Pretty sure Darryl’s point was that 2k gives room for folks to do things like deceive your neighbors (which of course includes all of humanity) accomplish undercover journalism without falling into the trap of baptizing lying or playing pharisuitical games about who is really your neighbor and whether lying and decieving are really lying.
As noted in the comments a few of us are unsure whether 2k really implies this, others wonder if it is ever ok to lie, and others seem to think the ends justify the means. Not sure what you are disagreeing with in the post unless it is to adopt mwfs position that anything other than all cheerleading all the time makes one complicit in selling baby parts.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted August 7, 2015 at 8:42 pm | Permalink
@tvd huh? Pretty sure Darryl’s point was that 2k gives room for folks to do things like deceive your neighbors (which of course includes all of humanity) accomplish undercover journalism without falling into the trap of baptizing lying or playing pharisuitical games about who is really your neighbor and whether lying and decieving are really lying.
I didn’t get that. Are you sure he said that? Or means that?
Further, I think your parsing of me and the actual commandment are faulty. the commandment reads
Bold face mine, because you don’t seem to get the point. The whole passage needs to be read. Nobody bore false witness against the abortionists.
As noted in the comments a few of us are unsure whether 2k really implies this, others wonder if it is ever ok to lie, and others seem to think the ends justify the means. Not sure what you are disagreeing with in the post unless it is to adopt mwfs position that anything other than all cheerleading all the time makes one complicit in selling baby parts.
I don’t think 2k is actually the point here except that’s it’s irresponsible to use bad Biblical interpretation against anti-abortionists. Abortion is 100 on the immorality meter; pretending to support abortion to get the bastards to reveal themselves is a 2, if not a 0.
This was undercover journalism, bringing out the truth in a way no other means could, getting the guilty to convict themselves. Dr. Hart needs to argue that undercover journalism is intrinsically a violation of Biblical morality since it by its nature depends on deception. I think his argument fails on every level, as theology, ethics, or logic.
LikeLike
@tvd that was my reading, but Darryl can correct me of course. That’s why I asked the questions I did right off.
“Bold face mine, because you don’t seem to get the point. The whole passage needs to be read. Nobody bore false witness against the abortionists.”
Yeah. You are misreading the text. Note that the point of the parable of the good Samaritan was to answer the question, “who is my neighbor”. The implication of the parable is that your parsing is incorrect. The moral cretins at pp are our neighbor too. When you lie to them you are breaking one of the 10 commandments. Darryl indicated that this is ok in the 2k schema bc you aren’t lying as a Christian. I don’t think this works but maybe I am still reading him wrong.
Agree abortion is much worse than fibbing about your identity to pp as part of investigative reporting.
It seems lying can be justified in the same way say working on sabbath can if ox is in ditch. That doesn’t mean any work is justified (like building a fence on Sunday to keep out oxen).
Who have the guilty been convicted by? Like I said, I hope I’m wrong but I predict that this will make no difference on abortion rate. It might make things worse for privacy moving forward. But that’s just speculation.
I’m curious though, of abortion is a 100 and lying a two, where does birth control fit in? A 50? Colorado has a program to give long term reversible bc to teen moms and it seems to have caused quite a drop in teen births and abortion. Would you support a nationwide condition that single moms have option of iud (other fave reversible longterm method ) as condition of welfare benefits? Would certainly cause pp problems!
LikeLike
sdb
Posted August 7, 2015 at 10:12 pm | Permalink
@tvd that was my reading, but Darryl can correct me of course. That’s why I asked the questions I did right off.
Perhaps we should leave it there and leave it to you parse Dr. Hart’s text–or for him to speak for himself–for some proof he’s not a Pharisaical moral imbecile who loves the letter of the law more than its spirit.
LikeLike
vd, t, you think the Washington Post publishes theology?
LikeLike
Susan, decent, I hope. Nice, no.
LikeLike
b, sd, “2k gives room for folks to do things like deceive your neighbors”
ding ding
LikeLike
vd, t, “I didn’t get that.”
no kidding.
LikeLike
vd, t, “Nobody bore false witness against the abortionists.”
How is telling PP you agree with them when you don’t not bearing false witness against the abortionists?
Did you go to a Jesuit school?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 7, 2015 at 10:43 pm | Permalink
vd, t, you think the Washington Post publishes theology?
D. G. Hart
Posted August 7, 2015 at 10:43 pm | Permalink
Susan, decent, I hope. Nice, no.
D. G. Hart
Posted August 7, 2015 at 10:44 pm | Permalink
b, sd, “2k gives room for folks to do things like deceive your neighbors”
ding ding
D. G. Hart
Posted August 7, 2015 at 10:45 pm | Permalink
vd, t, “I didn’t get that.”
no kidding.
D. G. Hart
Posted August 7, 2015 at 10:47 pm | Permalink
vd, t, “Nobody bore false witness against the abortionists.”
How is telling PP you agree with them when you don’t not bearing false witness against the abortionists?
Did you go to a Jesuit school?
Dr. Hart, please put your point in the form of a point.
Dr. Hart, that’s not just moral but logical imbecility. Even your defenders like “sdb” have no idea how to defend you.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 4, 2015 at 10:52 am | Permalink
Greg, behold!
I wasn’t directing my remark to you only and actually not with any animosity Darryl. It was a sincere and honest observation.
LikeLike
Mrs. W,
You’re making an error in reasoning. DGHs silence (in this post) on abortion does not imply approval or condoning. It simply implies that, whatever the ethics of abortion, he does not believe that lying in the course of investigation is justified. I happen to disagree, but I also understand what he is and is not saying.
Beware of reasoning from silence. It’s an attractive move, but very unreliable.
I assume this was an honest mistake on your part, in which case the simple remedy is to retract your accusations above.
LikeLike
@ DGH,
After chewing on this for some time, I disagree with your scruples about undercover investigation. I do have reservations, which I will address below. In the main, however, I think that Daleiden’s investigation meets criteria. The need to preserve others’ lives, thus fulfilling the sixth commandment, trumps the need to scrupulously represent who you actually are for the same reason that a psychologist must deceive a human subject in order to achieve a double-blind experiment. D had to get candid remarks from PP execs, and that was not going to happen any other way.
However, the permissibility of lying for undercover purposes is limited. D does not have license to misrepresent his results. So if it turns out that he has exaggerated the importance of PPs fees, then he deserves censure. (One of my progessive friends and I have been vigorously debating whether the edited videos are fairly edited or not.)
Let’s dispose of a simple objections. One does not need to be an accredited journalist. Journalism is as journalism does.
Why is his behavior justified? Ultimately, because he is caught between two commandments and has to come to some way of prioritizing. These things happen. In Acts 4, the apostles are caught between obedience to God (commandment 1) and obedience to authority (#5). In Exodus, the midwives were caught between complicity in murder (#6) and obedience to authority, as well truth-telling.
It is often the case that it’s possible to thread the needle and satisfy both commands with sufficient wisdom. But that’s not always the case, and sometimes one has to pick, by faith, trusting that we are justified by faith and not perfect obedience.
His way of prioritizing is unclear, but if I were he, I would reason that the potential to save lives in the future outweighs the harm done to the individuals and institution BECAUSE the goal is to get candid statements from those individuals in order to force a proper legal investigation. That would be my game plan.
LikeLike
vd, t, exactly, this is my point. Daleiden’s rationale is morally and logically incoherent:
A big OL thanks!
LikeLike
Greg, ditto.
LikeLike
Jeff, honesty? What a curious idea.
LikeLike
I have some significant reservations about my own position.
(1) There is a slippery-slope potential. If lying about yourself is legitimate for undercover ops, what about lying about others? Where does it stop? This concern is related to Noble Cause Corruption, in which any malfeasance is justified for the sake of the cause.
(2) As Kant observed, once you know that I am willing to lie, you will no longer trust my words. In other words, I pay a price in credibility for my undercover ops.
As a practical example of this, the advice often given to ordinary citizens is to NEVER talk to police without a lawyer present. Among the reasons is that while it is a crime to lie to the police, it is no crime for them to lie to you. The trustworthiness of police is undone.
(3) Once we begin prioritizing commandments, we now have to ask, On what basis? Pretty soon, we end up philosophically in utilitarian land, either on the basis of least harm (Popper), greatest happiness (Mill), most satisfied preferences (Bentham, Singer), or the more amorphic “love” (Fletcher, Bonhoeffer). I don’t have space to argue it here, but I view utilitarianism as incompatible with obedience to God’s commands.
LikeLike
Jeff, those biblical analogies don’t really work well. D wasn’t compelled to do anything. He did it of his own volition, etc. He was not caught between two commandments because he wasn’t compelled to harm another.
LikeLike
Jeff, vd t’s comments about OL and imbecility clearly leave you unscathed.
LikeLike
Minor point, but another question is whether D can truly be considered a journalist. What makes one a journalist? D set up his own organization and called it a charity, then set up a fake name and org. to go after PP. While I think his intentions were good, in that he seemed to want to expose an evil more than garner attention for himself, I’m not sure he should be rightly called a journalist. (Without a clear definition of journalism, pretty soon everyone who blogs will consider themselves journalists.)
http://www.wannabehacks.co.uk/2013/02/27/what-is-a-journalist/
LikeLike
I don’t always agree with Curt or DGH, but the word “imbecile” never enters my mind to describe them.
But I’m just a mere mortal sinner.
LikeLike
So if Webster is bright-eyed about lying for the cause of embarrassing PP, surely she would lie if it would promote the greater good of persuading someone to join her church. And for others, if this is a good lie then so is lying about candidates (pro-abortion, pro-SSM) and being so sloppy in talking about stories and court cases – in the service of promoting Great Causes – that the slop spills over into slander and lying.
This is pretty big: if the cause for this lie is enough, you guys will lie about all kinds of things. And guess what? Your causes will probably lose anyway. Let’s talk about gaining the world but losing your soul. Or at least your credibility.
LikeLike
@ Zrim: I would say the “just defense” and the “preserving the life of others” of WLC 135 are in play as obligations.
The point of that specific OT example, which is praised in both Exodus and Hebrews, is that “lawful means” may include lying in extremis.
In other words: Both midwives and D have obligations under the sixth commandment. If lying was not an obstacle to the midwives, it is therefore possibly not for D as well.
Put yet another way: your position would seem to entail that if lying is necessary, then the obligation to preserve the life of others is null (else, there would be a conflict of obligations, which you seem to deny)
LikeLike
@ Muddy: Correct for light wind, 20 degrees to the right.
LikeLike
Jeff, I think you are going the right direction here, sometimes ethical reasoning requires sifting through competing moral demands. The case of preservation of life, or exposing barbarism versus telling the truth to the perpetrators of this barbarism is an apt example. I do think there is some room for conscience in the Daleiden case, however, there would be cases where telling the truth when individual lives are on the line (e.g. harboring Jews in Nazi Germany, Israelite midwives in Egypt, Rahab in Jericho) would actually be morally wrong.
Your slippery slope warning is also important. I would say that only in extraordinary cases would deception be the right moral choice. We have already seen how Reformed churchmen have driven semi trucks through the extraordinary exemption in WCF 31.4. I think it is important to have a high criteria for what constitutes extraordinary cases where deception is permissible, and which cases it is necessary.
LikeLike
I’ll throw this one out there:
Was there any way that Daleiden or others could’ve obtained this information from PP without deception? Did he take the path of least resistance?
LikeLike
Jed, what was the good effect of this action?
Nobody changed their opinion about PP one iota from this, if you support PP you squashed the story or forgot it within 3 seconds, especially when it was proven that the “lunatic fringe” person getting the story lied (even a little bit) to obtain it. Fruit of a poisoned tree.
I guess people who don’t like PP got to stew in their juices a little bit more.
Yippeeeeee…………………
LikeLike
Jeff, if you and I don’t go gonzo on our own local PPs then are we guilty of not preserving life? No. Nobody is telling you, me or D to toss first borns into rivers. The mid wives are praised but only because they were obeying God rather than men, while we aren’t even in a similar situation to begin with. Your position would seem to entail something similar to the BBs who tell us that not to protest clinics is to be complicit. Boo, hiss.
Again, I’ve no interest in defending PP’s little shop of horrors. But as I told she whose feet are webbed, reaching for the mid wives example just doesn’t work here. In fact, most biblical examples seem dicey.
LikeLike
I find it difficult to get worked up over PP. Partially because it’s legal, partially because I’m just not shocked that they engage in unethical practices. Everybody seems to want to protect ,at the very least, their individual conscience on such issues. Most of those attempts are mere matters of self-deception. I don’t have that particular log in my eye. God, thank you that I’m not like that sinner. I’ve lived long enough to know if you put me in the right position and apply enough pressure, I might just fail. My honest take away from this and discussions of violations of the ninth and prioritizing one command over another, is that I’m glad Jesus died for all my sins. And that’s not to ‘shame’ anyone here because they want to parse this out, I just find myself unmoved by most of it. And the posters and FB videos and pictures just cause me to tune it out even more, while thinking if we just went about this quietly and dignified and stayed out of the red meat aspects, we’d accomplish a lot more and garner a lot more credibility.
LikeLike
Sean, the thought I keep having when seeing all the outrage porn is that there are lots of awful things happening in the world. Why does this grip conservative Christians specially in ways all the other outrage porn worthy things just don’t? Why do the sound 2k-ish when it comes to the varied and awful plights of ex utero children around the big bad world but all of a sudden turn outrage-y when it comes to the in utero?
LikeLike
Jed (and Jeff), would you tell PP execs that you support them and want to buy fetal organs? I’m not trying to bait you. But that’s what Daleiden did and I find it hard to believe that anyone here (except if they’re wearing moral beer goggles) would actually do that in real life.
If you wouldn’t then what are we debating? This isn’t Rahab. It’s Daleiden’s own admission of telling a bald face lie. That’s not undercover and going to some parking lot to meet Deep Throat.
LikeLike
Jeff, I think you provide a useful analysis, although I’m not sure I agree with one conclusion.
PP is evil: PP and its supporters are very evil people engaged in massively sinful behavior on a scale difficult to conceive of – it is international in scope, with impacts on the long-term fate of nations – they absolutely must be stopped by any just means. I’ll presume almost all commenting here agree.
PP’s evil was already known: it was already common knowledge that PP takes money to murder children. That’s the major crime – the selling of dismembered corpses is secondary. I suspect the potential moral difficulties you point to indeed come into play in this case without the over-riding need for lying to uncover a heinous crime.
Possible cases where such a lie might be warranted?: If abortion were illegal and all PP did was sell corpses of baby’s naturally deceased, I think it likely the lie would be warranted- this is a grotesque practice. If no one knew PP performed abortions, I believe it almost certain the lie would be warranted. But in the actual case at hand perhaps it isn’t – since there is no necessity to uncover the well-known fundamental crime.
Other cases: If PP as a corp or senior PP leadership cheat on taxes, would that warrant a tax lawyer or accountant leaking info (I suspect yes)? Hacking in to steal records? Posing as officials to try to get privileged info?
What about developing personal friendships with PP workers in order to find out unsavory details of their personal lives and publishing them? What about spying on them to take unflattering pictures and creating internet sex site accounts including their contact info? Stealing their identities and creating financial and legal difficulties?
“Pro-Life Movement” Code of Ethics: Perhaps “the prolife movement” needs (or already has?) a detailed statement of ethics as to what can and can’t be done and why? Groups then could sign on to it (or not), and we might get some clarity here.
I hope I do not bring the wrath of the well-intentioned on me (I’m trying to be very straightforward and accurate with my words), and nevertheless hope some good may come from D’s work, although I fear for the evils you (Jeff) and Muddy have pointed out.
Social stability is not a given, is precious, must be valued and fought for. It is very much under attack, and the only potential source of renewal I see (religion) is not likely to be given adequate widespread practice anytime soon – we need to keep alive what remains as best we can.
LikeLike
Zrim, I think I remember reading about no one less than Carl Henry, before 1970, admitting that discerning what was right and wrong about the abortion possibility was a difficult opporutnity. Meaning it wasn’t cut and dry and was, rather, personal and private and already wrought with emotional distress for the participants and the whole situation was needful of a great deal of compassion and discretion. From that perspective, I understand women clamoring to reclaim ownership and priviilege and privacy, along with the father, for this decision.
LikeLike
I have seen enough holy rollers change their pro-life views when the issue entered their home and reality…
LikeLike
@tvd Truly you have a dizzying intellect…a regular Ignatius J. Reilly!
Just to clarify though – I agree with dgh that deceiving the PP folks was lying or “bearing false witness against their neighbors”. This is pretty basic stuff. I also agree with Darryl that 2k provides justification to engage in activities that you would be unjustified to do in the name of Christ (going to war is one – think Luther’s criticism of the Crusades. It wasn’t that going to war was the wrong thing to do, but it shouldn’t be done under the cross). However, I don’t think that sinful behavior (e.g., lying) is acceptable just because it isn’t being done in the name of Christ (I’m not a nomian in church and antinomian in the world). My questions at the start of this thread were asking about just that point as that was one way one could read the implications of this post. If that had been what dgh meant, I would disagree.
Yes killing little babies and selling them for spare parts is really, really evil. Much worse than lying. No one is disputing that. Not sure why you insist on repeating something utterly irrelevant to the point here. There is an interesting debate going on. If you took a break from your effort to score points that no one cares about, you might actually learn something. I know, I know, you’ve learned everything you need to know about Calvinism from your interaction with six calvinists on a blog. There’s a lesson in there somewhere.
LikeLike
Kent is right,
The greater evil than what PP does with the bodies is abortion itself. And abortion is all about sex without consequences. Conservatives can target doctors all they want, but just as complicit are mothers who abort their children. Both should be prosecuted. Very few mothers who abort their babies are scared victims as the movies suggest (though it does happen). The majority are women who want to keep having sex without consequences, included getting heavy with a pregnancy. Yet how many religious conservatives, if their 16 year old daughter has an abortion, would be supportive of a prison sentence for their daughter? My guess is not many. But you cannot call something murder, or even manslaughter, then be afraid to support prison for women who get abortions, along with the doctors. The state’s job should be to prosecute mothers who murder their babies, the church’s job is to tell them there is forgiveness for their sins in Christ. I have no confidence the state will ever do its job on this, and less confidence the church can keep on her message, and even less confidence so-called religious pro-lifers will remain consistent on either when abortion hits their own homes.
LikeLike
@kent I recall one pundit quip that all americans oppose abortion with three exceptions: rape, the health of the mother, and my own personal issue.
LikeLike
@Todd “And abortion is all about sex without consequences.” I don’t think so or the proliferation of IUDs would kill demand. Another big driver is to avoid having to raise a special needs child,
People may talk a good game about abortion, but when push comes to shove, their stated preference is not aligned with their revealed preference. I suspect this is why the pro-life movement underperforms despite polling that indicates they should be more successful than they are. We aren’t sufficiently honest with pollsters (or ourselves).
LikeLike
And Republican nominees for the Supreme Court can stealth onto the bench by giving the impression they’ll be “conservative” and then from the first decision show they might have been too extreme for the Democratic Party to even bring before a GOP stacked Judicial Committee.
Would be nice if for once it went the other way for betrayal of stated judicial thinking…
LikeLike
@ Kent: Actually, visuals turn out to shape opinions a lot. But more importantly, this is the third inning. I’ll go out on a limb and predict an eventual conviction on charges of altering surgical procedures to obtain tissue.
LikeLike
@ all: I was stupid to rely memory. The Hebrew midwives don’t make it into Hebrews. Moses’s parents do.
LikeLike
jeff, i’ll posit that 96% of North American society doesn’t care at all about the issue, unless it becomes of consequence in their life. And the other 4% split evenly on the spectrum of never to anything goes.
The story was gruesome, seeing that old bag’s smirking photo on Drudge for a few days was depressing enough.
LikeLike
Kent,
Besides asserting that no-one changed their minds about PP, do you have anything to validate this?
There has been progress made in terms of legal pressure on PP, poor public image, and there is a growing group of secular millenials who are against abortion, this may have had some affect on that segment. I am not saying this is the harbinger of PP’s downfall, but every bit helps.
I really have no desire to disabuse you guys who have an issue with Daleiden’s of your opinion. That kind of deception is bound to rub some the wrong way. But, with that said, I just don’t agree with the position that what he did was morally impermissible. You guys aren’t evil for holding that opinion, just wrong I think. I can live with that.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, it seems to me St. Augustine would have given a “nay” to Daleiden.
I’m no Augustine scholar and I don’t have any more time to spend on it, these are no more than carefully selected extracts intended to be faithful to his main thrust. He addresses many of the cases raised here, including hiding-the-Nazis-from-the-Jews.
Indeed, his argument and considerations are quite comprehensive – set aside a couple of hours, be forever the better for it, and share your thoughts.
Extracts from Augustine’s De Mendacio = On the Subject of Lying:
let us inquire, whether it be sometimes useful to utter a falsehood with will to deceive. […]
he acts contrary to a true thing who says that a thing is so or not so, whereof neither his mind nor senses nor his opinion or belief gives him any report.
Whether therefore he does not hurt himself in so profiting another, or in that compensation not hurt himself in which he profits the other, is a great question
If it be so, it should follow that he ought to profit himself by a lie which damages no man. But these things hang together, and if you concede that point, it necessarily draws in its train some very embarrassing consequences. […]
[Defenders of the position to ever permit speaking falsehoods argue] that he lies with the heart who approves a lie; yet that man may possibly not lie with the heart, who utters other than is in his mind, in such sort that he knows it to be for the sake of avoiding a greater evil that he admits an evil, disapproving withal both the one and the other.
[…But] the only point to be attended to in this question is, whether a lie be iniquity […] whether a man ought to tell a lie for the safety of another, is just the same as asking whether for another’s safety a man ought to commit iniquity. […]
[Even when seeking to make converts – save souls, the highest good – lying is not permissable e.g. teaching falsities as doctrine, giving false justifications for doctrine, ]. For, once break or but slightly diminish the authority of truth, and all things will remain doubtful: which unless they be believed true, cannot be held as certain. […]
18. This being from the very first and most firmly established, touching other lies the question proceeds more securely. […]
[Augustine then addresses the type of lie] which is commonly attributed to well-meaning and good people, when the person who lies not only does no harm to another, but even benefits somebody. Now it is on this sort of lies that the whole dispute turns, whether that person does harm to himself, who benefits another in such sort as to act contrary to the truth. […]
[For the argument, link below, but here is the conclusion:]
42. It clearly appears then, all being discussed, that those testimonies of Scripture have none other meaning than that we must never at all tell a lie: seeing that not any examples of lies, worthy of imitation, are found in the manners and actions of the Saints, as regards those Scriptures which are referred to no figurative signification, such as is the history in the Acts of the Apostles. […]
For in these words it is most plainly written, The mouth that lies slays the soul. How then can it be said without the greatest perverseness, that to the end one man may have life of the body, it is another man’s duty to incur death of the soul? […]
unto eternal salvation none is to be led by aid of a lie. […]
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1312.htm
LikeLike
@ Zrim: Let’s call the Bayleys “Fundamentalist Progressives”, as in “This cause is your cause, this cause is my cause…”
We agree that neither Bible nor WLC is a Fundamentalist Progressive document.
But nor are they libertarian documents. Take a look at WLC 99. We have obligations to be perfect in the performance of positive duties, and even to see that others do so.
Where D and I differ is that he seems to have much more specific knowledge about the doings of PP. He knew, for example, whom to talk to, and what kinds of crimes were being committed. I don’t have that kind of knowledge, and I don’t think you do either.
Question before us is, given D’s knowledge, was it permissible for him to lie in order to fulfill an obligation to protect life? I think it’s entirely possible. That’s not the same as saying that everyone is obligated to do so.
In other words, his obligation is both general (according to the 6th) and specific (according to the situations he’s close to).
Back at you: Would you prosecute him in a church court for lying?
LikeLike
Jed, most people don’t want to talk about it at all, so the repugnant (to everyone) story was ignored if one didn’t want to be bothered with it. Or excused away in two seconds, often in the name of “higher principles for humanity….”
And if you dwell on it, you are already in the pro-life camp to begin with.
I would welcome whatever legislative or criminal action is forthcoming, I won’t hold my breath waiting.
LikeLike
Jed, not to be a jerk about this, but would you say to PP execs what Daleiden did? I want to know if you are comfortable with that kind of deceit. If you’re not, then I don’t think you’re that far away from mmmmeeeeEEEEE.
LikeLike
@ Kevin: Couldn’t be. He who is neVer in Doub,T has already declared that lying only pegs a 2/100 on the morality scale. Don’t confuse us with your “quotes” from “primary sources” who are obviously “moral imbeciles.”
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 7, 2015 at 2:46 pm | Permalink
Susan, has it ever dawned on you that just because I am against Daleiden’s tactics, I’m not pro-choice.>>>>>
I guess you are saying that you are not pro choice. You are anti lying. Just because I support Daleiden’s methodology doesn’t mean I am in favor of lying. I am certainly not in favor of murdering abortionists or any other kind of violence to abortion facilities.
Let’s revisit the example of the Hebrew midwives. I think there is a clear parallel to what Daleiden did. This can even be considered a sola scriptura argument.
God rewards the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1. Does He reward them for lying? Well, He doesn’t even call what they did a lie, now does He? If you say that they lied, then you are going beyond what God Himself says in this instance.
They were saving lives – Hebrew lives. God was pleased.
Maybe your definition of lying is flawed. Maybe your understanding of the 10 Commandments is as well.
DGH:
This is where weare as bad as the Soviet Union. Group think. >>>>
Well, group think is bad, but no think is not so great, either.
Exodus 1
15 Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, 16 “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. 18 So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this, and let the male children live?” 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” 20 So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. 22 Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every son that is born to the Hebrews[a] you shall cast into the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live.”
LikeLike
@ DGH:
I would steal parts from a terrorist, or supply him with bogus parts. I would set up a honeypot for a hacker. And I would seriously consider lying as the only forseeable alternative to letting someone be killed.
Does that help?
Are you suggesting that the Ten Commandments never conflict with each other, or just that they obviously don’t here?
And, same question to you as to Zrim. Would you bring charges against Daleiden?
LikeLike
Jeff, are you suggesting that God would inspire/lead a believer to deliberately sin, or give out “rebates on such sin” if it worked out for some kind of good?
LikeLike
Jeff, if DD were a church member, I would pay him a visit and see how such disregard for honesty comports with his striving for holiness and with Christ and his body’s reputation. We’ll go from there.
Yes, the commandments conflict.
But in this case, it’s not like DD saved any lives — say, like lying to the Nazis looking for Anne Frank. The benefits to the 6th commandment in the videos is indirect at best. I think DD wanted to make PP look bad. Not sure that’s wrong, though another commandment about loving our neighbors does come to mind. But by lying DD didn’t obey the 6th commandment. And if you throw in that he used the Lord’s name to justify his actions, he might have violated the 3rd (2nd for the Tiber River challenged).
LikeLike
” I don’t think so or the proliferation of IUDs would kill demand.”
That is exactly the point sdb. Very few married women get abortions. If singles do not want a baby, why are they not using birth control? This includes the male. A small percentage of single women do use contraceptives and get pregnant anyway, but I am speaking of the majority, which all studies show the majority who get abortions did not use birth control. Given the amount and variety of birth control available there should be very few abortions. So why were they not using it? The passion of the moment and a culture of hedonism. And almost half of those who get abortions get more than one. Very unlikely they are using birth control in all these circumstances. My point is that if you are going to use the rhetoric of calling abortion murder, then be consistent, murder should have civil consequences, even when done by a member of your family. If not then maybe tone down the rhetoric.
LikeLike
@ DGH,
I think (hope) the point was to force an investigation. He’s not accusing PP of bad taste.
But I see and respect your point.
LikeLike
@ Todd,
Historically about 25% of abortions are by married women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9474504/
LikeLike
Jed, the entire matter hasn’t brought up a whiff of comment on a few key websites of the Reformed faith.
I guess these people do not slavishly follow the internet media or gotcha journalism?
I wouldn’t have known anything about it except for Drudge and Old Life.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Sean, the thought I keep having when seeing all the outrage porn is that there are lots of awful things happening in the world. Why does this grip conservative Christians specially in ways all the other outrage porn worthy things just don’t? Why do the sound 2k-ish when it comes to the varied and awful plights of ex utero children around the big bad world but all of a sudden turn outrage-y when it comes to the in utero?
Because people are inconsistent.
Because many Christians are Republicans.
Because people in this country are more likely to affect things in this country than they are around the world.
Because many leaders have said this is the number one issue Christians should be concerned with.
Because Christians don’t like murder.
Because Christians see how abortion cheapens human life and dignity.
Because they’ve known people personally who have had abortions and regret it terribly.
Because some of them have had abortions themselves but haven’t personally had to deal with pirates, pillagers, rapists, famine, and other things people endure all around the world.
Some of these reasons are more valid than others perhaps. And there are more, but it’s not all political.
LikeLike
Jeff,
It’s actually around 83% unmarried.
Click to access women_who_have_abortions.pdf
Pollsters have also found that most women who claim financial reasons for getting abortions actually could afford a baby and were already on gov. assistance that could have provided for the birth. It makes sense that few women would not tell the truth as to why they are seeking an abortion so stats in this area are unreliable. But generally to separate abortion from the sexual revolution is a mistake. Even Hollywood, with all their talk about teaching young people birth control, rarely want to show people actually using it the moment of their passion. Ruins the image.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Robert, the more I think, the more I wonder if CMP is journalism.
A legitimate question, I think. Based on what they’ve done so more, I would guess that they are more journalistic than anything else.
Can you appoint yourself editor?
In the age of new media, yes. Start up a website, and you become the de facto editor. Whether that’s good or not is a legitimate question. But maybe if real journalism was being done elsewhere in this country, it wouldn’t have happened.
Is “gonzo” journalism journalism?
This question is ambiguous. Depends on what you mean by “gonzo” journalism. I don’t think this is “gonzo” journalism. He’s not getting information on the personal lives of PP clinic organizers (at least not in what is being done so far). He’s exposing activity that seems to be criminal even in our legalized-abortion-on-demand setting.
And are Christians consoling themselves that Daeleiden’s lies are okay because he’s a journalist (even when most Christians aren’t fans of journalism)?
Most of them are probably consoling themselves that Daeleiden’s lies are okay because they are exposing the dark underbelly of the already dark abortion industry. So at most they are guilty of not thinking things through carefully enough before approving the action. But that doesn’t have any real bearing on whether CMP is acting properly or not.
Not expecting you to answer this. Just throwing out more evidence of my guilt.
Guilt? I think you have some legitimate questions. I’m just convinced that the questions actually have answers in this case and that they are in favor of what CMP has done.
I mean, let’s just speak pragmatically. Does the U.S. voter have the right to know if his tax dollars are being used to fund an organization that is actually breaking federal law? If no traditional journalistic outfit is willing to expose these illegalities—and to be sure, PP is followed as blindly by traditionalist journalist outlets as GWBush was by many evangelicals—then are we just supposed to throw up our arms if we are essentially certain that they are going on?
LikeLike
We don’t have to agree with Augustine, but from another work on the same subject Contra Mendacium (to be fair, he is in this section talking about heretics):
12. But, you will say, we more easily penetrate their concealment if we pretend to be ourselves what they are. If this were lawful or expedient, Christ might have instructed his sheep that they should come clad in wolves’ clothing to the wolves, and by the cheat of this artifice discover them: which He has not said, no, not when He foretold that He would send them forth in the midst of wolves.
But you will say: They needed not at that time to have inquisition made for them, being most manifest wolves; but their bite and savageness were to be endured. What, when foretelling later times, He said that ravening wolves would come in sheep’s clothing? Was there not room there to give this advice and say, And do ye, that you may find them out, assume wolves’ clothing, but within be ye sheep still?
Not this says He: but when he had said, Many will come to you in sheep’s clothing, but within are ravening wolves; He went on to say, not, By your lies, but, By their fruits you shall know them. […]
15. And as for that saying of the Apostle, Putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another, far be it that we should so understand it, as though he had permitted to speak a lie with those who are not yet with us members of the body of Christ. […]
18. It does indeed make very much difference, for what cause, with what end, with what intention a thing be done: but those things which are clearly sins, are upon no plea of a good cause, with no seeming good end, no alleged good intention, to be done. […]
34. But some man will say, Would then those midwives and Rahab have done better if they had shown no mercy, by refusing to lie? Nay verily, those Hebrew women, if they were such as that sort of persons of whom we ask whether they ought ever to tell a lie, would both eschew to say anything false, and would most frankly refuse that foul service of killing the babes.
But, you will say, themselves would die. Yea, but see what follows. They would die with an heavenly habitation for their incomparably more ample reward than those houses which they made them on earth could be: they would die, to be in eternal felicity, after enduring of death for most innocent truth.
—
I’d be interested if someone could demonstrate Augustine provided for Daleiden’s action, but I don’t think he does. We still of course must act by our own lights as we think best if we have tried to understand the arguments against our proposed action with sincerity.
Augustine isn’t here to comment, so I’ll let my vivification of him rest.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1313.htm
LikeLike
For the record, I don’t think Augustine makes a satisfactory argument that the midwives were praised merely for taking a step in the right direction (he says more than I posted, if you open the links and search “wives” and “women” you’ll find it).
But for him to admit an exception here would overturn a position held consistently in two longish works which are ostensibly well-reasoned. Perhaps he didn’t know how to deal with the midwives, the alleged injustice of whose lie he mostly addresses through presenting the arguments of others.
He was confident of his position, however.
LikeLike
Jeff, or perhaps the question is, Why can’t it be conceded that while lying in this case pales in comparison to what the lie helps expose, it doesn’t make it any more permissible? It would go a little further to instead of so much effort to white wash it.
But I still don’t see how DD’s special knowledge in some way compels him more than you and me, nor how our relative ignorance gets us off the hook per your reasoning (is ignorance really a justification in this high stakes reasoning?). Knowledge is one thing, but doesn’t accountability actually require a little more than that, i.e. having some degree of actual responsibility in real situations? DD doesn’t have that.
Back at you: Would you prosecute him in a church court for lying?
Not wanting to dodge, but is there good reason to overlook a church member who publicly admits to bearing false witness? This would be part of admitting lying’s immorality, i.e. bearing its responsibility. I imagine it’s worth it to a DD, to take spiritual admonition for moral trespass. But overlook it? Can’t think of a good reason.
LikeLike
Robert, but it’s all a way to look highly selective and all the more reason to avoid cause Christianity.
LikeLike
@ Todd:
Your number is more up to date than mine, so I’ll accept it as a reasonable measure: 83% by unmarrieds leaving 17% for marrieds.
My point is just to nudge back against “very few.” 17% of 1.06M abortions in 2011 (Guttmacher 2014) is 180,000 abortions by married women. How does “sizeable minority” work for you?
LikeLike
Kevin, the midwive’s disobedience led to some interesting situations when notes were included with scripture.
LikeLike
Kent,
Can you elaborate or post a link? Not sure what you are getting at or even how I would go about figuring it out.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Yes, I may have overstated that. My point is more general. Legal abortion is likely here to stay (not being a post-millennialist). It is part of our (America’s) sexual ethos unfortunately. And most conservatives don’t really want true enforcement against when it affects their own daughters.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted August 8, 2015 at 8:13 am | Permalink
Mrs. W,
You’re making an error in reasoning. DGHs silence (in this post) on abortion does not imply approval or condoning. It simply implies that, whatever the ethics of abortion, he does not believe that lying in the course of investigation is justified. I happen to disagree, but I also understand what he is and is not saying.>>>>
I know what DGH thinks about lying. I want to know what he thinks about Planned Parenthood.
How can you understand what he is not saying, Jeff?
Jeff:
Beware of reasoning from silence. It’s an attractive move, but very unreliable.>>>>
DGH should beware of being silent – or nearly silent – on such an important issue. How about just one little post about PP? Is that too much to ask? Plenty of material can be gleaned from their own website and from what is public knowledge. There have been plenty of whistle blowers as well – people who have worked for PP in the past and then have exposed what goes on in a PP clinic.
If DD’s material is hopelessly flawed, there are plenty of sources that can be used.
Jeff:
I assume this was an honest mistake on your part, in which case the simple remedy is to retract your accusations above.>>>>
I am asking for clarification. I think that Dr. Hart’s statements about abortion are incomplete at best. Is he ignorant of what PP does? Is he misinformed or uninformed? I am giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he does not know much about them at all. I have asked him what they do, and he said “abortion.” That was his one word response.
That is not all they do. A visit to their website will explain more of what they do. Does anyone from the OPC ever get their information on human sexuality from Planned Parenthood’s website? Does he know? Should he know? What would he do if a member of his congregation were found to be using PP materials even privately?
Would he make it his business?
It seems that on such an important subject a leader in the OPC needs to be informed. Now, maybe Dr. Hart is fully informed and has even written about PP in some other venue or at some other time even on this blog. Maybe you can direct me to that material. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. That is, that Dr. Hart is fully informed and that he has indeed written about it so as to warn his people about the dangers of being caught up in PP’s web of deception.
Being insulted that he be asked to clarify is not the same as actually clarifying his position. Now, if I made a mistake, that would be where I erred. He may have written whole books, even, exposing the dangers of Planned Parenthood and I have not seen them. Please direct me to his more complete statements about the abortion industry here in the US and how even Christians have been caught up in it.
I could demand that he apologize for insinuating I would condone the murder of abortionists, but I do not expect any apologies, nor do I demand them. I mean, who here on this blog would ever apologize to a Catholic, especially a female Catholic? Not gonna’ happen. I don’t expect it. I do notice, and I do forgive it, though, Brother Jeff. I used to be anti-Catholic as well, so I do understand.
I also know that the standard Reformed view is more like what you have written. I would hope that DGH’s personal views are similar. I am perplexed. I really am. No, I am no longer Protestant, but like I have said numerous times even on this blog, I still have a great respect for many of the Protestant teachers who have meant a lot to me through the years.
LikeLike
Todd:
The greater evil than what PP does with the bodies is abortion itself. And abortion is all about sex without consequences. Conservatives can target doctors all they want, but just as complicit are mothers who abort their children.>>>>>
Well, I disagree with you. It is much more complex than that. Often mothers are convinced that they will not be good mothers. This could be because they are young, or single, or poor – or all three. In fact, it is likely that a woman who seeks an abortion is all three. It is hard to post links to articles here in this format, but what I say is not too hard to prove.
You do indeed have many scared young women who do not know what to do. So along comes an organization like PP and tells her what to do. They lie to her about the true nature of the child she is carrying.
Often a parent – either mother or father – or a boyfriend pressures, even coerces her to have the abortion. There are many pressures that come to bear on the young girl. I was ignorant of all that at one time. That is why I have pressured DGH to become better informed. There is a lot to be considered, especially for someone in a pastoral role.
So, my focus here has been the defunding of PP. Sure, what they do is legal, but should it be publicly funded? There is no law that says we have to fund them. If a person is not concerned about abortion, what about the whole issue of corporate welfare? PP has plenty of private donors. We do not have to be helping them.
Todd:
Both should be prosecuted. >>>>
Well, I think that someone like Gosnell surely had to be prosecuted. There are many abortionists like him, too, but he was certainly extreme. He did not work for PP, but there is some evidence that PP referred patients to him.
The back alley abortionists are still in business, only now they do it legally. In fact, IMO, PP is the back alley abortionist all cleaned up with a pretty public face.
I certainly do not think that women who have abortions should be prosecuted. That is crazy talk.
We need to pray – which, yes, I do and so do millions of Catholics as well as Protestants that the killing of the unborn will end. We need to show mercy. We need to share the fact that Christ can bring abortionists to repentance and faith. There are numerous cases of that.
We need to share the fact that there is forgiveness in Christ for the woman who suffers under a weight of guilt after she realizes what she has really done. There are support groups in many churches, both Catholic and Protestant, for women who are struggling with post abortion stress syndrome.
BTW, Planned Parenthood denies that there is such a thing as PASS.
We need to realize that we are all sinners in need of grace. Why am I pressuring D.G. Hart to be better informed about the evil that PP is? I KNOW that there are women in his church that are victims of PP’s lies. How do I know? Well, if the statistics are true, then there have to be such women that he is called on to care about since he is one of their elders. They are his responsibility.
He has to be informed. I doubt that he will even read this, though, but I still hold out hope.
LikeLike
Kevin… old hat to us Calvinists…
The Geneva Bible had notes that stated the midwives were “lawful to disobey.”
Royalty of that day did not approve of praise for disobedience of royalty or the question of Divine Right.
Some argue it led to King James not allowing notes for the KJV…
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot,
“Well, I disagree with you. It is much more complex than that. ”
Of course it is. It always is. The interviews do show that the majority are not getting abortions out of fear of anyone or lack of financial help. It’s available. Now a minority is still many women, and each needs to be dealt with according to where they are at, but the high return rate for second and third abortions reveals how the common scared to death scenario doesn’t quite work.
“You do indeed have many scared young women who do not know what to do. So along comes an organization like PP and tells her what to do. They lie to her about the true nature of the child she is carrying.”
Yes, but I’m not comfortable with treating mothers as the victims. Do they not know instinctively (natural law) that what they are doing is wrong?
“Often a parent – either mother or father – or a boyfriend pressures, even coerces her to have the abortion. There are many pressures that come to bear on the young girl. I was ignorant of all that at one time.”
Yes, that certainly happens.
“So, my focus here has been the defunding of PP.”
Yes, that would be nice.
“I certainly do not think that women who have abortions should be prosecuted. That is crazy talk.”
So doctors should go to jail but women who have their children aborted should not be held responsible? Even those who get multiple abortions? In ancient cultures the mothers were also held responsible.
“As we observed at the outset, induced abortion was so abhorrent to the Israelite mind that it was not necessary to have a specific prohibition dealing with it in the Mosaic law. The Middle Assyrian laws attest to an abhorrence that was felt for this crime even in the midst of the heathendom around Israel, lacking though it did the illumination of special revelation. For in those laws a woman guilty of abortion was condemned to be impaled on stakes. Even if she managed to lose her own life in producing the abortion, she was still to be impaled and hung up in shame as an expression of the community’s repudiation of such an abomination. It is hard to imagine a more damning commentary on what is taking place in enlightened America today than that provided by this legal witness out of the conscience of benighted ancient paganism!” (Meredith Kline)
Not suggesting we should return to such punishments, but again, if you are going to call something murder, there is little consistency in saying there should be no penalties for the parents who arrange for the murder of their children in the womb, but only for the doctors who perform the act at the parent(s)’ request.
LikeLike
Mrs W: “The back alley abortionists are still in business, only now they do it legally..”
I go to church with a lady who is a few years older than I am who almost died from a botched illegal abortion. You are wrong.
LikeLike
Todd, the tactic in the “fragile, scared mother” angle among the outrage minded seems to be at once to come across as sympathetic and portray PP in the worst light possible light, i.e. we’re only trying to help victims who are so weak as to be easily manipulated by blood-thirsty (and apparently money grubbing) choicers. Reality has a way of being less inspiring and sensationalist.
LikeLike
Kent-
Kevin… old hat to us Calvinists… The Geneva Bible had notes that stated the midwives were “lawful to disobey.”
Ok regarding civil authority, but how do you account for the apparent approval of lying? That God made an exception to moral law (lies are iniquity) or that it didn’t meet the criteria for a lie?
If the latter, do you define a lie differently than Augustine does- knowing one thing but saying another with intent to deceive?
LikeLike
Kent, sorry man, it’s still a situation where you say nothing has changed because you say so. I would be more comfortable saying time will tell if this leads to positive change.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I don’t think it would even occur to me to do something like this. I am pro-life, and it is something that is a political and moral concern to me, however I would hardly say that it is an issue that is as absorbing to me as it is for others. I have lent support to the cause in more basic ways in the past (donating time and labor to alternative pregnancy centers), and a pro-life stance is an important factor I consider when voting.
So, practically, no we aren’t that far apart, and I get the questions you raise. I don’t entirely share your conclusions on this one though.
LikeLike
Z: Not wanting to dodge, but is there good reason to overlook a church member who publicly admits to bearing false witness?
The point wasn’t to overlook, but to check for consistency. And you and DGH are consistent.
Z: But I still don’t see how DD’s special knowledge in some way compels him more than you and me, nor how our relative ignorance gets us off the hook per your reasoning (is ignorance really a justification in this high stakes reasoning?). Knowledge is one thing, but doesn’t accountability actually require a little more than that, i.e. having some degree of actual responsibility in real situations? DD doesn’t have that.
Lots of clarification needed.
(1) Do you agree that the 6th commandment requires the just defence of the lives of others?
(2) If yes, does that just defence requirement apply only to deputized authorities?
(3) Are we equally obligated to all cases, or are we specially obligated to some? Which ones?
(4) On what ground does one decide cases when commandments are in conflict?
LikeLike
sean
Posted August 8, 2015 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
Zrim, I think I remember reading about no one less than Carl Henry, before 1970, admitting that discerning what was right and wrong about the abortion possibility was a difficult opporutnity. Meaning it wasn’t cut and dry and was, rather, personal and private and already wrought with emotional distress for the participants
It sucks even worse for the guest of honor.
Since there is no shame these days at being an unmarried mother, neither is there shame for letting the baby be born and live with an adopted family. Damn right killing your own baby is “wrought with emotional distress.” It should be.
And once again, the gutless contribute to the acceptablity of the unacceptable with their excuse-making and silence.
(A different) Dan
Posted August 8, 2015 at 6:10 pm | Permalink
Mrs W: “The back alley abortionists are still in business, only now they do it legally..”
I go to church with a lady who is a few years older than I am who almost died from a botched illegal abortion. You are wrong.
Do keep in mind that the back-alley argument was largely a lie.
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/abortion-myth-perpetuated/60958/
<blockquoteThe myth of the origin of Roe v. Wade has been perpetuated by feminists and abortion advocates either willfully or out of ignorance. There is no convenient catch phrase that can be put on a billboard on behalf of a storage company because the truth requires deep thinking, not sensory amusement.
The "Jane Roe" whose case went before the Supreme Court was not a victim of rape. She never had an abortion. Her real name is Norma McCorvey and she now adamantly opposes abortion.
She wrote about the truth of her involvement in the historic 1973 decision in her 1998 book, "Won By Love." Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a cofounder of NARAL, blew the myth wide open in his 1997 book, “Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist.” He admits that early abortion-rights advocates totally fabricated the number of women dying from back-alley and wire-hanger abortions. The 10,000 figure they used to affect public opinion was actually closer to 250, he writes. The actual figure in 1972 for deaths from illegal abortion was 39, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Dr. Nathanson also admitted to fabricating polls that indicated public support for abortion rights.
LikeLike
Okay Jed, since you have chosen this useless argument, start showing me that anything has changed at all, please keep it to less 1000 items of actual change.
I look forward to all the BIG CHANGES you are trumpeting after a mater if mere days
LikeLike
I see National Review made a joke that PP is worried the story has legs ($22 a pound)
LikeLike
@mwf Quit being mendacious. The “woe is me because I’m a nice Catholic lady” schtick has worn thin.
dgh wrote,
and then highlighted it for you. You assert that either “despicable” is somehow ambiguous or that the context didn’t make it clear he was talking about abortion. What do you hope to accomplish other than the total shredding of your credibility? Now the problem is he didn’t provide a litany of all the wrong things PP does. Is there anyone who doesn’t know that they are famous for being an abortion provider, something like 95% of the women who use their services are getting an abortion, or that they are among the most effective abortion rights advocate in the country? Is this news to you from the these videos? Do you really think this is some kind of epiphany? Give me a break. Yeah, PP is really, really evil. But guess what? 95% of moms who find out their baby is likely to have downs get an abortion. PP isn’t causing that – this is happening in “respectable” OB-Gyn offices. People talk a good game, but in the Pew Poll, they asked,
Only about 1/3 of respondents said yes (RCs matched the overall fraction). The only group with a slight majority was evangelicals (54%). Still not likely high enough to give the abortion issue traction even if they convinced everyone else to agree. But like I said before, everyone opposes abortion except in cases of rape/incest, life of the mom, and my own personal really important exception. This isn’t planned parenthood’s fault. And it certainly isn’t going to turn around by engaging in guerrilla journalism.
LikeLike
@mwf
By the way, only about half of RCs even think abortion is morally wrong – same stat as weekly church goers (it is about 75% for evangelicals who the conservative prots are likely lumped in with…sorry Zrim). So maybe you can save your outrage for the half of the people at church with you tomorrow taking communion who don’t think abortion is a morally problematic rather than a guy who thinks it is merely a “despicable” aspect of our society. Perhaps you can pin down your fellow parishioners with all the zeal you employed here for why they aren’t camped out in from of the local pp affiliate…you know because unless you meet some random blog commenters expectations you don’t really believe how utterly and totally evil pp really is. I look forward to hearing how it goes.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted August 8, 2015 at 10:27 pm | Permalink
@mwf Quit being mendacious. The “woe is me because I’m a nice Catholic lady” schtick has worn thin.
dgh wrote,
None of this means that Daleiden doesn’t deserve some credit for exposing a truly despicable aspect of American society.
and then highlighted it for you. You assert that either “despicable” is somehow ambiguous or that the context didn’t make it clear he was talking about abortion.
But what lame praise it was, sdb. The nice Catholic lady found its pro forma lameness despicable especially since the main thrust was a questionably defensible Biblical argument against undercover journalism [which by its nature requires deception] and the outrage at Planned Parenthood selling babies’ bodies for spare parts conspicuous by it absence.
Like saying David’s fingernails weren’t clean when he rocked Goliath. I mean get real, Darryl.
I’m not quite at “despicable,” although some of the even more lame defenses of Dr. Hart’s inability to shoot straight at the real enemies of God and man certainly are. There are those making excuses for abortion, or, Pilate-like, washing their hands of the whole moral dilemma, abandoning it as a “personal matter.” That sort of gutlessness certainly is despicable.
LikeLike
Jeff, yes. No. Specially obligated to some, those in which we are personally involved to greater or lesser degrees. Not sure on 4.
If I watch all DD/CMP videos and more or less have all the essential knowledge DD/CMP does, am I then obligated to critically engage my local PP in some way?
LikeLike
I think “for” can be safely put in here for “to,” Mr. Z. [Unless you want to argue “who is my brother,” which I personally find despicable.]
LikeLike
sdb –
By the way, only about half of RCs even think abortion is morally wrong – same stat as weekly church goers (it is about 75% for evangelicals who the conservative prots are likely lumped in with…sorry Zrim).
~ Did Latin Mass attendees get their own category? ~ If researchers and journalists really wanted to share useful info with the public, they’d be sensitive to such things as that and the churches most of O.L. readers attend when conducting these types of polls.
Weekly Mass attendance is under 50% in basically every country outside of Africa (Nigeria’s at 92% according to CARA) with a handful of middling exceptions like the Philippines, Malta and Colombia (e.g., Poland just dropped under 40%). In Western Europe & North America, more like 5%-25%.
You’re right there’s a strong correlation between holding orthodox beliefs and being practicing: lex orandi, lex credendi.
Further, by various estimates 95% of RCs in the US dissent from basic RC doctrine
~ You mean the estimate I posted 2 weeks ago on O.L.? ~ Or I’d be interested to know which source you’ve chosen. I wouldn’t say 95% dissent from basic doctrine – 95% is more like the combo of the non-practicing and the unfaithful, although it is a bit high.
To divide them in 3 categories:
Not-in-Grace: There are a great many who act contrary to the RCC’s teachings (e.g., birth control) while nevertheless affirming the immorality of their actions- that’s not dissent from doctrine, it is being in sin. If they attend Mass (not receiving without Confession and amendment), they remain Catholics.
Non-Practicing: There are plenty who don’t deny truths of the faith but don’t go to Mass- (on a given Sunday, 36% attend; but only 23% or so go every week- that 13% difference includes those absent for legitimate reasons, not sure I or others always account for that properly, but it is hard to estimate). This is also not dissent from doctrine, although I think their behavior raises doubts as to how Catholic they are. (70-75% of US Catholics are non-Practicing, many or most of whom are also dissenters).
Unfaithful: And then there is the truly reprehensible category of those who go to Mass every week but do indeed dissent from doctrine (50% of the 25-30% practicing)- that is being unfaithful (i.e., maintaining heresy). These people profess something other than Catholicism, and quite warrant the word “despicable” – literally “worthy to be looked down upon” I believe; oddly with no cognates in French, Italian, or Portuguese. (13%-15% of US Catholics)
There are variables in the stats – but by my methodologically imprecise count, around 80-90% of those who identify as Catholics are not both faithful and practicing.
Important Exception with Hispanics- In fact the numbers are probably slightly less bad (depending on the polling methodology employed), as Spanish speakers are:
-more likely to have only cell phones, which have historically often not been included in such polls;
-More likely to be working when pollsters call;
-Less trustworthy of strangers given their frequently irregular immigration status;
-Much less likely to be registered at the parish they attend.
Keep in mind Hispanics make up 50% of Catholics (not sure the measure) in many populous dioceses, including New York and Newark, much more I assume in Miami, with Mexicans in particular in LA, throughout Texas, etc.
[kc:] Would you consider Reformed someone who similarly denied defined fundamentals?
To me this is a key question- I asked it of you just earlier this evening (alongside advice regarding what-to-do-if-your-parish-priest-preaches-falsehood) at:
https://oldlife.org/2015/07/when-did-christian-america-end/comment-page-27/#comment-341293
LikeLike
TVD
Posted August 8, 2015 at 10:42 pm | Permalink
sdb
Posted August 8, 2015 at 10:27 pm | Permalink
@mwf Quit being mendacious. The “woe is me because I’m a nice Catholic lady” schtick has worn thin.
dgh wrote,
None of this means that Daleiden doesn’t deserve some credit for exposing a truly despicable aspect of American society.
and then highlighted it for you. You assert that either “despicable” is somehow ambiguous or that the context didn’t make it clear he was talking about abortion.
TVD:
But what lame praise it was, sdb. The nice Catholic lady found its pro forma lameness despicable especially since the main thrust was a questionably defensible Biblical argument against undercover journalism [which by its nature requires deception] and the outrage at Planned Parenthood selling babies’ bodies for spare parts conspicuous by it absence.
Like saying David’s fingernails weren’t clean when he rocked Goliath. I mean get real, Darryl.
I’m not quite at “despicable,” although some of the even more lame defenses of Dr. Hart’s inability to shoot straight at the real enemies of God and man certainly are. There are those making excuses for abortion, or, Pilate-like, washing their hands of the whole moral dilemma, abandoning it as a “personal matter.” That sort of gutlessness certainly is despicable.>>>>>>>
TVD, there is no outrage about Planned Parenthood’s actions. That is what is so shocking about this whole conversation. The guys may as well be discussing Tom Brady and deflated footballs.
In all that DGH has written in the last few days on this subject, all that sdb could fine were the same 2 lame comments I found. Yet there is comment after comment about the alleged lying, and whether or not Susan knows how to read.
Seriously? Not good enough. Not good enough at all for an elder of the OPC who has pastoral oversight of the women under his care.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot
Posted August 9, 2015 at 2:50 am | Permalink
dgh wrote,
“None of this means that Daleiden doesn’t deserve some credit for exposing a truly despicable aspect of American society.”
TVD:
But what lame praise it was, sdb. The nice Catholic lady found its pro forma lameness despicable especially since the main thrust was a questionably defensible Biblical argument against undercover journalism [which by its nature requires deception] and the outrage at Planned Parenthood selling babies’ bodies for spare parts conspicuous by it absence.
Like saying David’s fingernails weren’t clean when he rocked Goliath. I mean get real, Darryl.
I’m not quite at “despicable,” although some of the even more lame defenses of Dr. Hart’s inability to shoot straight at the real enemies of God and man certainly are. There are those making excuses for abortion, or, Pilate-like, washing their hands of the whole moral dilemma, abandoning it as a “personal matter.” That sort of gutlessness certainly is despicable.>>>>>>>
TVD, there is no outrage about Planned Parenthood’s actions. That is what is so shocking about this whole conversation. The guys may as well be discussing Tom Brady and deflated footballs.
In all that DGH has written in the last few days on this subject, all that sdb could fine were the same 2 lame comments I found. Yet there is comment after comment about the alleged lying, and whether or not Susan knows how to read.
Seriously? Not good enough. Not good enough at all for an elder of the OPC who has pastoral oversight of the women under his care.
Apparently, Dr. Hart depends on the readers of his blog not actually reading his blog.
Those who do actually read Dr. Hart’s blog have noticed that Dr. Hart [and his shrinking circle of supporters] have minimized Planned Parenthood’s selling of fetal body parts to no more than a yawn, as though sneaking in the word “despicable” somewhere amounts to anything more than moral lip service.
How brave.
LikeLike
Tom,
What I’ve noticed is that two of the four Catholics posting here are remarkably uncareful with the truth. How not careful with the truth?
* You don’t do your homework.
You blasted DGH for claiming that the ninth commandment forbids lying. You stated that the ninth commandment forbids false witness, but not lying. Yet here is the CCC, to which you nominally subscribe:
2464 The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant.
You can read the rest, but will you?
* You and Webfoot both are willing to engage in logical fallacies in order to detract from DGH and others.
It is obvious to everyone here that arguing from silence is poor reasoning. Yet you both persist, even after being warned. That is rash judgment on your part.
The CCC again: 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:
– of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
– of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
– of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
* You (Tom) fail to correct the record when you are wrong. Instead, you invariably double down on even the least defensible of positions. This was true in your bizarre take on natural law, in your absurd discussion of “highly favored”, and so on.
Repent, Tom and Webfoot. Learn to love truth-telling. The Sabbath is a good day for it.
LikeLike
Robert, to be clear, it is legal to use fetal body parts for research, right? What PP does that is illegal is to profit from the sale of such parts, right?
Is that distinction clear to those who parade these videos? Was there outrage about the Bush administration approval of such research?
LikeLike
Mermaid, I’ve said more about PP than Pope Francis. How do you like me now?!
LikeLike
jed, thanks.
LikeLike
b, sd, but they’re not real Roman Catholics. They are the PCUSA of Roman Catholicism.
LikeLike
vd, t, according to you, God has no enemies. Universalism.
According to me, you are an enemy of God (if you don’t trust Christ and repent of sins). I shoot pretty straight at you.
LikeLike
Kevin, “Did Latin Mass attendees get their own category?”
Sorry, that’s really lame. It’s the bishops who approved the vernacular mass and its the bishops who make Roman Catholicism what it is (magisterium, truth, and all that). It’s also the bishops who don’t teach Roman Catholics.
You are in the position of evangelicals in the PCUSA, which means, you have an incoherent argument. In 1961 your point might make sense. It’s not pre-Vat II any more, Toto.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “all that sdb could fine were the same 2 lame comments I found.” That’s two lame comments more than Pope Francis. And he talks about a lot of stuff.
Don’t hold me to a higher standard than you hold your pope, you trafficker in outrage.
LikeLike
been a helpful discussion, for the most part, and ’cept those usual personal attacks, which fortunately will never be happening later 1Cor 6:2-3
LikeLike
I currently have a situation at my professional employment where I want to perform a very simple task in order to gain what could be valuable information for a client.
It wouldn’t be against the law for me to use an anonymous email account to find out. It is a very basic and routine and harmless procedure, might even find out my info by a bounce-back of my email request.
My profession frowns upon this behaviour, the IT gurus blanched in horror at my suggestion, demanded I not do it on the company email without writing an Affidavit first.
The evidence garnered would be tossed out if it came to light that I performed this very simple and perfectly harmless procedure on the sly.
So there has to be even a higher standard as a Christian than what the rules of evidence for criminal evidence and accounting boards deem, right?
LikeLike
DG-
Kevin, “Did Latin Mass attendees get their own category?”
Sorry, that’s really lame. It’s the bishops who approved the vernacular mass and its the bishops who make Roman Catholicism what it is (magisterium, truth, and all that). It’s also the bishops who don’t teach Roman Catholics.
You are in the position of evangelicals in the PCUSA, which means, you have an incoherent argument. In 1961 your point might make sense. It’s not pre-Vat II any more, Toto.
My only “argument” (just a claim, so far) is that the traditional liturgy correlates very strongly with traditional morality. Do you have any reason at all to think otherwise?
And what’s lame about mentioning it? If anything, I would think you could co-opt it for your own purposes in describing Reformed worship or attacking the PCUSA or much post-VII Catholic worship.
The Bishops have established numerous regular Latin Mass sites. A number themselves publicly celebrate it. It is taught (usually as an option) in the seminaries. More than half of NYC-area seminarians are learning it (I know the young men in formation), and the hostility of past generations is not being passed on.
Around half of practicing Catholics in France usually attend the Latin Mass.
Sure we’ve still got liturgical-renewal-related problems, but your attempt to break the RCC in two isn’t in accord with reality.
FYI, there’s still time for the drive from Hillsdale to St. Mary, Star of the Sea in Jackson MI (12:15) if you’re interested in acquiring first-hand knowledge today.
LikeLike
@Kevin, re your comment: “I would think you could co-opt it for your own purposes in describing Reformed worship”. You are right. DGH (and crew) frequently do use that very argument, and launch it at not only the lib PCUSA but also at the more conservative PCA. To wit, that the trendiness of much of presby worship styles today ignores or softens their doctrine of the “regulative principle of worship”, which in turn begins the slippery slope to modernism/liberalism. Presby adherence to exclusive psalmody is, among other things, a safeguard against going liberal. Seems analogous to your advocacy for traditional liturgy in the Latin Mass.
LikeLike
we Reformed take full cannon shots at others in our denomination.
Seems to me Catholics just accept anyone who says they are Catholic and deem all their actions as holy and perfect just out of sheer knee jerk prejudice. There are too many variations to accept everyone automatically if you use 1% of your brain, and more than a few of you on here clearly have a brain…
We are used to this with Evangelicals proclaiming anyone that “prayed a prayer” to be an admirable public figure, even when they kind of prove they are living worse than the devil.
LikeLike
Kent, Petros, DG, Jeff, Sdb, everyone really-
Seems to me Catholics just accept anyone who says they are Catholic and deem all their actions as holy and perfect just out of sheer knee jerk prejudice.
I think there is some truth here which touches the heart of American culture and is crucially misunderstood. Might you describe it as ethnic solidarity?
Petros-
Presby adherence to exclusive psalmody is, among other things, a safeguard against going liberal. Seems analogous to your advocacy for traditional liturgy in the Latin Mass.
I very much agree, and was listening again to Covenanter psalms earlier today- such a sincere spirituality, gorgeous, it really ought to be more widespread.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 9, 2015 at 8:26 am | Permalink
vd, t, according to you, God has no enemies. Universalism.
According to me, you are an enemy of God (if you don’t trust Christ and repent of sins). I shoot pretty straight at you.
You shoot yourself in the foot with lies like this.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted August 9, 2015 at 8:11 am | Permalink
Tom,
What I’ve noticed is that two of the four Catholics posting here are remarkably uncareful with the truth. How not careful with the truth?
* You don’t do your homework.
You blasted DGH for claiming that the ninth commandment forbids lying. You stated that the ninth commandment forbids false witness, but not lying. Yet here is the CCC, to which you nominally subscribe:
2464 The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant.
You can read the rest, but will you?
* You and Webfoot both are willing to engage in logical fallacies in order to detract from DGH and others.
It is obvious to everyone here that arguing from silence is poor reasoning. Yet you both persist, even after being warned. That is rash judgment on your part.
The CCC again: 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:
– of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
– of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
– of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
* You (Tom) fail to correct the record when you are wrong. Instead, you invariably double down on even the least defensible of positions. This was true in your bizarre take on natural law, in your absurd discussion of “highly favored”, and so on.
Repent, Tom and Webfoot. Learn to love truth-telling. The Sabbath is a good day for it.
If you’re going to attempt to argue God bans undercover journalism [which by its nature requires deception], then do so. But spare us fatuousness like this, Jeff.
LikeLike
Petros, stretch.
When have I argued that exclusive psalmody is the key to conservative Presbyterianism? You wouldn’t find that in Machen.
If you want to say that Lord’s Day sanctification is important for maintaining the church’s witness here at OL, you might have a point.
But even then, it’s the BBs who argue that the PCA is tolerating feminism and abortion. OL? Not.
LikeLike
vd, t, that wasn’t Jeff’s point.
And if you’re going to argue that undercover journalism is the way to resist tyranny, try reading Aquinas. Or try reading your boy, Edward Feser:
LikeLike
I once took position #6 during a church book study on Murray’s overview of the 10 commandments. Like Captain Willard’s crew after he shot the civilian, one woman never looked at me the same way again.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “all that sdb could fine were the same 2 lame comments I found.” That’s two lame comments more than Pope Francis. And he talks about a lot of stuff.
Don’t hold me to a higher standard than you hold your pope, you trafficker in outrage.>>>
Brother Hart, with all due respect, your blog seems to be an extended exercise in misplaced moral outrage, you ol’ trafficker, you.
How about a little of that moral outrage you are famous for being directed towards the dismemberment and sale of the body parts of unborn human beings made in the image of God?
You would not have to lie to di it, even.
LikeLike
<i.D. G. Hart
Posted August 9, 2015 at 5:21 pm | Permalink
vd, t, that wasn’t Jeff’s point.
And if you’re going to argue that undercover journalism is the way to resist tyranny, try reading Aquinas. Or try reading your boy, Edward Feser:
Arguing people you reject is BS, Dr. Hart.
What your moralizing and theologizing means is that God bans
undercover journalism
undercover police work
spying to defend your country
counterspying to defend your country
counterterrorism if it involves deception
&c. Stop trolling the internet for other people’s opinions to hide behind and try defending your own point of view, which you haven’t.
LikeLike
MG, I’ve never understood that one. Seems to me tales of St. Nick fall under the same rubric as #2 and calls for a little more English on the ball. They’re called folk tales and to call them “lies to children is just plain clumsy. That some kids take them literally (and are eventually undone by the truth) doesn’t prove the folk tale is a form of lying and wrong, but rather that part of maturing is learning the difference between innocuous make believe and outright lying. Though I am partial to Norwegian Nisses:
https://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/we-need-more-norwegian-nisse%E2%80%99s-this-year/
LikeLike
Z, folk tales are stories you read to your children at bed time and everyone knows it’s fanciful. Big difference. Beyond that I’m not spending any more of my remaining time on this earth in a Santa Claus discussion.
LikeLike
@Kevin
No doubt that pockets like those who are committed to the Latin Mass will be different on many issues – similar to the difference between confessional protestants and evangelicals more broadly. But to be fair, these polls are looking at national trends and Latin Mass attenders and confessional protestants (and Eastern Orthodox) are just insignificant.
This is all really beside the point I was making though. MWF is quite hot over the fact that she perceives dgh to be insufficiently outraged and that he has the audacity to consider the implications of his 2k understanding of church on activities like using deceit (bad) to undercover despicable aspects of our society (good). My point in response to mwf’s calumny is that her outrage is misplaced – she is a recent convert from evangelicalism, and has moved from a group of people who were far more opposed to abortion to a people who are far less so (as a group). My suggestion was simply that she work at cleaning her own house before complaining about the decorations at someone else’s.
The 95% is a round number that convolves the various items you mentioned – I won’t quibble with 85-90%. I’m not sure why you think Hispanics are going to be better on these numbers than others. Latin America is to the left of us on a number the hot button sexual issues and syncretism has been a much larger problem suggesting that there are issues with orthodoxy on doctrinal matters. But then maybe those immigrating are not representative of their homelands? I do see that a huge share of immigrants are now protestant (pentecostal). I’m not sure what to think about it or whether it is a positive development. I worry that the shift in Latin/South America over the past 40yrs is akin to what the various 19th century revivals did in the US. When they burnt out, it wasn’t so good for the health of the church. But now I’m way off topic..
LikeLike
@kevin
“[kc:] Would you consider Reformed someone who similarly denied defined fundamentals?”
Well I’m not sure there analogy quite works… it is like asking who is really conservative. Is Andrew Sullivan a conservative? These kinds of discussions always strike me as somehow pointless. Now if you want to ask who is a member of the GOP? Or who is a member of the PCA? Or what would one have to deny to be denying something fundamental that would bring one up on charges, that is something that is answerable.
I posted the membership vows for the PCA in the other thread. I think these are helpful to an extent, and you’ll notice that there is nothing like the requirement that comes with joining the RCC that one believe all that the church teaches. To be an officer in the PCA (and I think to be reformed in any meaningful sense), one would have to hold to the westminster confession & catechism or three forms of unity (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dordt). I hear that there are differences between these, but I find them really quite subtle and haven’t found anything that I couldn’t affirm in both.
It gets confusing, as you’ll hear Baptists talk about being “reformed” Baptists. Generally what they mean is that they hold to the soteriology summarized in the canons of Dordt. This is a really truncated view of the reformed movement. It gets even more confusing as much of the mainline was reformed and they still officially hold to these standards (Reformed Church in America, United Churches of Christ, and the Presbyterian Church USA), but in practice they are merely museum pieces. They are descended from the reformed, but some would even question whether they are legitimately Christian at all any more (think Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism).
Does this answer you question? I’m just a layman here, so there may be officers here that could do a much better job explaining this than I do.
LikeLike
Tom,
Asking you to repent was fatuous? I’m sorry you feel that way. I thought it a worthwhile risk. “If he repents, you have won your brother.”
Someday.
LikeLike
Mermaid, maybe after you call Pope Francis.
Your move.
LikeLike
vd, t, rejecting people you cite is
fatuousthe way vd, t rolls.LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 9, 2015 at 9:49 pm | Permalink
vd, t, rejecting people you cite is fatuous the way vd, t rolls.
Not atall, Dr. Hart. You’re not making the narrow argument Feser is, and I doubt you even understand it.
LikeLike
Jeff is decent aka fatuous. TVHS doesn’t do decent.
LikeLike
Sdb-
But to be fair, these polls are looking at national trends and Latin Mass attenders and confessional protestants (and Eastern Orthodox) are just insignificant.
Broadly speaking, agreed. I am simply looking for Pew (and others) to provide information of use in reforming (not Reforming, of course) the RCC. Providing such data for the OPC (for example) would I think be useful for others for similar reasons. I’m also at heart a data guy, the more the better.
I’m not sure why you think Hispanics are going to be better on these numbers than others
Attendance stats seem to be a bit better (40%) than non-Hispanics. This may fade as older generations die and the younger are Americanized. With the Irish, roughly 1/3rd each left the RCC, remained faithful to it, and maintained a nominal/occasional attachment to it. They largely came to a land with a weak parish system in place, though, and much social pressure to leave the RCC.
I think it is more likely Hispanics will affirm the truths even if they don’t live by them, which would have some affect on the categories I laid out. Temporary and generational? Perhaps.
Loads of Hispanic Pentecostalists in my neighborhood. The Brazilian Protestants here are mostly Assemblies of God (they heckle our feast day processions- ‘Why do you believe that Mary nonsense? I don’t’ but cruder and in Portuguese).
Lutherans and Presbyterians (PCA) as well, not sure on the Brazilian v. Portuguese breakdown.
The only prediction here I think is sure is Benedict’s: a smaller, more faithful RCC. I admire zeal, particularly when it is addressed to fundamental internal solutions within my own RCC.
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/05/07/the-shifting-religious-identity-of-latinos-in-the-united-states/
LikeLike
sdb-
[kc:] Would you consider Reformed someone who similarly denied defined fundamentals?
[sdb:] Well I’m not sure there analogy quite works… it is like asking who is really conservative. Is Andrew Sullivan a conservative? These kinds of discussions always strike me as somehow pointless. Now if you want to ask who is a member of the GOP? Or who is a member of the PCA? Or what would one have to deny to be denying something fundamental that would bring one up on charges, that is something that is answerable.
I don’t see a significant parallel with ‘conservative’ – which to me can mean 1) a quality of mind; 2a) a tendency to affirm the importance of that quality, 2b) often with intent to influence public policy; 3) someone who calls himself “conservative.”
So you see membership in a religious body to consistent solely in whether they’ve officially signed up as long as they haven’t been crossed off the rolls, independent of personal opinions or behaviour in contrast with the tenets of their professed faith?
What if someone rejects PCA vow #1? – “Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save [except] in His sovereign mercy?” – This person says he disagrees that all are sinners, some do nothing immoral from birth to death (he himself has never committed a sin, he claims); he acknowledges that he could in principle sin, and indeed believes membership in the PCA would help them continue in perfection. If this is too extravagant, how about something more pedestrian – Jesus was 100% God or 100% man, not truly both.
I don’t have the canon law chops to make my point elegantly, but I believe a Catholic who knowingly rejects the RCC’s teachings has become (to use an old-fashioned word) a heretic – this person is no longer a part of the RCC, whether or not he calls himself Catholic, goes to Mass, receives the Eucharist, or goes to Confession yet fails to repent sincerely of error and make a commitment to amend.
He is also no longer a Catholic regardless of whether or not he is excommunicated (which is a declaration of the status one has put one’s self in, not an act that actually breaks communion; although it obviously changes how the RCC is obliged to act in response).
So it seems to me there is an analogue – the RCC gives clear requirements permitting a reasonably-accurate judgment regarding many who are Catholic-in-Name-Only. The Reformed bodies have at least some level of requirement (e.g. vows, agreement that God created the world) based on the standards you named.
A certain % of those identifying with the OPC or PCUSA are faithful to those in-common standards (or at least some basics). A remainder – it seems to me – should not be called Reformed Christians.
I think this is a better way to look at it than ‘To be consistent, the RCC should excommunicate all who don’t follow its tenets’ (when the teachings are clear and well-known) – ‘The Bishops are to be blamed for not excommunicating tens of millions of people’ (logistics?). Note that I would love to see more discipline.
LikeLike
Kevin: A certain % of those identifying with the OPC or PCUSA are faithful to those in-common standards (or at least some basics). A remainder – it seems to me – should not be called Reformed Christians.
DUH……….
haven’t you been reading what we say? We have no trouble stating that certain theological stances and lifestyle red flags are indicative one isn’t in “our camp.”
That’s how you thin out the herd. And pray for those who can be dragged out of sitting there and getting their ears tickled.
LikeLike
@ Kent:
Like I said, it’s only the third inning.
LikeLike
Fair enough, Jeff
I’ll try to live my life in a manner that doesn’t facilitate the need for this abomination, and donate to those who provide crisis care.
LikeLike
And I think I’m up to the 10,000 opinion column by liberals who for at least until the item was printed made a feint to the right but still ended up going left as they always do.
LikeLike
Another problem with all the focus now being on PP is that technology will likely make PP and abortion clinics obsolete in a few years. Abortion pills will be readily available over-the-counter and legal. I wonder if those who protest clinics have thought ahead to what their strategy will be when that occurs.
LikeLike
Kent –
[Kevin:] A certain % of those identifying with the OPC or PCUSA are faithful to those in-common standards (or at least some basics). A remainder – it seems to me – should not be called Reformed Christians.
[Kent:] DUH………. haven’t you been reading what we say? We have no trouble stating that certain theological stances and lifestyle red flags are indicative one isn’t in “our camp.” That’s how you thin out the herd. And pray for those who can be dragged out of sitting there and getting their ears tickled.
Just trying to ensure a clear understanding- does your statement reflect the same position Sdb enunciated and which I was responding to?
Take the case of someone who is officially a member of (e.g.) the PCA- attends, affirms the vows, but holds incommensurate beliefs (God did not create the world, Jesus was 100% man, it is possible that I personally have committed no sin at all). If this person is not by some key criterion “Reformed,” aren’t they more properly Reformed-in-Name-Only? Shouldn’t statistical discussions account for this?
E.g., are there more Reformed Christians in the OPC than the PCUSA in the sense of being faithful to the standards of the Reformed faith?
This is analagous, I argue, with a Catholic who says the RCC is incorrect regarding abortion, the Real Presence, or indeed the same incommensurate beliefs just listed in the PCA case above. I don’t see how rejecting known required teachings permits one to maintain “Catholic” as a self-identifier, despite other ostensible indicators of communion (listed in my prior comments).
I think it would help discussions if we acknowledge “Catholics-in-Name-Only” (“cultural Catholics”) aren’t in any meaningful sense Catholic. Likewise PCUSA members who have departed from the Reformed faith, if you like.
And wouldn’t there also be value in being able to tabulate the individuals across denominations who count as ‘faithful Reformed Christians’?
LikeLike
Kevin, the report that took all weekend is signed and delivered, let me try a Zapruder effect on your post, looks like it will be worthwhile, while I decompress…
Kevin: Take the case of someone who is officially a member of (e.g.) the PCA- attends, affirms the vows, but holds incommensurate beliefs (God did not create the world, Jesus was 100% man, it is possible that I personally have committed no sin at all). If this person is not by some key criterion “Reformed,” aren’t they more properly Reformed-in-Name-Only? Shouldn’t statistical discussions account for this?
Me: The PCA is a part of NAPARC, which I will accept has decent standards for office bearers and less for members. I believe that the PCA is the most likely member of NAPARC to have those who would severely wander off the range. They are most likely to get the ball rolling on finding officers guilty of (near) heresy, with the most reason to.
A NAPARC background in the most succinct way… the top 20 or so are in, those below have been booted or left on an ice floe or never entered the conversation… http://www.tateville.com/churches.html
I would highly doubt an officer in the PCA would publicly declare those views, it could happen though, members might hold these views, it would be exposed in any decent due diligence for office holding. If someone wigs out and loses their stated views then the mechanism is in place to get them removed, some of NAPARC would move a little quicker than others.
Kevin: E.g., are there more Reformed Christians in the OPC than the PCUSA in the sense of being faithful to the standards of the Reformed faith?
Me: We have to take it on their word and life example how their “heart” is in relation to vows taken before the church. All we can know is what we are told directly (in a personal chat), and what those given permission (explicitly or with authority of office) to speak on behalf of the denomination send out to the public (usually in well thought out statements or publications.) Non-office members (like me) are more free to fly off the handle on chats like this. Adiaphora, or areas of which honest differences are not in the heresy realm, make up most of the squabbles fretted over on the internet and real life church hassles.
I would expect that there are very few officers in the OPC that would publicly declare serious theological travesties and last very long. In terms of officers and members keeping what I would view as “critically important Reformed views of theology” I would expect the OPC has a much higher % in it than the PCUSA. Prayers and thoughts are with those in the PCUSA who are still present and holding on for whatever reason they take, it looks really bad there, with all due respect.
Kevin: This is analagous, I argue, with a Catholic who says the RCC is incorrect regarding abortion, the Real Presence, or indeed the same incommensurate beliefs just listed in the PCA case above. I don’t see how rejecting known required teachings permits one to maintain “Catholic” as a self-identifier, despite other ostensible indicators of communion (listed in my prior comments).
Me: We both know the RCC fails in allowing people to continue playing the “RCC card” when they clearly do not have any “religious” bearing in their life at all, even to the point of committing the worst of atrocities.
(I’m going out on a limb when I say that) I fully believe there are members of the RCC who have a justifying faith in Jesus Christ. I know and knew a few personally, and have attended funerals where I mourned their death and look forward to seeing them again in glory at the Resurrection.
Kevin: I think it would help discussions if we acknowledge “Catholics-in-Name-Only” (“cultural Catholics”) aren’t in any meaningful sense Catholic. Likewise PCUSA members who have departed from the Reformed faith, if you like.
Me: It’s harder for you to do the CINO thing, good luck. For Reformed, we have jumped through hoops to earn the right to membership and many more hoops for office holding. We have a more accepted and reliable standard of “perfect pitch” in theology, even for the simplest of laymen, and higher expectations than you can honestly meet. At least we do on a site run by an officer of the OPC whom I believe holds to proper theological standards.
Kevin: And wouldn’t there also be value in being able to tabulate the individuals across denominations who count as ‘faithful Reformed Christians’?
Me: NAPARC is a rule of thumb for us, it isn’t perfect and is subject to change each year, there will always be exceptions proving the rule in every place where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name.
LikeLike
@kevin
Many would say the same thing about reformed. Are the puritans reformed? Is the Southern Baptist Seminary President Albert Mohler “reformed”, is the independent baptist preacher John MacAuthur “reformed”? What’s the criteria?
Perhaps a better analogy with “reformed” is “traditionalist”. Lot’s of folks in the PCA argue over who is “truly reformed”. In fact, “truly reformed” has become an epithet of sorts – generally understood to mean cantankerous over minutia.
I think this gets at a major difference between the RCC and conservative confessional protestant denominations. In the PCA (following the reformers), church discipline is believed to be one of the marks of a legitimate local church. If a church member were to write a book called “Why I am Presbyterian” and in it stated that he did not believe that we are all sinners, that person would be called up on charges and eventually given the boot assuming he didn’t repent. If some Baptist were to write a book called “Why I am Reformed” and in it rejected paedobaptism, the regulative principle of worship, and the presbyterian form of church government, there isn’t anything the PCA could do. I guess he would be “reformed” if he says so and other people agree…kind of like Andrew Sullivan is “conservative”. Language is funny that way.
But membership in a body that exercises discipline results makes your “as long as” above problematic. If they are allowed to remain members regardless of their behavior or personal opinions, then the church is failing in a serious way. Don’t get me wrong – none of us get it right all the time. I see it more of a difference in intent of the churches.
To be sure. But when leaders in your church (public intellectuals, theologians, clergy, Bishops) are living or teaching in open defiance of what your church teaches, there is a pretty big problem it seems to me. No one expects any body to get it right all the time, but when the overwhelming majority of your church doesn’t believe the fine print, this is a major problem.
I realize that the reality of the RCC is very different from the protestant denominations, but that is the lens through which I can’t help looking at this. The mainline presbyterian church still has the official Westminster standards on the books, but no one in the PCUSA still believes all that stuff. I’m not looking for a pure church or to separate the wheat and tares on this side of glory, but our witness in the world is severely compromised when “Christians” act publicly in our name doing things that bring shame on us. More importantly, it is bad for the souls of those who stray – discipline is meant to be restorative. I had an RC buddy in grad school who was quite proud of the fact that if you are born into it, you can believe whatever you want and still be a catholic. He didn’t think an atheist catholic was an oxymoron at all. I’m sure if he bothered to ask, his priest would have set him straight. But the reality was that he was able to come to that view while being raised in the church and had no examples in his experience of the church applying discipline towards wayward catholics. That strikes me as really sad.
I don’t think we disagree here, though we may frame this question differently because our formation in different traditions. I stand by my criticism of mwf though…it is pretty rich to be excoriated for being insufficiently outraged about pp by someone who left a religious group that was overwhelmingly prolife for one that isn’t. I get that there are all sorts of reasons that people switch and I’m not saying this makes her conversion somehow illegitimate. I am saying she should direct her ire towards her pro-choice co-congregants who are much more likely to be actively supporting the mission of pp than towards those of us who have the temerity to wonder how 2k impacts something in the news without donning sackcloth and ashes over the evil done by pp.
LikeLike
I agree with SDB that Andrew Sullivan is a good example. He always crafts his work to give 2% leeway of consideration to conservative opinion, a bone for the dog, then continues in his merry way down the non-conservative path. That fake 2% to some conservatives is more valuable than 100% true conservative views expressed by a member of the choir.
His comment on Reformed Baptists rings true. I spent a few years with them before joining a Reformed church.
LikeLike
@kevin It would in fact be quite valuable to have a rigorous breakdown on religious belief across denominations (and include various subsets of the big ones). It would require a huge sample and be ridiculously expensive which is why “born-again/evangelical” gets lumped into one group, mainline another, and catholic the other. The Eastern Orthodox get dumped into ‘other’. It would be very interesting to see the breakdown between cradles and converts. I suspect that RC converts look a lot more like evangelicals.
LikeLike
SDB, agreed the PCA would jump on heretical papers.
Other members of NAPARC would get the kindling ready for the Auto-da-fe soon to commence…
LikeLike
@Jeff Thanks for the link – I see that he has adopted “heavily edited” meme circulating which is disappointing. I don’t know about the most recent, but the first few released the entire video. I found this line particularly telling though,
I suspect that there are a lot of people who hear the shrillness of some on the pro-life side and just don’t want to be associated with them. There’s a lesson in there I think.
LikeLike
“Other members of NAPARC would get the kindling ready for the Auto-da-fe soon to commence…’
Ha!
LikeLike
Kent: Non-office members (like me) are more free to fly off the handle on chats like this.
Really. By the law of man? What about the law of the Spirit. It seemed unfortunate to call Mrs W. a ‘mental patient’ but maybe what you were actually doing was encouraging her in her always engaging her mind.
LikeLike
Ali, officers who are dispensing spiritual advice are under a lot more restriction than us goofs yakking away on the internet. And you are one of the worst goofs on here….
A mental patient is apt for someone who would state that DGH is supporting the actions of PP.
LikeLike
maybe we could just call a “trumpism” when we want here, k?
LikeLike
SDB, is there a fraction of a second measured by man to describe the tiny span of time it would take for the more conservative denominations (and we all know who they are) of NAPARC to excommunicate an officer who published that he flaty didn’t believe that God created the earth?
One Planck time tP = sqrt{hbar G/c^5} ≈ 5.4×10−44 s[2] is the briefest physically meaningful span of time.
We may see a shorter one fostered some day by the hypothetical situation described above…
LikeLike
And speaking of Auto-da-Fe, I was kind of shocked to read that the author of that novel wasn’t considered a less-than-nice man until after people once-very-valuable in his life told us what an allegedly abusive jerk he was.
I would have thought that reading the novel itself would have sufficed, but I guess nobody read it, or there are people who actually believe that a writer can put out a serious work that has absolutely nothing to do with his real self or his actual life lived or the real people he is stealing quotes and quirks from…
LikeLike
kent
Posted August 10, 2015 at 11:20 am | Permalink
Ali, officers who are dispensing spiritual advice are under a lot more restriction than us goofs yakking away on the internet. And you are one of the worst goofs on here….
A mental patient is apt for someone who would state that DGH is supporting the actions of PP.>>>>
Now, now, Kent, DGH is supporting the actions of PP. How is he doing that? By creating a huge smoke screen, obscuring the real moral issues. Not just the moral issues, but his own pastoral responsibility in the matter.
The alleged breaking of the Commandment “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” has been thoroughly discussed from every possible angle. Clearly in Scripture there is a difference between outright lying in order to cover up one’s wrongdoing and deception in order to save lives, even one’s own. There is a fine line, but there is a line.
I believe that DD did not cross that line. He certainly did not bear false witness against PP. The witness is true. He did not break any laws of the state. He is clean.
In fact, DGH provided in one of his many comments the links to where articles by well-respected Reformed teachers and leaders took the side of DD against PP. So, it is Brother Hart who is skating on thin moral ice, here. – not me, not any of the Catholics here, not some of the Reformed brethren here, and certainly not TVD.
By saying that DGH is supporting PP, that is what I mean. By being on the wrong side of this moral issue, he is tacitly supporting the side of Planned Parenthood. Here is a partial list of the weaknesses this particular elder of the OPC needs to address, but why isn’t his denomination telling him? Why does a random woman on the Internet have to tell him these things? I have no answer for that.
1. The OPC statement on abortion is antiquated, but okay as far as it goes. It is from 1972. This is a problem. Check the website.
2. Brother Hart has not openly presented an argument against the practices of PP. A few perfunctory statements is not enough. I am expected to read his mind in order to know what he is not saying as opposed to what he is saying. If I can’t do that, then I am somehow a liar. I cannot believe that is Reformed logic 101, but that is the argument Jeff laid out to me.
3. Brother Hart is either uninformed, misinformed, or he does not care what PP does because it doesn’t affect him personally.
4. The women in his congregation are left on their own to try to work their own way through the moral sewer that is our modern-day American society. Women submit, but to what?
5. Women who are suffering with PASS – look that up if you don’t know what it is – will have to go elsewhere than the leadership of the OPC – this includes Brother Hart – if they want help. What are the options? PP who tells them that their condition does not exist or it is the fault of their religion?
Now, the Catholic Church has resources and groups for women who are suffering from PASS. The OPC, not so much, unless they do and Brother Hart is not interested in directing them to that help.
So, call me crazy, but that is not the same as proving me wrong or proving Brother Hart right. Gnaw on those issues a bit and then get back to me.
The real moral issues related to PP are – and this is a short list off the top of my head:
1. Their lying to women about the humanity of the children they are carrying.
2. Their covering up the fact that often the underage children that they provide services to – read, kill their babies – are often the victims of incest or even sexual slavery. …and they do cover that up.
3. Their coercion of women, pressuring them by telling them that for whatever reason, they would not be fit mothers.
4. Their targeting of poor, minority women. Check out the stats on the abortion rate among African Americans.
5. Their sex ed program that many in our government wants implemented in our schools.
6. Their worldwide activities.
7. The very worst is their profit-making scheme. They are selling the little bits and pieces of the babies they have killed! Let that sink in.
So, yes, by saying little or nothing about the evil of PP, by focusing on the alleged moral failings of Catholicism – while his own Reformed brethren side with David D. – is the real moral insanity, here.
I am not sorry if that offends anyone.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Robert, to be clear, it is legal to use fetal body parts for research, right
Unfortunately, yes.
What PP does that is illegal is to profit from the sale of such parts, right?
Under current U.S. law, that would seem to be the case. It is also illegal to perform abortion in such a way so as to increase the quality of those parts.
Is that distinction clear to those who parade these videos?
Well, according to the written statements they provide with the videos, they seem to know that. I don’t think there is any illusion on the part of CMP that fetal tissue donation is legal. That’s why they aren’t talking just about fetal tissue donation. They’re talking about techniques to improve the quality of that tissue, haggling over what should be fixed costs, etc.
Was there outrage about the Bush administration approval of such research?
Certainly not across the board, which only proves that those who are against abortion need to be more consistent. It doesn’t say anything about the ethics of what CMP has done.
So, like I’ve said, Christian conservatives need to be more consistent and not identify their faith with the Republican Party Platform. That is exactly what 2K gets right. But I don’t see how that speaks to the specific rightness or wrongness of this action.
For what it’s worth, I was outraged when Bush did the whole stem-cell research thing.
LikeLike
@kent I used to think that the shortest possible unit of time was the moment between when a light in NYC turned green and the cabbie behind you started honking. I think you may have found a unit that would beat it!
LikeLike
SDB, reminded of a Mad Magazine issue from the 60s that gave honourable mention to the man who held the record for beeping his car horn the fastest when the light turned green, sadly the large and angry truck driver in front of the car made him the late man who beeped his horn the fastest.
LikeLike
Mermaid, please tell what we are to make of Pope Francis’ silence on this, especially since Daleiden claimed the pope as inspiration.
Your silence on that repeated question is — wait for it — telling.
LikeLike
Robert, thanks for clarifying.
LikeLike
And this is relevant how?
Well in his post he called their behavior despicable without any prompting from you. That seems pretty clear to me. Why isn’t that clear to you? You have also misconstrued what Jeff wrote to you in a rather incredible way. It is very hard to believe you are arguing in good faith.
Or the point of his post was something else entirely. I noticed he hasn’t laid out a case against the activities of ISIS, criticized our criminal justice system, or described the horrors of trafficking. Clearly he is either uninformed, misinformed, or just doesn’t care about Christians in the mideast, plight of prisoners, or plight of women in sex work. I’m sure you have a blog describing every ill in society right?
So one ruling elder (not the pastor) from one congregation muses over the implications of 2k for undercover stings that necessarily require actions that at the very least fall into a moral grey zone and at most require violation of one of the 10 commandments to pursue, and because he insufficiently criticized pp on a blog read by about two dozen people you are ready to cast serious aspersions on the character of someone. In fact you *know* that women in the congregation where he serves as a ruling elder are left on their own to work through the moral sewer that is our modern-day American society. Your arrogance is something else.
And you know that how? I’m really curious how you have developed your clairvoyant skills here. Because one ruling elder has the temerity to explore the implications of 2k on those working in a field that may require moral compromise, you *know* that there are no elders who can provide pastoral care to women who suffer psychologically following having an abortion.
Yes. The resources in your church are so effective that your co-congregants are more than 50% more likely to be pro-abortion than evangelicals over all. Do you really want to compare the quality of the pastoral counseling coming from your clergy with that of conservative prots? Every convert I’ve heard from has conceded that they converted in spite of the the scandalous state of the priesthood, but I guess any aspersion works right?
I don’t think you are crazy. I do think you are intellectually dishonest…particularly with yourself.
LikeLike
I’m way back with Jeff on p.7
The whole thing smacks of utilitarianism.
(Same with allowing cops to lie. You end up becoming the enemy to fight the enemy.)
Which is maybe why we are where we are on abortion in the first place.
Abortion is a symptom, the pragmatic fruit of, if not fornication or adultery, at least spiritual fornication and adultery, otherwise known as idolatry and unbelief.
(But hey, didn’t we have some of romanists telling us that idolatry was not that big of a deal and occasions of idolatry should not be removed?)
Way I understand it DD was willing to film abortions in order to stop abortions/stop selling baby parts. One is legal, the other isn’t.
But once the morning after pill is perfected all this will largely and arguably superfluous and the sexual revolution will continue to avoid reaping the fruit of “unwanted pregnancies”.
Which is what Todd said and cough, I said a long time ago to a charismatic romanist friend who ended up firebombing a clinic or two. Now he’s out of the pen and handing out tracts against morning after BC. And more romanist than he was before.
Da TVD?
It’s a little more nuanced than it’s made out to be. 2 K 38:14-27 for egs. and what Jeremiah told the princes he told Zedekiah.
Not everybody everywhere at all times is owed the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth.
Like you don’t really tell DG what you think of him all the time, just some of the time and fess up. That’s not really even the half of it.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted August 10, 2015 at 5:36 pm | Permalink
Da TVD?
It’s a little more nuanced than it’s made out to be. 2 K 38:14-27 for egs. and what Jeremiah told the princes he told Zedekiah.
Not everybody everywhere at all times is owed the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth.
Like you don’t really tell DG what you think of him all the time, just some of the time and fess up. That’s not really even the half of it.
heh heh
LikeLike
sdb:
I don’t think you are crazy. I do think you are intellectually dishonest…particularly with yourself.>>>>
No, actually I am neither. I think it is appropriate to ask Brother Hart and even the OPC to do a better job of communicating truth to their women, especially on the abortion issue. If I am wrong, then prove me wrong. Direct me to their women’s ministries that are specifically aimed at helping women of the OPC to work through issues they may have concerning abortion.
I know that for you guys, this is a bit of a game. You teach women to submit, which is fine. You teach women to trust their male leadership, which is fine.
What else are you teaching your women?
Go ahead and take all the pot shots at the Catholic Church you wish. She is a huge target, and easy to hit. Brother Hart said he likes a challenge. He likes asking the hard questions. Smearing the Catholic Church is pretty easy. I mean, she’s been around for 2,000 years and has a lot of history – not all of it good, not all of it bad.
When you make the target all Catholics, it is easy to evade the problems and issues in your own congregations. You can do that, but the problems remain. How do I know that there are women suffering under burdens of guilt and shame in your congregations? If it is true that 1 in 4 American women have had abortions – which is an exaggerated claim – then count the women in your congregation and divide by 4.
Even if it is 1 in 20, or 1 in 200, well do the math. What are you going to do about it?
LikeLike
b, sd, “intellectually dishonest”
ring a ding a ling!
LikeLike
Mermaid, “I think it is appropriate to ask Brother Hart and even the OPC to do a better job of communicating truth to their women.”
Pope Francis hasn’t communicated anything about PP.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 10, 2015 at 9:03 pm | Permalink
b, sd, “intellectually dishonest”
ring a ding a ling!
heh heh
D. G. Hart
Posted August 10, 2015 at 9:15 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, “I think it is appropriate to ask Brother Hart and even the OPC to do a better job of communicating truth to their women.”
Pope Francis hasn’t communicated anything about PP.
The Catholic Church has been and is the last line of defense for pro-life issues–worldwide. Your own church says little* and does nothing, Elder Hart.
_________
*The reader can judge for himself or herself. Technically this qualifies as “opposition” to abortion but pales as anything more than lip service.
http://www.opc.org/GA/abortion.html
LikeLike
MW: 2. Brother Hart has not openly presented an argument against the practices of PP. A few perfunctory statements is not enough. I am expected to read his mind in order to know what he is not saying as opposed to what he is saying.
Nope. You’ve been married long enough to know that mind-reading is a fool’s errand. If you lack information, the cure is simple: Ask questions.
Look how strained your logic is when it is turned on you: You haven’t made any arguments against lying. Should I assume you support lying?
Of course not.
MW: If I can’t do that, then I am somehow a liar. I cannot believe that is Reformed logic 101, but that is the argument Jeff laid out to me.
Nope again. If you claim knowledge that you do not have — specifically, if you claim that DGH supports Planned Parenthood without having a sufficient evidential foundation for that claim — then you are being uncareful with the truth (which is what I said) and therefore breaking the 9th (or 8th) commandment. It’s not lying per se, but it is also not fulfilling the command.
That’s not Reformed logic, that’s Catholic and Reformed logic, as I demonstrated above.
Your own catechism again:
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it.
What I am asserting about you and Tom is that you have entered into rash judgment because you are manifestly not interpreting DGH in a favorable way.
Your own church tells you to do better.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted August 10, 2015 at 9:53 pm | Permalink
What I am asserting about you and Tom is that you have entered into rash judgment because you are manifestly not interpreting DGH in a favorable way.
I meself am not being rash atall. Darryl’s making his argument on a questionable reading of the 9th commandment. He tries to drag in Aquinas and Thomist Dr. Edward Feser but the nuances appear way over his head. In the Thomist argument, deception is not necessarily lying, yet Dr. Hart doesn’t have either the patience or acuity to actually understand that distinction.
As for Mrs. Webfoot’s
it appears reasonable, if not painfully accurate. Dr. Hart expressed more [let us charitably say] bemusement at the deceptive tactics used to expose the abortionists than anything resembling moral outrage at what they’re doing, let alone acknowledging why it’s outrageous.
The only thing notable here is the numbing lack of either rigorous argument or human passion: The Hollow Men, the stuffed men…
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle : Your own catechism again:2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it.
Hmm. What is it you guys say around here… ding a ling
also,intellectual dishonesty is just a roundabout way of saying “you’re lying”. Is that what is being said of Mrs. W? Hoe about is she a ‘mental patient’?
sheesh
LikeLike
@ Ali:
I didn’t say any of that. What I’m doing is appealing to Web to do a lot better. That doesn’t imply that she’s the only one. It implies that I think there is a possibility that she might listen.
LikeLike
@ Tom:
Doubling down won’t help you here. You have made an error in judgment and reasoning, trying to interpret silence as approval. You are objectively in the wrong, just as you were objectively wrong to claim that the 9th commandment does not forbid lying.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted August 10, 2015 at 10:27 pm | Permalink
@ Ali:
I didn’t say any of that. What I’m doing is appealing to Web to do a lot better. That doesn’t imply that she’s the only one. It implies that I think there is a possibility that she might listen.
Even if true, counterattacking her instead of defending Dr. Hart rather multiplies the confusion. She nailed him bigtime.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted August 10, 2015 at 10:36 pm | Permalink
@ Tom:
Doubling down won’t help you here. You have made an error in judgment and reasoning, trying to interpret silence as approval. You are objectively in the wrong, just as you were objectively wrong to claim that the 9th commandment does not forbid lying.
I didn’t interpret Dr. Hart’s silence as approval of Planned Parenthood cutting up babies and selling them for spare parts. That’s stupid, Jeff.
LikeLike
@mwf
So you say. The evidence suggests otherwise.
LikeLike
@Ali Intellectual dishonesty is not a synonym for lying. You might read Feynman on the responsibility of the scientist first not fooling herself as an introduction to what we generally mean by intellectual honest. Critical self-reflection is an integral component of it. The refusal to do so is at the root of intellectual dishonesty.
LikeLike
I get it Jeff. You do think these things should be called out, but you withhold it mostly? James 4:17 Doesn’t it seem a little ridiculous, the precision of the sin-calling-out of this post subject , but not so much otherwise?
Sdb -Urban dictionary (understand for the average joe): Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one’s deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary. The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is a round about way to say “you’re lying”.
LikeLike
@Ali – yeah, I generally aim just a bit higher than the urban dictionary.
LikeLike
Jeff et alia-
If God has not prohibited an action, the church may not do so. – OPC member Paul Woolley on abortion
I don’t think DG supports PP. I do think the OPC is open to great criticism in including Woolley’s minority pro-choice opinion on its site. As DG is a part of the OPC, while my basic assumption is that he would be against abortion, as I think about it I realize I don’t really have adequate grounds for that belief.
Perhaps he has stated it clearly, I don’t recall- and wouldn’t think to raise the issue except for the OPC position statement.
As I see it, Daleiden and questions of ‘intellectual honesty’ are being affected by this underlying issue, which is – frankly – troubling.
LikeLike
sdb @Ali – yeah, I generally aim just a bit higher than the urban dictionary.
Sounds a bit haughty sdb, but I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way.
Don’t you think it’s good to think about that most of the population is common. The reason I mention that, eg, is a few days after it was said here that gay marriage was at least marriage -the Christian commitment ideal, I heard a young teen say that very thing, only seriously, justifying her belief. Did she get that here? Unlikely, but who knows.
LikeLike
Tom: I didn’t interpret Dr. Hart’s silence as approval of Planned Parenthood cutting up babies and selling them for spare parts. That’s stupid, Jeff.
Didn’t you? Let’s check the record.
Ah, yes. You interpreted DGH’s silence as moral cowardice and moral obtuseness. You said he was a “Pharisaical moral imbecile who loves the letter of the law more than its spirit.”
But it is true that you did not say that he approved. That was rather Webfoot, who said,
MW: You [DGH] are giving tacit support to Planned Parenthood by not saying a word against the killing of unborn children and then selling their body parts.
What did you say at that time about her words? Stupid? No, you said, She’s sure got your number.
So you didn’t say it directly, but you agreed with it. You thought it was brilliant then, but stupid now. No doubt you have reasons.
But this back and forth is silly, and I won’t continue it. I didn’t challenge you so that we could try to out-troll each other. I challenged you because I have hope that you can do much better than you’ve been doing.
For some time, you have consistently displayed anger, an incessant disparagement of anyone who crosses you, a constant need to win, and an inability to admit fault. Perhaps those things make you feel strong, but they actually make you look weak and brittle.
You would do much better to follow the lead of your own church, primarily in displaying honor to others:
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
I would like to see you and Webfoot change your relationship to this community. I would like to be able to converse with you without feeling as if I’m feeding the troll.
To that end, I appeal to you to repent. You can do much better than you have been doing.
Can’t you?
LikeLike
Ali: You do think these things should be called out, but you withhold it mostly?
I’m not sure which things you mean, but yes … there is a lot that I do not say. That’s probably true of all of us, yes?
I think abortion should be called out for what it is (a “legal kill”, in the words of Doug Pinnock), but it’s not necessary to say that here. It’s a shared assumption.
Amongst my pro-choice friends, I find that abortion discussions burn a lot of political capital, so I try to be very strategic about my statements.
On Facebook, I have spent a fair amount of time defending Daleiden with one particular individual.
Here, with regard to the question of undercover operations, I think it’s important to defend D’s freedom to resolve the conflict between his obligation to defend lives and his obligation to be honest. To that end, I think it’s most productive to discuss, question, and challenge. It’s not productive to be outraged.
At the same time, I think DGH, Zrim, and Kent have raised important questions. Does D have an actual obligation to get involved? (unstated: or is he just being a busybody?) What is the controlling principle that allows D to lie but does not allow Paul Hill to kill? Why should D have a pass to lie when other citizens in other professions must be scrupulous about the truth, even in the pursuit of good outcomes?
Those questions are directed at people who already assume abortion is a bad thing and should be stopped. They force us to ask what kind of people do we want to be, as we are pursuing an outcome that we agree is good.
Did that answer your question?
LikeLike
Jeff:
I would like to see you and Webfoot change your relationship to this community. I would like to be able to converse with you without feeling as if I’m feeding the troll.>>>>
Are you okay, Jeff? You seem to be a bit distraught. Why not calm down a bit and tomorrow we can go at this again.
You see, I have talked a lot with Reformed women online, and ex Reformed women. That was years ago. You don’t know what your women are going through, or where they are looking for help.
I don’t mean your wife, or the wives of anyone here. I assume that you are good husbands, good men, and good everything. I also assume, based on the way this discussion of Planned Parenthood has played out that you have no clue about anything related to this evil organization. No clue whatsoever. I keep asking, and keep getting stonewalled, and even called crazy.
Well, call me crazy, but I believe you are capable of something much better.
PP is anti woman, anti family, anti male, anti child, anti Christian. It is devilish. Now, the people working for PP may or may not have a full understanding of what they are involved with. Many good people get caught in their web of deception. They need Christ as much as anyone else does, and some of them have repented and even become whistle blowers.
What do you guys waste your time doing? Instead of helping to expose the evil that is PP, you spend your time bickering over whether or not DD lied, and how bad the Catholic Church is! Unbelievable!
You can do better. I know you can. Read Tim Challies’ posts about abortion, and especially his post about the horror of cutting up little unborn boys and girls and then selling their parts to the highest bidder. Let that sink in. THAT is the issue.
LikeLike
Ali
Posted August 10, 2015 at 11:52 pm | Permalink
sdb @Ali – yeah, I generally aim just a bit higher than the urban dictionary.
Sounds a bit haughty sdb, but I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way.
Don’t you think it’s good to think about that most of the population is common. The reason I mention that, eg, is a few days after it was said here that gay marriage was at least marriage -the Christian commitment ideal, I heard a young teen say that very thing, only seriously, justifying her belief. Did she get that here? Unlikely, but who knows.>>>>>
I think that the idea of gay marriage at least being marriage is common among liberals. It is an idea that is being promoted in certain circles. That is the message being fed to the culture at large.
We need to redouble our prayer army efforts, Ali, my dear sister.
LikeLike
Mrs. W,
I have an almost 30 year track record on dealing with Planned Parenthood and trying to reason with pro-choicers. You aren’t telling me anything I don’t already know.
What you *are* doing is taking a single snapshot — one blog post — and trying to read it as the whole.
That’s not what careful people do, it’s what politicos do. Which do you wish to be?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted August 11, 2015 at 1:18 am | Permalink
Mrs. W,
I have an almost 30 year track record on dealing with Planned Parenthood and trying to reason with pro-choicers. You aren’t telling me anything I don’t already know.
What you *are* doing is taking a single snapshot — one blog post — and trying to read it as the whole.
That’s not what careful people do, it’s what politicos do. Which do you wish to be?>>>>
You did not write the blog post, Jeff, so your defense of it is perplexing to me. I have asked D.G. Hart to point out where he has written on the subject of Planned Parenthood. I am still waiting.
I looked at the statement that the OPC adopted back in 1972. Are you kidding me? 1972? Time to get up to speed on this. It is fine as far as it goes, but this is 2015 and look at what is happening now?
Jeff, this is an emotional topic and discussing it online rarely leads to anything but a lot of pain and anguish. However, this post is unacceptable. To use the horror of selling the body parts of tiny little human beings who were dismembered and ripped from their mother’s wombs as a lead in to discussing the minutiae of the ethics of intelligence gathering is inappropriate to say the least.
Look at the context, Jeff. Look at the context.
This is no time to go all anti-Catholic on DD and anyone who dares to defend his actions. I applaud DD for what he did. That took courage and nerves of steel.
LikeLike
vd, t, what about “Pope Francis hasn’t spoken on PP” don’t you understand?
LikeLike
vd, t, you seem to have trouble with the obvious (are you one of those Blue State liberals who can make any moral truth go away?). Consider Feser again:
LikeLike
Mermaid, if OL is such a waste of time, why do you waste yours?
LikeLike
Mermaid, so far you have only one post that even mention’s Planned Parenthood. Way to step up.
So far, nothing about the videos or Obergefell. What makes you a moral beacon?
LikeLike
Pro-life leads to Mass (ever heard of the Mosque?):
LikeLike
I’m not really clear which thread is dealing with what at this point, but what I’m hearing is that the bakers were really repulsed about the SSM and we are all really repulsed about PP and that repulsion is sufficient to justify whatever has been done. Justifying a response based on the level of your repulsion doesn’t really qualify as ethical or social policy reasoning.
LikeLike
Repulsion reflex is not really an adult male way of dealing with pretty much anything, is it Muddy?
LikeLike
CLU, it can be cathartic, though. http://youtu.be/lxUCCRUD0TI
LikeLike
Muddy & CWU : repulsion
think it can be said the Lord can be ‘repulsed’; Result: Rev 19:15
The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate. Prov 8:13
your utube: do you really have to replay so many’s pasts
LikeLike
What were the biggest surprises of your “Human Capital” project?
The first was how easy it was to gain access to the highest levels of the Planned Parenthood organization by saying we wanted to buy their baby parts (although we didn’t phrase it quite so crudely). We said the “magic words.” It was the fast-track pathway into the heart of the abortion industry.
Another surprise was about how conflicted many abortion doctors are about the work that they do. In all kinds of ways, they rationalize or intellectualize what they do, or reframe the discussion, so they don’t have to deal with the consequences of their actions. They don’t want to deal with the valid grief and remorse they feel.
One of the abortion doctors we got to know, Deborah Nucatola, would choke up while talking about the specifics of the procedure. She’d wipe her eyes, but then move on and try to act like nothing had happened. She was not the only abortion doctor we met like that.
-David Daleiden
LikeLike
A, certainly. A righteous, holy, never-wrong God will be repulsed by just the right things in the right way. Our indignation and strategizing (ostensibly on His behalf) is always mixed with self interest, sin, even baggage from “so many’s pasts”/life experiences. His can be trusted. Ours cannot always be.
LikeLike
Webfoot doubles down on emoting.
Ali, I’m repulsed by Kardashians, Methodists, fruity beer, church ditties, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (Methodist). Would you stand with me to outlaw them all?
LikeLike
Muddy, just as evangelicals think that “praying a prayer” when you were forced to at the age of 8 means you are set for salvation even if you didn’t show any fruit the rest of your 90 years, the RCC blindly accepts that anyone who says they are Catholic must be holy and justified in every action, ESPECIALLY when people like us point out that there might be a problem here…
LikeLike
@Ali (float like a butterfly and sting like a bee?)
“Sounds a bit haughty sdb, but I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way.”
Not sure why. The urban dictionary is not a reliable source in my estimation.
“Don’t you think it’s good to think about that most of the population is common.”
?
“The reason I mention that, eg, is a few days after it was said here that gay marriage was at least marriage -the Christian commitment ideal, I heard a young teen say that very thing, only seriously, justifying her belief. Did she get that here? Unlikely, but who knows.”
Well given the much broader reach of the GCN who’s A-side (or is it B-side…I forget) argues exactly that, I doubt that a young Christian teen is reading getting that here rather than there. Particularly strange since no one has made that case (perhaps you are confusing the claim that Christian norms are now influencing ss relationships with the idea that at least ssm is marriage…perhaps a young teen still developing analytical reading skills could come to such a conclusion?). Perhaps a more likely scenario is that this young teen took the urban dictionary’s definition of marriage?
LikeLike
Mermaid, why has David Daleiden said more about PP than Pope Francis?
LikeLike
CW: the Lord accepts our tainted, corrupted hate of sin. We have Christ’s righteousness. Though there is the alternate promoted out there – since we’re still corrupted –everything is filthy rags so forget it
Muddy: Ali, I’m repulsed by Kardashians, Methodists, fruity beer, church ditties, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (Methodist). Would you stand with me to outlaw them all?
Maybe, but the list ought be complete first, then we can decide, k?
LikeLike
DG-
What more do you want than this report on O’Malley’s press statement, distributed by Radio Vaticana?:
O’Malley offered this statement within 2 weeks of the story hitting the press. Enough time to set aside what they were working on already, do due diligence on the videos, review the work of other press outlets to ensure a clear picture of what’s going on, consult with others on the USCCB pro-life committee regarding an approach, confer with Rome on the specific response, and issue an authoritative statement.
That’s pretty quick work for the USCCB and the Vatican – and an appropriate pace for an institution with a mission to teach, not report.
Francis is relying on the USCCB and American Bishops since PP is based in the US. The Pope’s role doesn’t require him to offer comments for the press. Whether it would be beneficial to do so is another question, but I don’t see the necessity.
He’ll probably speak to it in Philadelphia in this Fall, perhaps when suggesting the Statue of Liberty be renamed the Statue of Mercy.
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/07/30/cardinal_omalley_denounces_work_of_planned_parenthood/1161773
LikeLike
Ali G(irl — I believe you’re a girl, k?), nice heart reading. The OL call is to curb your enthusiasm and enhance your humility.
LikeLike
Kevin, all I’m saying is that Pope Francis is pretty glib about all sorts of news items — Armenians, Islam, climates? So why won’t he address PP directly? (and why is Mermaid busting my chops?)
LikeLike
Ali, try working smarter instead of harder, which is what your laundry list of societal woes (and personal irks) will get you.
LikeLike
DG –
Yes, Francis has adopted a style of running a bit loose at the lips (although Armenians and Islam are rather old subjects).
I suspect this is quite calculated- especially coming from Argentina, he is sensitive with regard to gov activity and popular opinion in timing statements. It would be pure speculation to try to predict what he has in mind.
If he calls and asks my opinion, be sure I’ll have a few suggestions – perhaps a la Catherine of Siena (if I can summon the strength), who wrote to the Pope of her day:
She also in her letters called the pope “my dear babbo.”
That’s the kind of RCC I want for us.
http://catholicexchange.com/fearless-and-fiery-the-letters-of-catherine-of-siena
LikeLike
@mwf
“Even if it is 1 in 20, or 1 in 200, well do the math. What are you going to do about it?”
Well I did some digging to see how the abortion rate varied by religious affiliation. Women who have an abortion and identify as catholic have abortions at a rate at about the national average 1.04. Since the rate is ~25% overall, that would mean that about 1/4 of Catholic women have had an abortion. I couldn’t find data on weekly attenders among RCs or a breakdown based on whether they attend a Latin Mass. I did notice that latina RCs have a slightly higher rate 1.2 than the national average. It seems like poverty is a major driver which may explain why the abortion rate in heavily RC countries like Brazil is so much higher than in the US. Although I’m sure it isn’t that simple. Sweden with a robust social welfare state has one of the highest rates in western Europe, so it isn’t clear that there is a magic policy bullet that will reduce the abortion rate. Even the Colorado experience that I thought showed some hope turns out to be a very flawed study. Maybe what they did worked, but the data they presented isn’t useful for making that case.
Protestants are 0.7-0.8 times as likely as the general population, but this includes all protestants. Those who identify as born-again or evangelical are about half as likely as protestants generally which means they are ~0.35-0.4. Of course born-again and evangelical protestants include most african-americans who have a much higher abortion rate than white americans. If the difference between african-americans and whites in the general population applies to evangelicals (I really think this would be an upper bound), then the rate among white self identified born-again/evangelicals would be about a third of this or about 0.1-0.2 of the national rate. This takes us to an upper bound of something like 2-5 out of a hundred among white evangelicals. Given that the average size of a church in the US is about 150 members (and the median is just 75), that means that there are something like 35-75 women in a typical church or about 20-60 adult women in a typical congregation. My understanding is that the OPC is on the small side here. Given that the upper bound on the fraction of women in evangelical churches who have had an abortion is 2-5/100 one would expect 0-3 women in your typical evangelical church to have had an abortion. Comparable to the fraction of members who may experience same-sex attraction.
This creates major pastoral challenges. It is a tough counseling problem to attend to even when you are experienced, but when it is relatively rare in your congregation such experience is likely to be lacking. When the problem is distributed it is unlikely any pastor is going to get a lot of experience dealing with these issues which means that there are few to call on to get advice when it arises. I can see why folks who have problems that are somewhat rare would be attracted to larger churches (like the Brentwood PCA church I linked to in an earlier comment) where such support services can be offered. This might have a reinforcing effect that draws these women and their families there. Of course, that comes at the expense of smaller churches which makes the likelihood that the pastors there will come across such cases and when they do will be less prepared for it (the same arguments can be made for dealing with substance abuse, ssa, rape, etc…). Common ailments in society aren’t uniformly distributed. It is a concern, but perhaps that is a good reason to have different churches with different emphases – that can serve the diverse needs of society. I guess the real lesson is that everyone needs to become a member of the OPC and then all would be well.
LikeLike
Zrim:
This creates major pastoral challenges. It is a tough counseling problem to attend to even when you are experienced, but when it is relatively rare in your congregation such experience is likely to be lacking.>>>>
Well, that lack can be remedied. Besides, if the message you send to the world is “ we don’t want no stinkin’ liberals darkening our doors” then I suppose you can cut down on a lot of pastoral problems. You can hand a “fundamentalists only allowed inside” sign at the entrance of your churches.
However, what if an abortionist repents – it does happen you know – and is looking for spiritual help. Where will she go? She will probably avoid the OPC as things are right now. You have the message of the Gospel. You have zeal for God and His Word. What is lacking?
See, it is not about condemning the abortionists, or women who have had abortions, or even anyone. I pray several times a day this prayer. :
“O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Your Mercy”.
Now, that is a Catholic prayer, so I do not expect you to pray it. I am not bragging, either, because there have been many days – too many to count – during my life that I have not given those suffering under a burden of guilt and shame because of abortion even a second thought. Too many days. Too little concern for lost sinners. I say that to my shame.
So, what do I want to do here? I don’t know. Maybe provoke, but provoke to love and good works? I hope so.
See, Calvinists are right in that every good work is tainted by sin. No good work is a perfect good work, so we rely on God’s grace. No prayer is a perfect prayer, so we rely on the Holy Spirit to translate them into heavenly language and carry them to the presence of our Father who hears the cry of His children.
We all can do better.
LikeLike
Webfoot,
However, what if an abortionist repents – it does happen you know – and is looking for spiritual help. Where will she go? She will probably avoid the OPC as things are right now.
Wait, why? The OPC can give her the gospel, and if she has counseling needs that said particular church cannot meet, she can be referred to a counselor or another church with a ministry to such individuals. This happens all the time in the Protestant world at least.
LikeLike
Robert, bearing in mind that probably very few people come in with 0% knowledge of Christianity to an OPC and start their walk and don’t look back.
The Reformed are generally disaffected Evangelical boat-people and those born into the Reformed Church, or those that go DUHHH and follow along from marriage (and nothing sinks in at all)
I have yet to meet a lot of exceptions to date…
LikeLike
KiNny, “Yes, Francis has adopted a style of running a bit loose at the lips…” Understate much? This is like saying a certain German leader had issues with those who self-identified as Semitic and that the dude had a bit of a bellicose streak.
LikeLike
Mermaid, Pope Francis has still yet to comment on Planned Parenthood:
All that charism and oral tradition for what every college coed idealizes?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 11, 2015 at 1:40 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, Pope Francis has still yet to comment on Planned Parenthood:
Has your church? If not, you’re a hypocrite.
And for the record, the Catholic bishops certainly have weighed in, so that makes you double horsespit.
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/03/catholic-bishops-call-on-senate-to-de-fund-planned-parenthood-after-it-sells-aborted-babies/
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 11, 2015 at 1:40 pm | Permalink
Mermaid, Pope Francis has still yet to comment on Planned Parenthood:
All that charism and oral tradition for what every college coed idealizes?>>>>
Let’s say I leave the Catholic Church for the OPC. What do you have to offer me? A gratuitous slam against college coeds? Hang a “college coeds not welcome here” sign on your church door. Only chaste virgins welcome here.
If I left the Catholic Church over the Pope not commenting about the videos, I certainly would not come your way. Check out the USCCB for more information, including, but not limited to the following.
Cardinal O’Malley Urges Support For Senate Bill To Defund Planned Parenthood
August 3, 2015
WASHINGTON—Federal funds should be reallocated so women can obtain their health care from providers that do not promote abortion, Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley, archbishop of Boston, said in an August 3 letter to the U.S. Senate. Cardinal O’Malley, who chairs the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, urged support for S. 1881, which would withhold federal funds from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates.
——————
Cardinal O’Malley: Planned Parenthood’s Work Reflects ‘Throwaway Culture’ Decried By Pope Francis
July 29, 2015
WASHINGTON—Cardinal Seán O’Malley, OFM Cap., archbishop of Boston and chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), responded, July 29, to recent videos showing leaders from Planned Parenthood discussing the provision of fetal organs, tissues, and body parts from their abortion clinics.
Full text of Cardinal O’Malley’s statement follows:
Pope Francis has called abortion the product of a “widespread mentality of profit, the throwaway culture, which has today enslaved the hearts and minds of so many.” The recent news stories concerning Planned Parenthood direct our attention to two larger issues involving many institutions in our society. The first is abortion itself: a direct attack on human life in its most vulnerable condition. The second is the now standard practice of obtaining fetal organs and tissues through abortion. Both actions fail to respect the humanity and dignity of human life. This fact should be the center of attention in the present public controversy.
If the Planned Parenthood news coverage has caused anyone to experience revived trauma from their own involvement in abortion, be assured that any and all persons will be welcomed with compassion and assistance through the Church’s post-abortion healing ministry, Project Rachel. If you or someone you know would like confidential, nonjudgmental help, please visit http://www.projectrachel.com.
—
Keywords: Pope Francis, Cardinal O’Malley, USCCB, Catholic bishops, pro-life, abortion, Planned Parenthood, throw-away culture, Project Rachel, post-abortion healing
MEDIA CONTACT
Don Clemmer
O: 202-541-3206
———————-
Check out Students for Life. You can find info about them on my blog.
LikeLike
Mermaid, the righteousness of Christ imputed to you by faith alone wrought by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.
That’s not too shabby. What will your outrage get you on that Great (truly) Day?
LikeLike
vd, t, try all caps and exclamation points.
LikeLike
cw : Ali The OL call is to curb your enthusiasm and enhance your humility.
cw, didn’t know there was an OL call, is that call personalized or generic? Will have to find and read the OL purpose statement
Zrim: Ali, try working smarter instead of harder, which is what your laundry list of societal woes (and personal irks) will get you.
can you explain that more, Zrim?
Mrs W. She will probably avoid the OPC as things are right now. You have the message of the Gospel. You have zeal for God and His Word. What is lacking?
1 Cor 13:1?
Zrim: if you don’t like it, go back to private life
Baronelle Stutzman is an excellent florist and has the right to continue serving us with her talent in the marketplace
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 11, 2015 at 2:33 pm | Permalink
vd, t, try all caps and exclamation points.
You’re busted again, Dr. Smarty Pants. Own it.
LikeLike
Ali, what you said was that you wanted a complete list of things that need fixing. Why not learn to live with imperfections (easier) instead of compiling lists of things to fix which will never be fixed in this life (harder)? Then again, maybe you have a point, maybe it’s easier to make those lame lists than it is to learn humility.
I actually have a lot of sympathy for Baronelle Stutzman when I listen to her side of the story. I think she had a friend who was more interested in scoring political points against her than in maintaining a real human relationship. Probably is a list maker like yourself. How’s it feel being on the receiving side of the self-righteous world changer?
LikeLike
@Kent, your comment re: “The Reformed are generally disaffected Evangelical boat-people and those born into the Reformed Church, or those that go DUHHH and follow along from marriage (and nothing sinks in at all). I have yet to meet a lot of exceptions to date…”
Would you say that the Reformed typically do not do much outreach to secular folks, or that they do it, but simply see negligible results? Any concerns in the Reformed world about your not seeing growth in actual converts?
LikeLike
Petros, it is certainly a very big weak point, no question there.
There has been a Reformed fad for the past decade, which has at least opened up the possibility for the disaffected to find out that there are people who have something useful to preach. Not sure how much longer that will go on though.
LikeLike
@mwf
1) I’m not zrim.
2) I was confessing a weakness within our tradition. Your response is duly noted.
3) I can assure you that nothing you have said here will provoke anyone to good works. Your baseless accusations, misconstrual of what we write, and refusal to own up to your errors have killed your credibility.
LikeLike
zrim: Your baseless accusations, misconstrual of what we write, and refusal to own up to your errors have killed your credibility.
That alone isn’t enough to be ignored by me, it goes far far worse. I see that name and scroll baby scroll down the page to the next contributor.
LikeLike
@Petros
Not to butt in… who am I kidding, of course I’m butting in. It’s what I do…
I think there is a lot of concern (expressed on this blog in the past) about the poor job we do holding on to our children. This is a huge concern…especially for those of us raising children.
There is also quite a bit of concern about evangelism in general (for all its flaws Evangelism Explosion did emerge from the PCA, RUF is pretty big, and church planting is a major effort). This stuff is fine as far as it goes, but there is definitely a class divide that limits our reach. In my mid-sized southern congregation, I can only think of one middle aged guy who doesn’t have a college degree. Working class/poor folks may visit, but they never stick around. It isn’t that we don’t want to be welcoming to everyone, but we obviously do a pretty poor job of it.
Not sure what the fix is – I’m glad that there are other churches that are effective here and that we have the ministry we have to professionals, but I don’t think this demographic segregation is good. Further, one of the things that shows up in the polling data is that it is the working class and poor who are dropping out of the church in droves and this is having huge effect on society. We do a lot of college ministry and it is great as far as it goes, but I do worry about the fact that the welder, truck driver, waitress, walmart greeter, etc… aren’t coming. I don’t know if any of this applies to the OPC.
LikeLike
Kent and sdb, I’m confused. Who’s speaking to whom here?
LikeLike
@Kent and @sdb, I appreciate your candor. What you describe here gives me, as an eeeevangelical, some pause about the Reformed church. Love the intellectual rigor and much of the theology, and have growing 2K sympathies, though!
LikeLike
sdb
Posted August 11, 2015 at 4:59 pm | Permalink
@mwf
1) I’m not zrim.
2) I was confessing a weakness within our tradition. Your response is duly noted.
3) I can assure you that nothing you have said here will provoke anyone to good works. Your baseless accusations, misconstrual of what we write, and refusal to own up to your errors have killed your credibility.
Odd. It doesn’t seem to bother you when Darryl does it. See above. 😉
sdb
Posted August 11, 2015 at 5:13 pm | Permalink
@Petros
Not to butt in… who am I kidding, of course I’m butting in. It’s what I do…
I think there is a lot of concern (expressed on this blog in the past) about the poor job we do holding on to our children. This is a huge concern…especially for those of us raising children.
Frankly, I don’t think it reflects badly on orthodox churches such as your own [or Catholicism]. The Old World, the tradition going back to classical Greek philosophy that made Western Civilization the world’s most advanced, was unprepared for the onslaught of the mass media, and now the internet.
As they say, at the devil’s table all things are for sale and now they’re just a click away. Easy pleasure drives out the profound, the meaningful, the good. What besets the Christian church is what besets all of Western Civilization, indeed civilization itself.
Christianity’s been around for 2000 years, it’s had its ebbs and flows. Between the First and Second Great Awakenings, there was an ebb in religious feeling. Christianity will learn to deal with the current crisis by rediscovering what’s important. It’s actually the counterfeit Christianity, the liberal Protestant mainline and of course Moralistic Therapeutic Deism–Barneyism–that is the real concern, neither religion nor non-religion that permits all and gives nothing. How do you fight nothing?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/moralistic-therapeutic-deism-the-new-american-religion-6266/
LikeLike
Petros, it is more about the good things that a church delivers, all situations have problems.
There are some there who have an interest in outreach and do it. It isn’t something that is driven on the people and trying to force them into it, unlike other area of the E-world.
After a long time in frustration over what was mindless and disrespectful drivel in church, I was quite grateful to find my current situation. I’m not sure I would recommend it for someone who wants to have a fifth-rate rock and roll show and a pointless sermon that goes 70 minutes.
LikeLike
Zrim: Ali, what you said was that you wanted a complete list of things that need fixing. Why not learn to live with imperfections (easier) instead of compiling lists of things to fix which will never be fixed in this life (harder)? Then again, maybe you have a point, maybe it’s easier to make those lame lists than it is to learn humility.
I actually have a lot of sympathy for Baronelle Stutzman when I listen to her side of the story. I think she had a friend who was more interested in scoring political points against her than in maintaining a real human relationship. Probably is a list maker like yourself. How’s it feel being on the receiving side of the self-righteous world changer?
Not sure this answers:” Ali, try working smarter instead of harder” but that’s ok. Another sheesh though. Muddy was joking right? about outlawing Donald Trump, (and who would disagree with that) and outlawing etc. and I was joking back that there is more to the list, isn’t there, I mean who could stop at fruity beer, without including some such things as prune juice and etc.
But on the serious side, and considering again Rev 19:15 previously mentioned, when Jesus rules with an iron rod, there will be some serious outlawing; in the meantime He’s given us a job – to hunger and thirst for righteousness, etc. – which He tells us has implications for what we do now.
And about Baronelle – you said if she doesn’t like her religious liberty being taken away, she should just go back to private life, but at least though you do have sympathy for her for the deprivation of her religious liberty?
LikeLike
Ali: cw, will have to find and read the OL purpose statement
found it CW… “Old Life’s aim has been to point the way back to the health and vigor of historic Reformed Protestantism.”
and re: reformed faith , I appreciate this: http://www.opc.org/WhatIsReformedFaith.html and these excerpts:
“any adequate definition of the Reformed faith must focus on doctrine. Nonetheless, merely “buying into” some abstract body of truth does not qualify an individual or a church as “Reformed.” Rather, the Reformed faith is a relationship to God, through Jesus Christ, based upon the gospel revealed by him and in Holy Scripture.” and… “A faithful Reformed church is therefore a church that is constantly striving to think and act, to believe and live, according to the written word of God. “The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error” (WCF, XXV:5). Also, some have degenerated horribly. It follows, then, that there is but one antidote to degeneration, namely, continued diligence. It is for this reason that the vows taken by ministers in the OPC include the promise “to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the gospel, and the purity, the peace, and the unity of the church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that account” (Form of Government, XXIII).”
LikeLike
sdb:
3) I can assure you that nothing you have said here will provoke anyone to good works. Your baseless accusations, misconstrual of what we write, and refusal to own up to your errors have killed your credibility.>>>>
I never had any here to begin with. Errors, or sins? What are you talking about?
If there is a weakness in your pastoral training, it is not my fault. I am just pointing it out. It is up to you decide what to do about it. You can let others worry about it, which is certainly an option.
If you let others care for these sisters who are in need of pastoral care, then do not criticize same.
Now, you have a wonderful evening, Brother sdb.
LikeLike
What is the a distinction between “the gospel revealed by him” and “Holy Scripture” ?
And what is the biblical grounding for this “relationship” ? – e.g.,
Is the relation the affirmation of the (basic) propositions of the faith once understood? A commission unto Him (to use Timothy’s phrase), a movement of the will (to use philosophical vocabularly)?
LikeLike
MW: I never had any [credibility] here to begin with.
Not so. Granted, Catholics here face a high bar. But when I interact with Michael or Cletus, I expect a tough-but-fair discussion. They may not have cachet as reliable interpreters of Scripture, but they have credibility as fair discussion partners.
In this discussion, you were manifestly unfair to DGH. His post (which I disagreed with!) had nothing to do with either supporting PP or bashing Catholics.
LikeLike
” Odd. It doesn’t seem to bother you when Darryl does it. See above. ”
Pretty sure he hasn’t confused me with zrim yet.
LikeLike
vd, t, wait. When you deny Mariology and a historic Adam, you don’t misconstrue Roman Catholicism. But when I quote Michael Sean Winters I do.
Makes sense.
On the Joker’s Wild.
LikeLike
Jeff:
In this discussion, you were manifestly unfair to DGH. His post (which I disagreed with!) had nothing to do with either supporting PP or bashing Catholics.>>>>
That is the problem. He said nothing about PP´s horrific actions, but this whole case is all about PP. He finally gave a couple of lame comments about something that I am not even sure had to do with PP. Yes, he did admit that they perform abortions.
He didn’t just call DD a liar. He called what DD did un-Christian. Look at the title of the post again, Jeff.
You know who else is calling DD a liar? Think Progress for one. Planned Parenthood another. So, I am out of line in saying that he is supporting PP when he is saying some of the same things they are saying?
However, this subject is not about me. It is not about you. It is about PP killing the unborn, cutting them into pieces, and then selling them to the highest bidder. Brother Hart is distracting attention away from the real issue. He is doing what PP is trying to do, and what Think Progress is trying to do.
What am I supposed to think?
LikeLike
MW: What am I supposed to think?
If that’s a serious question, I have some suggestions.
LikeLike
Ali, my sympathies for Baronville are in how she seems to be the victim of someone who wants to sacrifice the friendship and patronage he had with her to make some larger and rather impersonal political point. She isn’t being deprived of her religious liberty–nobody has told her she can’t maintain her faith and practice. And you seem to have missed my point that real people can get hurt when the self-righteous want to wield political clubs like Baronville’s antagonist. You get that when your side is the one clubbed but do you get it when your side is doing the clubbing? Or is that explained away as righteous anger, complete with analogies to overturning money changers tables, etc., etc.?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 11, 2015 at 8:55 pm | Permalink
vd, t, wait. When you deny Mariology and a historic Adam, you don’t misconstrue Roman Catholicism. But when I quote Michael Sean Winters I do.
Makes sense.
On the Joker’s Wild.
The point is that you screwed up again in another one of your attacks on the Catholic Church, Dr. Hart. You were harping on the Pope not talking about the Planned Parenthood horror of butchering fetuses for spare parts, but as it turned out, you were too lazy to google and find out that not only did the Catholic bishops condemn it, they called for the Senate to defund Planned Parenthood.
Your church remains silent as far as I know. You yourself remain silent except for a sentence or two that it’s “despicable,” but no call for action or even outraged protest. Nothing. Lame. Lame. Lame.
Instead you attack the Catholic Church, or the people who went undercover to reveal this outrage against human life. This you have passion for.
And yes, you are chapter and verse on liberal heretic Michael Sean Winters but have no clue about what the actual bishops of the Catholic Church are doing. That’s clueless, Dr. Hart. Either get up to speed on the Catholic Church or stop embarrassing yourself and your own church with your ignorance about it.
You just made Mrs. Webfoot and the Catholic Church look good, and made your own church and yourself look
LikeLike
“He called what DD did un-Christian”
You do understand what that means in the context of 2k right? No chance you are rashly flying off the handle with no idea what you are talking about?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle
Posted August 11, 2015 at 9:35 pm | Permalink
MW: What am I supposed to think?
If that’s a serious question, I have some suggestions.>>>>
It is a serious question. Tell me what you think, Brother Jeff. Why is Brother Hart calling DD un-Christian when the only ones who are doing that besides him and a few her on his blog are PP and Think Progress, and maybe some others who are defending PP’s actions?
I really don’t know what to think about our Brother Hart. I get it that he is anti-Catholic. He is obsessed with Catholicism, and not in a healthy way.
I will assume that you have no real answers for me, nor does DGH, nor do any of his followers. I will assume that you held back from blasting me again for whatever it is you believe I have done to our dear brother. Maybe I should thank you for that.
It is not that the question of if and when it is okay for a Christian to lie. That is a legitimate topic of debate, and has been for a long, long time. Good Christians can debate it charitably.
It is the total lack of charity shown towards Catholics on the part of DGH that I find unacceptable, and I wonder why anyone would defend his behavior here.
LikeLike
I hereby nominate TVD and Webfoot for a Bayly Award: The Calling Out of Stupid, Second Class Christians for Demonstrating Insufficient Moral Outrage and Umbrage.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted August 11, 2015 at 10:07 pm | Permalink
I hereby nominate TVD and Webfoot for a Bayly Award: The Calling Out of Stupid, Second Class Christians for Demonstrating Insufficient Moral Outrage and Umbrage.>>>
Heck, Zrim, I was about to give you guys the same award. I do not share the moral outrage and umbrage against the Pope, David D., or lying in order to save lives that you first class 2Kers show. I am in the un-Christian majority according to you guys. I am part of the un-Elect. I am just a humble Mermaid – stupid, dishonest, capable of endorsing murder even, and in need of repentance. Oh, and a superstitious idolator.
Do you have anything to add to the list? Seriously, guys, maybe you need to calm down a bit and think before you post.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted August 11, 2015 at 10:07 pm | Permalink
I hereby nominate TVD and Webfoot for a Bayly Award: The Calling Out of Stupid, Second Class Christians for Demonstrating Insufficient Moral Outrage and Umbrage.
The objection is to attacking the good guys and ignoring the bad guys, Mr. Z. Old Life: The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.
sdb
Posted August 11, 2015 at 9:58 pm | Permalink
“He called what DD did un-Christian”
You do understand what that means in the context of 2k right? No chance you are rashly flying off the handle with no idea what you are talking about?
Actually, Dr. Hart didn’t make his case for “Un-Christian” except for a questionable reading of the Ninth Commandment that doesn’t even pass fundamentalist muster.
is not the same as the full passage
Then Dr. Hart tried to enlist Dr. Edward Feser and Thomas Aquinas, but he has no idea what they’re talking about, because in their argument, deception does not necessarily equal “lying,” or “false witness.”
Dr. Hart is in completely over his head here, and is depending on his friends and theological allies such as yourself to help him spread enough fog to make his escape.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot
Posted August 11, 2015 at 10:21 pm | Permalink
Zrim
Posted August 11, 2015 at 10:07 pm | Permalink
I hereby nominate TVD and Webfoot for a Bayly Award: The Calling Out of Stupid, Second Class Christians for Demonstrating Insufficient Moral Outrage and Umbrage.>>>
Heck, Zrim, I was about to give you guys the same award. I do not share the moral outrage and umbrage against the Pope, David D., or lying in order to save lives that you first class 2Kers show.
Right back between the eyes, Mrs. Webfoot. Good for you that you didn’t cave into their bullying.
‘First class 2k-ers’ indeed. Their “moral outrage and umbrage against the Pope”–and the rest–amounts to no more than mere pissiness, which appears to be the limit of their moral, intellectual, spiritual [human] capabilities. Old Life: Pissy for Christ.
LikeLike
As I already noted and dgh confirmed, you are misreading the post. The point was not that DD was bad for doing undercover work. The thesis was that not doing it as a Christian is ok. Lying in the name of Christ not so much. The unchristian option is a riff on the benedict option…and is the option of keeping one’s secular work secular. It is not a slam on DDs tactics. Everyone else but you two seemed to get this even if most of us were unconvinced. I guess next you’ll tell me disagreeing with dgh while criticizing your shrill denunciations just makes me follower or defender…whatever.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted August 11, 2015 at 11:07 pm | Permalink
As I already noted and dgh confirmed, you are misreading the post. The point was not that DD was bad for doing undercover work. The thesis was that not doing it as a Christian is ok. Lying in the name of Christ not so much. The unchristian option is a riff on the benedict option…and is the option of keeping one’s secular work secular. It is not a slam on DDs tactics. Everyone else but you two seemed to get this even if most of us were unconvinced. I guess next you’ll tell me disagreeing with dgh while criticizing your shrill denunciations just makes me follower or defender…whatever.>>>>
sdb, please take this in the way it is meant. I love you guys. I pray for you guys. It is not easy to live in this horrible, horrible world. You are trying. It’s okay.
I just think you missed it totally on this one because of the nature of the great evil that Planned Parenthood is involved with.
2K doesn’t work here. The enormity of the evil that is PP blows 2K out of the water. It is not your fault.
LikeLike
sdb, kent-
The two of you gave me quite a lot to think about in your replies to me earlier, and I’m still mulling it over- I’m used to thinking in terms of dioceses overlaid with eastern rites and specific religious orders, as well as various Orthodox/etc. churches (in terms of communions, Eastern / Oriental / ACotE); figuring out the listing of P&R churches in particular is somewhat different (thanks Kent, very interesting).
A few quick fact questions:
What are the attendance requirements of members for the NAPARC churches? Every Sunday? Once per month? Surely at least annually? If no strict requirements, per se, what is the range of acceptable to unacceptable?
[sdb:] If some Baptist were to write a book called “Why I am Reformed” and in it rejected paedobaptism, the regulative principle of worship, and the presbyterian form of church government, there isn’t anything the PCA could do. I guess he would be “reformed”
Perhaps a better analogy with “reformed” is “traditionalist”. Lot’s of folks in the PCA argue over who is “truly reformed”. In fact, “truly reformed” has become an epithet of sorts – generally understood to mean cantankerous over minutia.
That is confusing to me – what I’d been hoping is to hear, e.g., that the 3 forms of unity are necessary to something being called “Reformed,” and that those departing from them are abusing the word. It looks like some others may look at it this way, but a minority?
So if “Reformed” is actually a very broad term, is there no clear term to indicate someone whose beliefs are those of Calvin and those Calvin would recognize as his successors? Would NAPARC churches say they are the only ones in this category aside from minorities of individuals in other groups?
I’m not trying to get into theology at the moment, just trying to be sure I’m using words and concepts correctly.
Words matter – you mentioned “traditionalist,” sdb – “Traditionalist” Catholic at its weakest still requires an overwhelming preference for the “Extraordinary Form” (1962 Latin Mass – some insist on earlier versions) and a (fiercely burning) desire for more discipline in the RCC. Others define it gradually more narrowly from meanings entirely reasonable to rather insulting, I’ll save you the details. I avoid the term, but do not mind others using it.
It is interesting to me that maintaining discipline is regarded as a mark of a legitimate church. I wish that sense of gravity were commonplace in the average Catholic parish. Of course the RCC would acknowledge that a Bishop, Diocese, congregations that lose the faith would no longer be Catholic- and this has of course happened in history.
our witness in the world is severely compromised when “Christians” act publicly in our name doing things that bring shame on us.
I would call the behavior scandalous and upsetting- it calls for fraternal correction.
I had an RC buddy in grad school who was quite proud of the fact that if you are born into it, you can believe whatever you want and still be a catholic.
Vexing, and indeed sad. In a sense (albeit non-Christian) similar to the case of many Jews, right? I think it has to do with the ethnic solidarity amongst Catholics that developed in the US – in part their rather different cultures as compared to the majority existing Anglo-American population present which required a gradual banding-together, and in part cult giving rise to culture.
But those who reject the theology and practice yet try to keep the ethnic identification are fooling themselves. Agreed there is blame enough to go around for the shepherds.
LikeLike
vd, t, how about we get up to speed on Aristotle. The U.S. bishops are A. The Pope is B. A is not B.
And if you want to say that when the U.S. bishops speak they are the pope, you have some problems with RC ecclesiology.
At OL, the Joker is not wild it’s vd, t.
LikeLike
Mermaid, lying is Christian? Talk about Jesuitical.
Please show me where I said Daleiden was not a Christian.
I think you need to buy a vowel. You’re all out of inferences. In fact, you’ve overspent.
LikeLike
Mermaid, no outrage over mortal sins? What about Roman Catholicism don’t you understand?
I get it. You’re one of those American Roman Catholics.
LikeLike
vd, t, you keep repeating this distinction between deception and lying but in fact you’re the one with the brain on drugs. Here’s Feser’s distinction:
What Daleiden did in telling PP he supported them and wanted to buy parts was not deception.
But I guess your constant slandering of me is only deception. For shame.
You don’t know the Shorter Catechism. For shame for shame.
LikeLike
#seevdtontheplaygroundbeforejoker’swild
LikeLike
Mermaid, if PP is as bad as you say, why aren’t you encouraging killing abortionists? If you can take the 8th commandment into your own hands, why not the 5th?
I think you’re full of bluster and self-righteousness. If you really believe what you say, you’d be heading for PP offices now and armed.
If you don’t think that is justified, then back the hades off.
LikeLike
I waited for you to go there first, DGH.
LikeLike
Kent, gotta love how the the reductio ad absurdum argument is so seldom necessary here – given enough rope, the usual suspects will reach absurdity with little outside help.
LikeLike
dg –
The U.S. bishops are A. The Pope is B. A is not B.
And if you want to say that when the U.S. bishops speak they are the pope, you have some problems with RC ecclesiology.
The Pope doesn’t need to comment on everything, although he has universal jurisdiction (he is a monarch). Past popes and the teaching of the RCC as a whole have made clear the moral issues and political (funding) issues involved. I can’t see the necessity of his commenting anymore than I see SCOTUS needing to rule every case of significance.
The responsibility falls first to the Bishops of the dioceses concerned – who have delegated their authority to the USCCB, who has delegated it to the pro-life committee O’Malley heads, which has appointed O’Malley to speak.
I think it accurate to say NAPARC churches have hierarchy and delegated disciplinary and teaching authority – not in this respect very different.
LikeLike
Muddy, I grew up in a fundy church where the people who railed the loudest against abortion and gays and pron turned out to be wallowing in their pet cause.
LikeLike
Muddy, during the dozens of hours spent sifting me by my church prior to membership, the pastor made it clear that if what his church had to offer wasn’t sufficient, it would make his day to help me find a place where I could be happy.
LikeLike
Kent, without being specific about anybody – yeah, it’s not unusual for people to rail against what they are most “insecure” (euphemism) about.
Your church talked to you about membership for dozens of hours? What kind of church? Not that I blame them…
Newark: no – Presbyterianism doesn’t really have a hierarchy exercised by individuals. To the extent that one can talk about a hierarchy, it goes session/presbytery/general assembly, but the same man could be in any of them. And we seldom wander outside churchly matters in the OPC. Other denoms do more with social pronouncements and the like.
LikeLike
Muddy, that NAPARC place listing Horton and Riddlebarger that can welcome a 2K believer.
Time spent with the Pastor, membership classes, membership semi-drilling of my knowledge (I was kind of already good to go at that point) added up to dozens of hours.
Let alone the years of reading and thinking as I evolved up the ladder from Evangelical to Truly Reformed…
LikeLike
Mrs. DoubleYou, there is no moral outrage against the Pope or DD to be shared. Hey, look, something in common.
TVD, so there are only good guys and bad guys in the abortion row? Don’t look now, but you’re part of the problem.
LikeLike
I fear those whitewashing the lies also don’t have much problem with the murder of those involved with abortion.
LikeLike
@Kevin
I don’t think anyone here would disagree.
The point is that this applies to bloggers and commenters here as well. The fact that dgh considers the implications of 2k for those employed in efforts that may necessarily require moral compromise (such as undercover sting videos of pp), does not entail that he must also reiterate the evil of abortion – everyone here agrees as do our various denominational statements. In other words it goes without saying. Just as it does for the pope – which was the point of invoking his silence on this matter thus far.
LikeLike
MW: MW: What am I supposed to think?
JRC: If that’s a serious question, I have some suggestions.
MW: It is a serious question. Tell me what you think, Brother Jeff. Why is Brother Hart calling DD un-Christian when the only ones who are doing that besides him and a few her on his blog are PP and Think Progress, and maybe some others who are defending PP’s actions?
I really don’t know what to think about our Brother Hart. I get it that he is anti-Catholic. He is obsessed with Catholicism, and not in a healthy way.
I will assume that you have no real answers for me…
Not understanding the assumption there. It’s not like I had a chance to jump in with answers between paragraphs 1 and 3.
As it turns out, I do have some real answers for you.
(1) DGH did not say or insinuate that Daleiden is non-Christian. This post (unlike others) is not about Catholicism. It is about whether lying can be called a Christian option. The action, not the man.
(2) sdb is correct. DGH is suggesting that if you feel the need to lie to get an undercover scoop, then you should justify that in terms of secular calling and not in terms of Christian behavior. Quoth the man:
If you took a 2k view of this and made it less religious calling and more secular vocation, perhaps you could argue that as a journalist you sometimes don’t follow all of God’s laws in order to get a story. But when you want to claim Christian standing for what you do and then violate Christian morality, that’s a violation.
The issue on the table in the post is how to classify, not whether to condemn DD. I don’t actually agree with DGHs analysis, but I understand what he is and isn’t saying.
(3) As you said, Context, context. Why is it not necessary to rehearse the (legitimate) evils of Planned Parenthood? Because a bazillion-and-one Christian bloggers have already filled that need. What’s the point in writing a Me-Too post? Just to reassure you that, yes, Planned Parenthood does evil things? We all know that.
(4) Why might it be useful to get Christians to re-examine the ethics of lying to get a story?
(a) Because in the end, we are called to judge ourselves and not those outside the church (1 Cor 5.9-13). This does not mean that we cannot recognize evil outside the church (eg, Rom 1.18-32), but rather that we should not let the bad behavior of pagans provide a cover for our own wrongdoing
And since lying is prima facie a violation of the 9th commandment, we really do need to carefully examine the ethics of lying in this case. It’s not enough to say “That’s what reporters always do.”
We need to ask the hard questions about ourselves. Why would it be OK to lie, but not to kill? Would it be OK to steal from PP? What is the controlling principle in play here?
(b) And because in the hearts of all Christians lurks the Manichaean heresy (alive and well through Walt Disney) that divides the world into Good People and Bad People. We tend to excuse wrongdoing against the Bad People because, well, they’re bad. And we learned from Disney that Bad People deserve to fall down steep cliffs, while Good People deserve to live with their true loves happily ever after. Except for Quasimodo, who is ugly and therefore doesn’t deserve romance.
I think DGHs post calls us to re-examine whether we are justifying the lie simply because PP is evil.
They do a lot of wrong … but that isn’t a reason to lie.
(If there is a reason to lie, it is that the alternative is to do nothing, which fails to protect the lives of innocents. That’s the only possible reason here)
To sum up (4), this post filled a need that the bazillion-and-one did not fill, the call for careful ethical reasoning while opposing evil. It’s really unique in that regard. Every other post I’ve seen has either focused on “PP bad” or “PP good.” This post starts with the assumption that PP is doing wrong, but then points out that not all means might be lawful.
This is one way in which a blog is different from an academic paper. If this post had been submitted as a paper, it would receive low marks for incompleteness. But as a blog post, it poses a single question in the midst of an ocean of other blog posts that are raising other issues. In other words, completeness — which is what I think you were craving — is (hypothetically) found in the blogosphere as a whole, not in any individual post. Does that help?
LikeLike
Kevin, I get that. But if PP is the abomination that Mermaid and vd, t say it is (and I’m not sure I disagree), shouldn’t the vicar of Christ speak to such horrendous evil and not leave it to the blogs?
LikeLike
Sdb, DG-
I’d been trying to keep at arm’s length from this… I would prefer to discuss what I see as a consistent Augustine-Thomas-Cath Encyc view that Daleiden’s action as well as Saving-the-Jews-from-the-Nazis-by-stating-outright-falsehood would count as genuine lies (not deception) and are therefore sins (albeit venial rather than mortal) – and as far as I can tell, I’m the only one here holding this position (perhaps DG as well, but as is often the case it’s hard to know).
[sdb:] The fact that dgh considers the implications of 2k for those employed in efforts that may necessarily require moral compromise (such as undercover sting videos of pp), does not entail that he must also reiterate the evil of abortion
Absolutely agreed on the principle. My own thoughts, offered (as much as possible) on principle as well:
I think it proper that in addition to a rational response, injustice (evil in general) should cause an emotional response. If there is a perceived error in someone’s rational response, the duty of those who see the error is fraternal correction in charity. The emotional response should still be given a level of respect via sympathy.
Some have cooler temperaments than others when it comes to such reactions. Nevertheless, we are members of society and depend upon one another, so I would suggest charity calls us to warm a bit in sympathy when someone seems to be asking for it, then dive into the correction of the perceived intellectual error.
Ridicule (to be distinguished from gentle irony or good-natured teasing, of course) is never called for with those operating in good faith – and we must always presume good faith.
I submit these as standards for behavior, standards I don’t think were consistently observed in this thread.
the evil of abortion – everyone here agrees as do our various denominational statements. In other words it goes without saying.
I had assumed this, but I was less sure after reading the OPC website statement on abortion, which seems to me to express a modified pro-life position – which from my perspective (crouched behind my desk to dodge rocks) could also be called a modified pro-choice position.
Further, Woolley’s minority statement on the site denies what I’d say are fundamental truths regarding the nature of human personhood (e.g., the nature of ensoulment).
So I don’t think it unreasonable for one commentator to not adopt “it goes without saying” on the subject. I don’t think it worthy of ridicule to suggest a modified pro-life position lends some level of support for at least some of PP’s activities. This is not equivalent to an unqualified “DG supports PP.”
DG – Kevin, I get that. But if PP is the abomination that Mermaid and vd, t say it is (and I’m not sure I disagree), shouldn’t the vicar of Christ speak to such horrendous evil and not leave it to the blogs?
He has so far left it to the bishops, not the blogs. No one is in doubt as to what RCC teachings are with regard to PP’s activities. I don’t think it matters whether he comments.
Frankly, my concern is that asking him to comment on every issue of even horrendous evil (there’s plenty in the modern world) when the RCC’s teaching is already known is that it puts too much attention on the Pope. What it means for Catholics in specific dioceses is the province of the local bishops.
But your parenthetical statement “(and I’m not sure I disagree)” is exactly, I think, what rightly has frustrated some commentators here in the context that the OPC doesn’t hold the RCC’s position on abortion- we know what the Pope thinks (is obligated to think), we don’t know what OPC Elders think.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 12, 2015 at 10:21 am | Permalink
Kevin, I get that. But if PP is the abomination that Mermaid and vd, t say it is (and I’m not sure I disagree), shouldn’t the vicar of Christ speak to such horrendous evil and not leave it to the blogs?
They didn’t “leave it to the blogs,” Dr. Hart. that’s a lie. You do exactly what they did, leave it to the bishops in the United States, a fact you continue to ignore or be ignorant of.
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/08/03/us-bishops-want-congress-to-defund-planned-parenthood/
LikeLike
Kevin, doubts run both ways when everyone knows about PP but a majority of Roman Catholics in the U.S. use contraceptives — which is also part of PP services (sinfulness?).
The OPC has a history of avoiding statements on specific social issues in order to avoid arriving of lists that encourage people to think that if they are not guilty of the listed sin, they’re good to go. Every OPC elder affirms the Larger Catechism on the sixth commandment:
Since this teaching rules out obesity and drunkenness, I’d be surprised if someone could find room in their for abortion.
LikeLike
vd, t, bishops is not pope.
Did I miss something?
Or maybe bread is physical body.
LikeLike
I can’t see the necessity of his commenting anymore than I see SCOTUS needing to rule every case of significance.
Kevin, because the loudest ex prots selling romanism have been insistent on this point. An infallible magisterium solves all the disunity, chaos and confusion of protestantism.
LikeLike
Bob S –
[kc:]I can’t see the necessity of his commenting anymore than I see SCOTUS needing to rule every case of significance.
[Bob S:]Kevin, because the loudest ex prots selling romanism have been insistent on this point. An infallible magisterium solves all the disunity, chaos and confusion of protestantism.
If only. Perhaps if discipline matched theory – but we’re humans acting in the real world, prone to error (although some centuries are better than others). I don’t think pretending the ideal is actualized when it isn’t is a good position.
As DG points out, birth control is the big one in terms of behavior, particularly as it then leads to the far greater issue of either receiving the Eucharist unworthily or giving up on being a practicing Catholic. It’s a mess.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 12, 2015 at 2:00 pm | Permalink
vd, t, bishops is not pope.
Did I miss something?
Actually, you said the pope “left it to the blogs.” That was a lie, Dr. Hart.
LikeLike
Meanwhile on another note, lemme see.
Rome and not just the Jesuits used to(?) justify lying to heretics.
Islam’s taqiyya is all about lying to infidels, which incidentally includes romanists. Hmmm.
And the political and religious right think torturing terrorists is OK.
(Eccl. 1:9, didn’t the Inquisition had something akin to waterboarding?)
Guess it’s all about who gets to define “terrorist”, not to mention the ’03 MIAC statement that included pro-lifers on the domestic terrorist list. (OK they were “militant” anti-abortionists.)
So where does all that leave us?
At what point do you become what you are fighting if whoever breaks the least of the law, has broken all of it?
The OP, as Jeff points out, says maybe you want to stay away with sanctimonious religious reasons for pulling off what DD did. From what I can tell,he’s up to his elbows in guts and gore filming abortions and part scavenging in order to stop the same.
OK, but do the ends justify the means?
Neither is sin – or salvation – so tied up with externals as romanists and anti-abortionists would like to make it out to be. IOW PP is going to be in hell with . . . . the pope and a whole lot of papists. And the morning after pill will make a lot of this go away.
But not the sin nor the sexual revolution.
Granted murder admits of no real reparation, but soul murder is no light matter either.
Much more as Todd mentioned, the
sinsexual revolution is riding high.One wonders if the #blackliesmatter bunch are really interested in going after the biggest cause of death in the black community, PP, Kermit Gosnell etc. It’s much easier to blame whitey and the Confederate flag than stopping the baby daddy/mama merry go round fueling the PP bazaar and crematorium.
Likewise ahem, nonblacks. Abortion is convenient like (illegal) immigration, so it’s OK to be against it, but let’s not really do anything about it, as per the Repuglicans who have controlled the Hill before and did nothing.
The long slow hard work of the church and Christians, preaching the gospel and running crisis pregnancy/adoptions centers does not make for good headlines/fundraising.
LikeLike
I don’t think pretending the ideal is actualized when it isn’t is a good position.
Your mission
impossibleKevin, is to take that up with Bryan, Jase and the rest of the gang over at Called toConfusionCommunion.Trust me. They would love to hear from you.
LikeLike
vd, t you lied when you said the pope spoke about PP.
Fun, isn’t it?
LikeLike
DG-
The OPC has a history of avoiding statements on specific social issues in order to avoid arriving of lists that encourage people to think that if they are not guilty of the listed sin, they’re good to go. Every OPC elder affirms the Larger Catechism […]
I see your point, and yet the quotations you provide – undeniably admirable – contain numerous specific statements. Why not add abortion if there is agreement?
But what agreement is there? I have no idea whether 15% or 95% of OPC members affirm abortion always qualifies as murder.
If an individual commenter is upset that a specific Elder may hold a non-100% prolife position (it is always murder and ought to be illegal), the official statements of the OPC are mum on the issue, the Elder hasn’t unequivocally stated his position, and the commenter believes said position is the only bulwark for ending a “horrendous evil,” I can’t condemn her reaction as inappropriate.
LikeLike
Jeff:
The issue on the table in the post is how to classify, not whether to condemn DD. I don’t actually agree with DGHs analysis, but I understand what he is and isn’t saying.>>>>
I understand as well, Jeff, and that is why I am not interested in 2K theology. If you like it, that’s fine. It’s a free country.
I prefer the Reformed men who actually did express moral outrage against what PP is doing. That kind of man I can respect, be he Reformed, Catholic, or even atheist. That is the appropriate human response to man’s inhumanity to man. That is the appropriate Christian response to man’s inhumanity to man made in the image and likeness of God.
There is no other Christian response, Jeff, and you had a Christian response. Your defense of DGH and your calling me to repentance is something I cannot square with the little I know about you.
Now, if you want to discuss this particular issue further, then you know where to find me. All DGH does is rail against the Catholic Church and the Pope and I don’t know what else. It is insanity, my dear brother. Add that to my list of offenses for which I must repent. 😉
I will capture your comment to me and drag it over to my lair to gnaw on.
LikeLike
Bob-
[kc:]I don’t think pretending the ideal is actualized when it isn’t is a good position.
[Bob S:] Your mission impossible Kevin, is to take that up with Bryan, Jase and the rest of the gang over at Called to Confusion Communion.
Trust me. They would love to hear from you.
Sounds like fun. You may well be right (on the first part, not the last I expect).
do the ends justify the means? […] Granted murder admits of no real reparation, but soul murder is no light matter either.
Does that mean you agree that even in the Jews-and-Nazis case, outright lies are forbidden, with only evasiveness permitted?
LikeLike
Kevin, abortion is more specific than the specificity of the Catechism. It’s a general specificity.
Sorry, we don’t have pollsters in the U.S. who ask Orthodox Presbyterians to answer questions. Just one more consequence of being the Yankees of Western Christianity — that is, Pew and others do ask RCs what they believe.
LikeLike
Mermaid, there you go fibbing again. “All I do”? I railed against men today and didn’t even bring up Christianity.
You and vd, t are hard masters. All I do is wrong.
LikeLike
@ MW:
I think I’ll retire this conversation. Final thought:
MW:
LikeLike
Well, that was a fail. IPhone: making the world a clumsier place to type.
Anyway, final thought. You said,
I prefer the Reformed men who actually did express moral outrage against what PP is doing. That kind of man I can respect, be he Reformed, Catholic, or even atheist. That is the appropriate human response to man’s inhumanity to man.
I think moral outrage is an appropriate response. You’ve just put your finger on a very 2k idea, though. All men, from Christian to atheist, should have that outrage (really, because the Law demands it). And that means that moral outrage is not a Christian response, but a human one.
Here’s the test. If an atheist can do it, it’s not a specifically Christian action.
LikeLike
Jeff may have retired but it’s worth picking up on his human point. It’s a good one, but I’ll see his point and raise a few eyebrows: Outrage is not a biblical virtue. It’s a vice. It’s derived from a loss of self-control and an indulging of self-righteousness. The Bible condemns these things and calls sinners to their opposites. Outrage helps nothing. Criticism is another matter. Would that more at least tried to understand that difference, perhaps the good they want to see would have a better chance?
LikeLike
Zrim, Jeff (retired from the previous subject or the thread entirely?),
I find Jeff’s comment quite interesting. Q for you Zrim – do you distinguish just anger from outrage? How does Christ with the moneychangers in the Temple factor in? Do you see that as something other than just anger?
Thoughts on this def?:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01489a.htm
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 12, 2015 at 2:48 pm | Permalink
vd, t you lied when you said the pope spoke about PP.
Fun, isn’t it?
I didn’t say that. You’re really making yourself look like a liar now.
LikeLike
And you’re changing the subject, trying to weasel out of the fat that you did lie, knowing full well that the US Bishops had spoken–several of us told you so. Your concern with truth is unconvincing.
TVD
Posted August 12, 2015 at 2:35 pm | Permalink
D. G. Hart
Posted August 12, 2015 at 2:00 pm | Permalink
vd, t, bishops is not pope.
Did I miss something?
Actually, you said the pope “left it to the blogs.” That was a lie, Dr. Hart.
LikeLike
DG –
Kevin, abortion is more specific than the specificity of the Catechism. It’s a general specificity.
If Sdb’s analysis of abortion prevalence in NAPARC bodies is accurate, then I suppose from the perspective of teaching the faithful it isn’t necessary to be specific. You’ve taught successfully with a “generally specific” statement rather than a… “specifically specific” one (just light teasing, Heaven knows theological vocab lends itself to unexpected formulations).
Still, Woolley’s stated position in particular (along with the notable lack of a stated position of at least one other OPC Elder) gives me (and other outsiders) pause. For what it’s worth to you (which I suspect is not much).
Sorry, we don’t have pollsters in the U.S. who ask Orthodox Presbyterians to answer questions. Just one more consequence of being the Yankees of Western Christianity — that is, Pew and others do ask RCs what they believe.
Why not send a letter to Pew requesting an analysis or raw data release tabulating NAPARC + whatever other bodies you think would be accurate? They very likely collected this info and have it sitting in a spreadsheet, and would certainly read and consider your request.
Not sure what it would look like – in the RCC case, it is a “consequence” indeed – but better dire facts than ignorance, at least if the info is put to good use.
How long can this losing streak continue and you still consider the US RCC the Yankees? Not sure how many games we have been winning for a long, long time.
LikeLike
vd, t, right, I forgot that when you write “bishops” you mean “Pope.”
LikeLike
vd, t, right, when I said the pope hasn’t spoken about PP, I meant the pope hasn’t spoken about PP.
But since you defend Daniel Daleiden the Deceiver, I shouldn’t be surprised.
LikeLike
Kevin, buck up. You have all those trophies. Just ask vd, t.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 12, 2015 at 5:24 pm | Permalink
vd, t, right, when I said the pope hasn’t spoken about PP, I meant the pope hasn’t spoken about PP.
Actually, you said the pope “left it to the blogs,” which was a lie. He left it to the US bishops, which was proper.
Your lies in a thread about lying are delicious.
LikeLike
Kevin, as I’ve already noted in these exchanges, the example Jesus’ at the temple is just so overused as ways for believers to justify being as pissed as they want to be as long as it’s over the right things. Lame.
“It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one who has not deserved it…” So does that mean God the Father was sinful to visit vengeance on Jesus? I imagine you’ll say no, but then what to do when we are caught between this fanciful definition and God’s example?
You might have Catholic definitions to justify outrage but how about these NT prescriptions for restraint? Do any of these writers sound like they’d be all for putting on the breastplate of outrage, vengeance ?
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age…
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…
Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance.
Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.
Be of sober spirit, be on the alert Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
This you know, my beloved brethren But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger…
Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.
…and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now.
Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Kevin, as I’ve already noted in these exchanges, the example Jesus’ at the temple is just so overused as ways for believers to justify being as pissed as they want to be as long as it’s over the right things. Lame.
Apologies for asking you to tread old turf, but it’s new to me.
“It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one who has not deserved it…” So does that mean God the Father was sinful to visit vengeance on Jesus? I imagine you’ll say no, but then what to do when we are caught between this fanciful definition and God’s example?
Not at all sure, I’ll meditate on this.
You might have Catholic definitions to justify outrage but how about these NT prescriptions for restraint? Do any of these writers sound like they’d be all for putting on the breastplate of outrage, vengeance ?
No, not at all.
But I take it that emotions are indicators (unwilled responses to various stimuli) which provide information enabling us to make the appropriate decision. As long as we aren’t overcome by them, they are a great help. I take Augustine to agree:
— City of God Book 9, Chapter 5: “That the Passions Which Assail the Souls of Christians Do Not Seduce Them to Vice, But Exercise Their Virtue.”
I read the second bold phrase as: “For I am not aware that any right thinking person would find fault with anger at a wrongdoer which [anger] seeks his [the wrongdoer’s] amendment’
As for the first, it advocates moderating and bridling (subjecting to reason) – not eliminating. Elsewhere in the passage she shows clearly that anger can be put to right uses.
As for the third, I probably should have just posted that and let it lie.
Perhaps we can distinguish “anger” (emotion) from “outrage” (being overcome by that emotion, i.e., denying reason its proper place).
LikeLike
“What are the attendance requirements of members for the NAPARC churches? Every Sunday? Once per month? Surely at least annually? If no strict requirements, per se, what is the range of acceptable to unacceptable?”
The westminster confession puts it this way,
On the other hand, the WCF also states,
So the take away is that Sunday worship is essential. Other church activities/holidays cannot be held binding. Unfortunately, in practice folks do not practice Sabbath observance as they ought and there is a general worldliness here. Some like to mock those of us who think this is a major problem (“Going to the mall on Sunday isn’t killing a baby!”), but I think they create a straw man here. First, there isn’t much we can do about what those who reject the gospel to begin with. Sure we can work to make the world a better place and there is a place for that. But it isn’t lasting. What we can do is call on our fellow Christians to take all of the 10 commandments so many want to see plastered everywhere taken seriously.
I would say that the WCF, WSC/LC on one hand and the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dordt on the other define normative Reformed Protestantism. To take an exception on something in these documents is to diverge from reformed Christianity. But it is not exactly the same as Catholicism – we aren’t required to “believe all that the church teaches”. I think the real complication comes from the English experience where Puritans and Baptists adopted much of reformed theology – particularly soteriology such that the distinctions can be quite subtle to outsiders. But it would be like confusing Eastern Orthodox and say Nestorians. To the typical american, it is all the same (long beards, weird rituals, and lots of incense) but of course there are important distinctions.
(as an aside, the Reformation era (especially the time of Calvin) was really quite tumultuous and there was a great deal of debate. Not everything Calvin averred made it into the confessions, so I think some reformed protestants reject the label “Calvinist”.)
Yeah, that’s a really good question. “Strict subscriptions” or “conservative confessionalist” might work. NAPARC is just north american, but in the US, yeah I would say so.
Just one last qualification to all of this. I am not expert at all on any of this. DGH is the one who wrote the history. I’m just a bumbling layman stumbling along, so my response could look very different a year from now as I learn more!
LikeLike
still though, just don’t outlaw anger altogether, right Zrim? Eph 4:26
s/b Spirit wrought motive,purpose since James 1: 20
LikeLike
vd, t, are you a 13-year old girl?
LikeLike
@mwf
I saw your comment on your other blog. I think you still misunderstand the argument here. Just as a prelude, please understand that I am not claiming that if you just understood what was being argued here that you would suddenly agree.
You wrote,
Just a few points of clarification:
1) It is not un-Christian for churches to take political positions in the name of Christ. The argument is that they should be un-Christian when they take political positions (read non-sectarian).
2) It is not horrible to take a political position, but sometimes involvement in politics requires horrible choices. Further, political action is a very blunt instrument with all kinds of unintended consequences. When people of good will and good intentions make political choices with really bad consequences, it sullies our reputation and more importantly – the gospel message. When DD does what he does in the name of Christ, I am now associated with it as a Christian whether I want to be or not. That doesn’t make him horrible. If this whole thing blows up in our face (I’m not saying it will), then the church’s principal mission of spreading the gospel is compromised.
3) The reference to the “un-Christian option” is a play on “Benedict option”. The call here is not to cast aspersion on DD as un-Christian, rather it is to suggest that he could avoid dealing with certain moral conundrums by not doing his undercover work as a Christian. The un-Christian option is a purported good thing here. Something for him to aspire to. I noted this interpretation of the post earlier in the thread. tvd was skeptical, but dgh confirmed (I got two dings) that this is indeed what he meant. Perhaps you missed that exchange. I’m not saying that you will sign on with 2k as a result of understanding him properly, but I do think it changes the nature of your criticism.
Anyway, if you go back and read the comments, you’ll see that there isn’t unanimity here. Jeff and Robert disagree with dgh. My sense is that Susan and Kevin think that DD was wrong to lie (though I may be mistaken so I apologize if that is the case in advance). I remain uncertain. On the one hand, I realize that there is a time and place for everything and it is wise to keep church a politics-free zone. Further, when people do things in the name of Christ (run a Christian restaurant, write Christian books, make Christian music, etc…) they are representing Christians. When they do things that are cringe worthy (Kincaid paintings, intelligent design books, Petra…), then we all get tarred with that brush. On the other hand, I don’t see how sinful behavior (e.g., lying) could ever be justified by simply doing it un-Christianly. This strikes me as vaguely gnostic. It seems to me that the fruit of the spirit should show forth even in our common endeavors. On the other, other hand, I think we can be overly scrupulous about the law – I guess I am a bit of a relativist and consequentialist (ugh I know). What does that mean? Well I would say that there is a hierarchy and sometimes one is justified in breaking the lesser command to fulfill for a greater cause…the ox caught in a ditch on the sabbath. That being said, we are great at rationalizing our sin so a great deal of cold-calm retrospection is in order when we think we have to commit a minor “sin” (e.g., lying) to save lives (or at least make the violators look bad).
Anyway, I don’t expect you to agree, but it would be a much more interesting conversation if you understood what was really being claimed and engaged accordingly.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 12, 2015 at 6:32 am | Permalink
vd, t, you keep repeating this distinction between deception and lying but in fact you’re the one with the brain on drugs. Here’s Feser’s distinction:
At last you did your homework on Aristotle-Aquinas-Feser, Dr. Hart, but you clearly still don’t understand a word you read about their distinction between deception and lying.
D-
You wanna try your luck with Aquinas and Feser? At the moment you’re hiding behind their skirts, even as you sneer at them.
LikeLike
sdb: it is to suggest that he could avoid dealing with certain moral conundrums by not doing his undercover work as a Christian. The un-Christian option is a purported good thing here.
a Christian becomes a pagan for some things? If it is disagreeable in one’s sight to serve the Lord all the time, choose for yourselves whom you will serve those times?
LikeLike
Perhaps we can distinguish “anger” (emotion) from “outrage” (being overcome by that emotion, i.e., denying reason its proper place).
Kevin, sure. The point isn’t that there is anything inherently wrong with anger (especially toward that which is clearly wrong). It’s that moral outrage and righteous indignation is a stickier wicket than many seem to assume, with plenty of pitfalls that the religious really should be more attuned to than it sometimes seems. But the test may be how willing one is to jump on the outrage bandwagon surrounding this particular phenomenon.
LikeLike
I think the idea here is that contra the Kuyperians, there is neutral ground. I don’t think I buy the claim that DD’s lying is OK to do as a non-Christian if it isn’t OK to do as a Christian. Like I said that smacks of gnosticism in my estimation. I do think there are things that are OK to do (serve in the military and kill opposing troops) that would not be OK to do as a private citizen and further that one should not engage in such behavior in the of Christ (this is Luther’s criticism of the crusades).
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 12, 2015 at 6:37 am | Permalink
Mermaid, if PP is as bad as you say, why aren’t you encouraging killing abortionists? If you can take the 8th commandment into your own hands, why not the 5th?
I think you’re full of bluster and self-righteousness. If you really believe what you say, you’d be heading for PP offices now and armed.
If you don’t think that is justified, then back the hades off.>>>>
You know, I promised to not post on this particular thread again, but this kind of accusation shows that you know you have lost the debate, Brother Hart. In the first place, I have answered your questions both here and on my own blog. Now you have accused me of wanting to murder abortionists.
You need to calm yourself down. You need to just admit that you are on the wrong side of this issue. You have focused on a small speck of dirt on the otherwise clean shirt of David D. and want me to ignore a Mt. Everest sized pile of blood soaked laundry that is Planned Parenthood.
I have said several times that I pray for the abortionists. I believe Christ died for them and that they can repent. I have said that is my hope for them. I do not want to see them die. I want to see them come to repentance and faith in Christ. I want them to live, and live for Christ. They are often deceived themselves into thinking that what they do is good.
I love them and what the best for them, yet you accuse me of wanting to kill them. PP is worse than what I have said it to be. So my reaction is to call them to repentance and faith in Christ. I pray for them. I have prayed for them in front of their local clinic.
I want our government to quit funding them.
What part of that looks like I want to murder them?
You are the one with bluster and self-righteousness, D.G. Hart. You need to calm yourself down and think more clearly. It is not always cool and morally courageous to be different.
After all, you were caught in a lie in your comments here. You said that Pope Francis left the blogs to do his work of condemning Planned Parenthood. Actually, he left that to the American Bishops, which they clearly did.
Are you going to admit that you lied in order to win an argument and defend your indefensible position?
LikeLike
Web, you know very well there are people who would not conspire to act or carry out violent acts, BUT they wouldn’t feel sorry if it happened, might even feel a little bit good about it, thinking those people deserved it.
LikeLike
Mermaid, R C Sproul is smarter than this. Get a clue.
If you can justify lying why not murder? If you take the law into your hand and speak falsehood for a great good, then what prevents you from doing the same with taking a life for a higher good?
This isn’t about you? It’s about a significant ethical question. And somehow with your outrage you missed thinking through the implications.
No surprise. The most earnest believers are often the most daft.
LikeLike
Mermaid and vd, t, seems like Old Life has talked about PP more than your bishops (well, yours Mermaids; vd, t’s a none):
But when you’re root root rooting for the Yankees, it’s always Sunny in Rome.
LikeLike
There was no lie. The pope has not spoken (to my knowledge) on this topic. Hence, he left it to the blogs. And the bishops, and the media, and anyone else with a megaphone.
What did you think he meant? That the pope called up Russ Douthat and asked for five paragraphs?
Lack of reading comprehension does not equate to a lie.
LikeLike
Daleiden misrepresented himself, and that’s okay (church says so):
And what of Daleiden’s deceit in acting as a journalist in a profession that uses Deep Throats, not narcs.
LikeLike
Turns out CMP bridges the schism of 1054:
Once again politics trump doctrine.
LikeLike
vd, t finally
roarssqueaks.LikeLike
So the magisterium is okay with deception but Aquinas and Augustine, not so much:
Oh the clarity that comes from Petrine supremacy.
LikeLike
Would the Vatican bring David Daleiden to trial?
LikeLike
Well, the whole undercover thing seems to have blown up in their face. Here is what the opinion-meisters have to say. So not only has there been virtually no progress on defunding planned parenthood, but planned parenthood comes out looking like the *victim*. The pro-life movement has made a great deal of progress since 1990 – is to too much to wonder why these guys seem determined to undermine all that. If only they had done that in their own name rather than dragging their fellow Christians along for the ride….
LikeLike
Even though conservative Christians love David Daleiden, God hates deceit:
LikeLike
See?
LikeLike