Back around the time that Justin Taylor was yet again calling attention to Calvinist anger issues, Pat Robertson made some embarrassing comments about people suffering from Alzheimer’s. No need to repeat those words here since so many made sure that so many more did not miss Robertson’s embarrassment.
What is noteworthy about the recent Robertson kerfuffle, especially from the perspective that sees sappiness afflicting evangelicals, is discerning what prompts sunny-side up bloggers at the Gospel Coalition to exchange a happy-faced button for one with a frown. Since Justin linked to Russell Moore’s piece on Robertson for Christianity Today, we have one example. Since Justin also went on record against Rob Bell even before he had read the book on hell, we have another. And then we have the posts about angry Calvinists.
That tallies up to Pat Robertson, Rob Bell, and angry Calvinists as all worthy of Gospel Coalition opposition. If I do my math aright, that means that TGC is against extremism and for moderation (read: nice). My calculations may be off. But I’m reasonably confident of my findings.
Which is why I would find more instruction from TGC bloggers and writers if they took on not so easy targets, that is, if they could show discernment in situations requiring tough calls rather than simply condemning what is obviously worthy of condemnation. (What makes Downfall a great movie is that Hitler and the Nazis emerge as three-dimensional figures.) Do they not see that even the good guys sometimes are wrong? And do they not see that you might help out the good guys not by linking to their latest inspiring video but by actually criticizing said guy of goodness when he goes bad.
To that end, I have an instance of good evangelicals going off the rails in ways that surely would have benefitted from a court room more than an echo chamber. It’s from a while ago, so it is of no real relevance to today’s conversations, except to note that evangelicals can be a fickle lot and in need of hectoring
What I am referring to is “A Protestant Affirmation on the Control of Human Reproduction,” a statement originally published in 1968 in Christianity Today with Carl Henry’s and Harold Lindsell’s blessing. I only know about this because one of my colleagues at Hillsdale, Allan Carlson, is coming out soon with a book on evangelicals and contraception, which is a fascinating and troubling read. Here is what the nice and orthodox evangelicals (remember, they didn’t want to be mean like fundamentalists) thought was biblically permissible and evangelically acceptable in 1968:
The Bible does not expressly prohibit either contraception or abortion;
The prevention of conception is not in itself forbidden or sinful providing the reasons for it are in harmony with the total revelation of God in the individual life;
The method of preventing pregnancy is not so much a religious as a scientific and medical question to be determined in consultation with the physician;
There may be times when a Christian may allow himself (or herself) to be sterilized for compelling reasons which appear to be the lesser of two evils;
About the necessity and permissibility for [abortion] under certain circumstances we are in accord;
The prescriptions of the legal code should not be permitted to usurp the authority of the Christian conscience as informed by Scripture;
Changes in state laws on therapeutic abortion that will permit honesty in the application of established criteria and the principles supported in this statement should be encouraged;
Much human suffering can be alleviated by preventing birth of children where there is a predictable high risk of genetic disease for abnormality; [and]
This Symposium acknowledges the need for Christians’ involvement in programs of population control at home and abroad. [quoted in The Family in America, Fall 2010]
Sometimes, even the nice guys, like the mean, wrong, and crazy guys, go off the rails.
Update: for the entire piece by Allan Carlson which includes the affirmation above, go here.
Old Life 