What a shame to the name of Christ, what Sen. Obama has done this time (video), publicly:
(HT: Justin Taylor)
It is one thing to claim that the state is not given the authority to forbid infants from being killed for non-therapeutic reasons. It’s quite another to claim that to kill infants in this way is a (moral) right such that
I will not yield, and Planned Parenthood will not yield.
If the senator professes Christ, then whether it’s many or few Christians who believe that profession, what he does and does not do will affect the way people view God, like it or not. I don’t believe he’s likely to change his position. If you think he will, perhaps you want to watch the video again.
I’m just as tired as the senator of arguing about “divisive issues”, but I will not stop at the cost of acquiescing to a detestable position. “Common sense”? Whose common sense? And if something is the reality of events, what about the reality of what is right and what is wrong? I cannot say this for non-believers, but for followers of Christ, the former must hang upon the latter. Yet one moment Sen. Obama speaks of the reality, and the next moment he talks about what should be and “what America might be”.
Will he accuse his opponents of not being in touch with reality? Everyone, or nearly everyone, has a conception, whether explicit or not, of what is and what should be. With talk where everything ends at “I disagree,” no one will get anywhere; the truth is, appeal to “values” held by sinful, fallible people will never get us to any decision, rendering everything into a power game where the strong bully the weak into acquiescing to their position.
What we need instead of “values” and political manoeuvring wrapped in the cloak of “science” is a true desire to know moral truth. I am thoroughly tired of, indeed disgusted by, the prevalence of fog in discussions these days, though it’s something I’d expect of the predominant influences in culture today, where people reject moral truth and hold onto power but call it “rights”. Rights my foot: talk about rights and their parameters makes sense only on the basis of purpose, authority and responsibility, whether for institutions or for individuals.
No, “abortion” is not the only important issue that happens to be in the political arena these days. Far from it. But the way I decide to act on “political issues” happens to be very much like Optimality Theory – technically a scientific paradigm and not a theory – in linguistics: that is, I have a hierarchy of constraints ranked by importance and relevance to a given decision, and there are crucial violations of the top-ranked constraints that eliminate certain output candidates (no pun intended).
If people choose to believe that having real priorities is narrow and being a “single-issue voter” necessarily means you must actually have no concerns about other things, that is no fault of mine. What can I say? Only that my conception of what must be done is incomplete without both a view of what is going on and a view of what is to be.
And so I shall use even my political choices not to save the world by politics – for that is impossible – but to proclaim God’s kingdom, just as I would proclaim God’s kingdom to a homeless lady on the street who requests a take-out box of chow mein by honouring her request. May God teach me to do all, not vaguely “for” His glory but intentionally to His greater glory. He must become greater; I must become less.