I took The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard to our daughter’s softball game last evening. Hey, if moms can multi-task …
In a little section titled The Incredible Power of “Mere Ideas,” Willard quotes the economist John Maynard Keynes: “I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.” Ideas inevitably work their power over time.
Ideas are the stuff of presidential speeches. As Albert Mohler observed, the president avoided dealing with the issue of abortion directly in his Notre Dame speech, because he cannot defend it. Instead of dealing with the issue directly, the president talked about talking about abortion.
“Both sides frame the issue as a question of rights – specifically a woman’s “right” to control her reproductive destiny by any means, including abortion versus the unborn child’s right to live. The weakness of the pro-abortion (or “pro-choice”) position becomes evident at this point. The claimed right of control over reproduction is not commensurate with another person’s right to live, and not be killed in the womb.” – Albert Mohler
We were summoned by the president to find the “common ground.” “Open minds. Open hearts. Fair-minded words.” And yet, by now, President Obama’s beliefs and agenda concerning abortion are clear. Even if we believed there should be “common ground” on the moral issue of our time, where would we find it?
As the most extreme pro-abortion presidential candidate in American history [and here], Obama pledged that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act if passed by Congress, radically reversing local, state, and federal laws which limit abortion and preserve life – laws like parental notification, 24-hour waiting periods, and the banning of the heinous partial-birth abortion procedure. In his first 100 days in office, President Obama has:
- Signed an executive order allowing taxpayer funding to go to international groups that promote or provide abortions.
- Opened the door for more human embryos to be destroyed for unethical stem-cell research.
- Began the process of rescinding the Bush health care provider conscience regulations.
- Lifted a seven-year ban on taxpayer funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which is linked to forced abortion programs.
As an Illinois state legislator, Obama opposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, legislation to provide legal protection for babies who are born alive during an abortion. Follow this with me …
As an Illinois state senator, Obama opposed this legislation, asserting that it crossed the line of constitutionality and “essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus.” He was saying that it was unconstitutional to require a doctor to provide treatment to a baby born alive during an abortion. The baby was to be left to die.
“We owe him the respect Scripture calls us to show all public officials. We have a duty to pray for his wisdom and for the success of his service to the common good – insofar as it is guided by right moral reasoning. We also have the duty to oppose him when he’s wrong on foundation issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and similar matters.” – Archbishop Chaput on Notre Dame and the issues that remain
He has now begun the process of reversing the health care provider conscience regulations under the Bush administration. If this comes to full fruition, it would mean that health care providers would have to provide abortion under federal mandate, even against their own conscience. As an Illinois state legislator, he claimed that it was unconstitutional to require a doctor to provide medical care to a baby born alive during an abortion. His position now will be that it will be unconstitutional for a doctor not to provide an abortion, even if it runs against their conscious. This is a most extreme position.
Is this the kind of legal and constitutional thinking for which the University of Notre Dame awarded the Honorary Doctor of Law degree to the president? The honorary doctorate is awarded to one who is a “Teacher” in that field. In the eyes of Notre Dame leadership, President Obama is to be seen as a “Teacher” of the law. The field of law should look to him for reference and guidance.
A majority of Americans are not on his side on this issue. Moral law is not on his side. American Christians are to be Christ-like in the cause of life: prayer, engaging culture in the marketplace of ideas, empowering women, crisis pregnancy work, adoption, influencing public policy. Let’s also remember that part of what it means to be like Christ is to have the voice of a prophet, speaking to the issues of our day with the heart of the Father. It’s OK to exercise critical judgment on these issues. Even if it means not being popular with all. We have to play to the Audience of One.
5 Comments
May 19, 2009 at 7:22 pm
It’s funny how the “right” is always called on to be tolerant and fair-minded. Will Obama be fair-minded and sit down with the Right to Life organization and hear their voice? Hmmm…
May 23, 2009 at 6:03 pm
For the churches that accept the current abortion legality, have these churches lost “the voice of a prophet” in their acceptance?
May 23, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Thanks for your comment … I’m convinced that churches that accept the legality of abortion have lost a true prophetic voice, at least on that issue. I know it’s possible for a church or denomination to be very conscious socially for example – feeding the poor, economic empowerment, etc. – and would have a prophetic voice on these issues. And yet if we are passive or complicit concerning abortion, we have lost an authentic prophetic voice on this most important issue.
I’m understanding “prophetic voice” to be discerning the heart and mind of God on a matter – based upon His Word, His nature, His acts – and then speaking and acting in society in harmony with God.
The conception and development of a human being within a woman. And then the intrusion of man into the womb and the destruction of that human being in the most heinous ways imaginable. A devaluing and destruction of the image of God (humanity) in the earth. An authentic prophetic voice on this issue would speak and act in harmony with God and not political correctness or the surrounding culture.
May 24, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Is a church speaking prophetically if the church condemned other churches for being “passive or complicit concerning abortion” today?
May 24, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I appreciate your question … I closed out my post on the president’s speech at Notre Dame with an encouragement for the American church to speak prophetically to the issues of our society and culture – picking up the mind and heart of God through His Word, His nature, and His acts. And then being a “prophetic voice” to our leaders and our society, a reminder that we are all accountable to a higher authority. We are to be salt (preserving influence) and light (Jesus in Matt. 5.13-16). I have no interest in condemning churches. Jesus deals with His churches personally (as in Rev. 2 and 3). I’m interested in the Amercian church not losing it’s voice in society because of political correctness.