Clinton's acceptance speech and Scriptural allusions
Robert Weiss
In listening to Clinton's acceptance speech at the DNC, I was
concerned about his use (or misuse) of Scripture. There was quote of
"without vision, the people perish," which seems to be relevant,
although I have questions about Clinton's vision [1].
But he also said: "Scripture says, `Our eyes have not yet
seen, nor our ears heard, nor our minds imagined, what we can build.'"
Now, this is not in my Bible. The closest there is comes from 1
Corinthians 2:9 which is rendered, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him."
The difference between what Clinton portrays as Scripture, and what it does
indeed say, puts what we can build in the place of what God has
prepared. I don't know if the juxtaposition of the verses is fair to
Clinton, but his mistake is ominous.
Then there was the allusion to the "New Covenant." I saw on
the monitors that served as backdrop, the bold sign, "The NEW
COVENANT." The New Covenant was sealed with the blood of Jesus. It is
not some ad campaign for an ephemeral political system. It was very
unsettling to see this phrase so misused.
Any other views on this?
en agape,
Bob
[1] It doesn't appear that Clinton's vision is righteous. He has said
that he has a "solid pro-choice ticket," that he will select a
Supreme Court nominee who will uphold RvW. He said that he will sign
the "Freedom of Choice" Act (which broadens abortion on demand). He
has actively sought the support of the gay and lesbian cadre, and will
seek to overturn the ban on homosexuals in the military. These
elements lead me to question the scope and content of Clinton's
vision.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Robert Weiss writes about Bill Clinton's acceptance speech:
> But he also said: "Scripture says, `Our eyes have not yet seen, nor our ears
> heard, nor our minds imagined, what we can build.'" Now, this is not in my
> Bible. The closest there is comes from 1 Corinthians 2:9 which is rendered,
> "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has
> prepared for those who love Him." The difference between what Clinton
> portrays as Scripture, and what it does indeed say, puts what we can build
> in the place of what God has prepared.
This is not necessarily correct.
Mr Clinton was speaking, not writing; we do not know where his quote ended.
The intention may have been to end the Scriptural quote after `imagined'; that
is, instead of quoting the Bible to talk about human greatness, he quoted the
Bible's imagery for impact. I'm a bit uncomfortable with this kind of chop-
quoting, but Christians do it all the time.
Mr Weiss also writes about Clinton's use of `New Covenant', and some other
Scriptural allusions. While I think that some of this may have been
calculated, I doubt all of it was. Both Clinton and Gore are Baptists of
some flavor (I think they are both Southern Baptists). Many Baptist churches
put a strong emphasis on memorising Scripture verses (my wife Nancy is a
walking concordance 8-). I know quite a few people who grew up with Bible-
verse flash cards, and Sunday School classes with `Sword Drills'. Some of
them speak in Scriptural paraphrases; the number of allusions to Bible
passages in daily speech can be astonishing. (My father-in-law once talked
about adding on to his house so he'd have more room, and then said he felt as
if he were `building bigger barns'. This is a single example, but I can think
of many more.)
I think we should be glad there's a candidate who can find Scripture passages
vaguely relevant to his ideas; I suspect that quite a few of them have more
dust on their Bibles than they'd care to admit.
Mr Weiss also commented on Mr Clinton's position on abortion, and his view of
homosexuals in the military. Without getting into these issues again, suffice
it to say that I believe Mr Weiss is unfairly pushing his own opinions as if
they were exactly equivalent to Christianity. As a Christian who disagrees
with Mr Weiss on both issues, I would appreciate it if we could all be less
judgemental and self-righteous.
--
As an aside, I find it strange that conservative Christians favor a candidate
whose church ordains homosexuals and has female priests (Mr Bush is an
Episcopalian). While the other candidate's denomination just voted to kick
out any church which condoned homosexuality, and refuses to financially assist
any church with an ordained woman.
It's similar to the amazement I felt in 1980. Jimmy Carter was a Baptist
Sunday School teacher for many years before he became president or even
started running, and he seriously tried to work for peace (he's the one who
got Egypt to recognise Israel). But when Ronald Reagan got elected, many
Christians called this an ideal opportunity -- even though Mr Reagan's group
(Presbyterian) has more ordained women than any other denomination, and was
working on a statement wildly revising their sexual ethics. (This report made
news several years later, and was rejected.)
So far as I can tell, what somebody says about public policy is what matters
most -- not what he does, or what he endorses and supports. When Mr Bush was
told that an active lesbian had been ordained a priest, he said "I don't
think I'm quite ready for that" -- not "I think that was wrong" or "I'm off
to the Anglican Catholics". I don't usually trust politicians much (certainly
not in this age of spin doctors and media consultants). When somebody says
that certain things are immoral, but supports a church which endorses and
supports them, I get a bit suspicious.
In fact, I think anti-abortion pro-legislation people don't really have a
presidential candidate this year. Mr Clinton said he is anti-abortion
pro-choice, and Mr Bush's actions seem to suggest that while he finds abortion
a useful campaign issue, he doesn't really care. In particular, he called the
recent Supreme Court decision a victory, even though they specifically refused
to overturn Roe v Wade. (Randall Terry had a somewhat different view of the
decision.) The President was more upset about striking down prayer at
graduation than he was about upholding abortion rights. His religious
denomination takes an official position in favor of keeping abortion legal,
and says the state should not remove a woman's right to choose -- how many of
you would remain in a church that took such a position? (Not entirely fair,
since Episcopalians tend to be very loyal.)
As I recall, he used to be pro-choice and only `converted' when he ran with
Ronald Reagan -- this makes me doubt his sincerity. (Of course, I Could Be
Wrong.)
Darren F Provine / kil...@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Politician, n.: From the Greek `poly' (`many') and the French `tete' (`head'
or `face,' as in `tete-a-tete': head to head or face to face). Hence
`polytetien', a person of two or more faces." -- Martin Pitt
Kerry Stephenson
(what happened to your old address?) I totally agree with you about
Clinton. I think the use of "the New Covenant" for the Democratic
party platform bodes ill for the future of this nation, should we be
foolish enough to accept him as president. It is my strong feeling
that God does not look kindly on the blasphemy of His Holy word, and
the politicization of the New Testament seems to my to eminently
qualify as such. I was also disturbed by the "prayers" offered at the
convention, which were more like political speeches than worshipful
submission to God--particularly the last one, which was prayed by a
Baptist minister "in Jesus' name." The prayers at the DNC were pleas
to God to let the delegates celebrate _each other_ and _themselves_,
not God. Yea the people go whoring after false Gods, puffing themselves
up:
"But know this, that in the last days, perilous
times will come:
For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of
money, boasters, proud, blasphemous, disobedient
to parents, unthankful, and unholy,
unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-
control, brutal, despisers of good,
traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure
rather than lovers of God,
having a form of godliness but denying its power.
And from such people turn away!
For of this sort are those who creep into households
and make captives of gullible women loaded down with
sins, led away to various lusts,
always learning and never able to come to the knowledge
of the truth.
--2 Tim 3:1-7
Is everybody packed?
Love INC,
---Kerry
(Standing only on the Rock
of my salvation, believing only
in the Blessed hope)
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Kerry Stephenson writes:
> I think the use of "the New Covenant" for the Democratic party platform
> bodes ill for the future of this nation, should we be foolish enough to
> accept him as president. It is my strong feeling that God does not look
> kindly on the blasphemy of His Holy word, and the politicization of the
> New Testament seems to my to eminently qualify as such.
Oh, good grief.
The word `covenant' was not copyrighted by the early Church. It is entirely
reasonable to see the relation between a president and the populace as a
covenant: "you put me in charge, this is the kind of thing I will do." Since
Mr Clinton feels that the current arrangement is defective, he wants to set up
a new one. US politicians have used "New Deal", "New Federalism", "New Dawn",
and innumerable other "New Foo" catch-phrases. I saw `New Covenant' as just
another bit of sloganeering, and I'm pretty conscious of the Scripture
twisting that goes on around us. (Next thing somebody's going to discover
that "William Clinton" adds up to 666.)
[ All those people who took "Covenant Marriage" classes at church had better
run right out and burn all the course material. Jeremiah will be at the
door any minute with a subpoena for copyright infringement, and we all know
that his Attorney has no sense of humour. ]
> I was also disturbed by the "prayers" offered at the convention, which were
> more like political speeches than worshipful submission to God--particularly
> the last one, which was prayed by a Baptist minister "in Jesus' name." The
> prayers at the DNC were pleas to God to let the delegates celebrate _each
> other_ and _themselves_, not God. Yea the people go whoring after false
> Gods, puffing themselves up [.]
And what about those graduation prayers recently struck down by the Supreme
Court? What about the prayers offered at the Republican Convention?
I fully agree that some of what was said at the DNC seemed inappropriate; I
won't attempt to tell other people how to pray, but I would have been very
uncomfortable saying everything that went by. However, I think it is short-
sighted at best to speak as if this shows some kind of moral decay in the
Democrats, while ignoring the numerous other situations where the same things
are done.
Personally, I think the "politicization of the New Testament" (which is not at
all limited to the recently-completed convention) is a direct result of too
much church-state intermixing. People who don't care about Christianity will
act as if they do, in order to be more politically popular. Religion
eventually becomes a tool or an empty ritual -- people will sit piously during
an invocation before some event, and then laugh at you for saying you believe
in Jesus was bodily resurrected.
Many Christians have tried to use public policy to further the work of the
church; one consequence of this is that OTHERS who want to influence the civil
governments will use the church to accomplish their ends. What's astounding
is that Christians who wanted to use the government complain when politicians
use the Church. "He who lives by manipulation . . ."
[ Note: I make no claim that either Mr Clinton or Mr Bush is insincere in his
religious practice. However, the temptation to put on a good appearance,
especially with added pressure from media consultants and campaign managers
and pollsters, must be hard to resist. Thinking can get muddy in the face
of temptation, and Christians must remember that WE put that temptation in
place. Whether the current crop of candidates has been so tempted is not
strictly relevant; some candidates almost certainly will be eventually. ]
Darren F Provine / kil...@gboro.glassboro.edu
"We may be able to say `This man has lied, has pilfered, has forged, has
embezzled moneys entrusted to him; and that man has gone through life with
clean hands.' But we cannot say that the former has not struggled long,
though unsuccessfully, against temptations under which the second would
have succumbed without effort. [...]
When we condemn or pity the fallen, how do we know that, tempted like him, we
should not have fallen like him, as soon, and perhaps with less resistance?
How can we know what we should do if we were out of employment, famine
crouching, gaunt, and hungry, on our fireless hearth, and our children
wailing for bread? [...]
He that hath fallen may be at heart as honest as we ... wisely are we
directed to pray that we may not be exposed to temptation." -- Albert Pike
Robert Weiss
[...]
>I was also disturbed by the "prayers" offered at the
>convention, which were more like political speeches than worshipful
>submission to God--particularly the last one, which was prayed by a
>Baptist minister "in Jesus' name." The prayers at the DNC were pleas
>to God to let the delegates celebrate _each other_ and _themselves_,
>not God. Yea the people go whoring after false Gods, puffing themselves
>up:
Amos 5:21-26 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell
in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings and
your meat offerings, I will not accept [them]: neither will I regard
the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the
noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But
let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty
stream. Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the
wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the
tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your
god, which ye made to yourselves.
Moloch (Molech) was the god of the Ammonites and Phoenicians to whom
some Israelites sacrificed their infants in the valley of Hinnom.
Clinton has been announcing his vision of America, a pro-choice
America; for whom he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law.
He has been bearing this promise of an increase in the tabernacle
of Molech as a key campaign point. Then he declares that this and
other promises are to be considered a "New Covenant." The spirit of
Molech is to be considered part of a "New Covenant."
Certainly God evaluates the sins of an individual; but God judges
nations for the corporate sins of that nation. Sodom was destroyed
for the corporate sins of the people... the Israelites, God's own
covenant people, were carried away in bondage for the corporate sins
that Israel committed. One of those sins was that they sacrificed
their children to Molech. And now, we have a man who wishes to further
our national disposition towards Molech under the banner of "New
Covenant."
I'm grieved and astonished at this level of blasphemy. God help us.
God, heal our land. Awaken us from our slumbering and our sluggishness
and cause our hearts to turn back to you. Alert us to what is going on
in the spiritual and open our eyes. God help us.
en agape,
Bob
Robert Weiss
>
>
>Robert Weiss writes about Bill Clinton's acceptance speech:
>
>> But he also said: "Scripture says, `Our eyes have not yet seen, nor our ears
>> heard, nor our minds imagined, what we can build.'" Now, this is not in my
>> Bible. The closest there is comes from 1 Corinthians 2:9 which is rendered,
>> "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has
>> prepared for those who love Him." The difference between what Clinton
>> portrays as Scripture, and what it does indeed say, puts what we can build
>> in the place of what God has prepared.
>
>This is not necessarily correct.
>
>Mr Clinton was speaking, not writing; we do not know where his quote ended.
>The intention may have been to end the Scriptural quote after `imagined'; that
>is, instead of quoting the Bible to talk about human greatness, he quoted the
>Bible's imagery for impact. I'm a bit uncomfortable with this kind of chop-
>quoting, but Christians do it all the time.
That is certainly probable. In the same vein, it is just as
probable that the Governor was only quoting the word, "eye." However,
the problem with this view is that it has Clinton inserting three
qualifiers from Scripture for what God is doing; and then taking those
qualifiers out of context for "what we can build." I'm not sure which
is more flattering to Clinton. One view is that he is misquoted, the
other view is that he takes Scripture out of context.
>Mr Weiss also writes about Clinton's use of `New Covenant', and some other
>Scriptural allusions. While I think that some of this may have been
>calculated, I doubt all of it was. Both Clinton and Gore are Baptists of
>some flavor (I think they are both Southern Baptists).Many Baptist churches
>put a strong emphasis on memorising Scripture verses
[...]
This doesn't seem too credible. This mention was not just an
off-the-cuff remark. This was the name of his platform. When Al Gore,
Jr., came on the platform, the monitors displayed in large, gee-whiz,
Harvard Graphics type impact: "The New Covenant." It had to have been
thought through before hand just to get the graphic done.
>Mr Weiss also commented on Mr Clinton's position on abortion, and his view of
>homosexuals in the military. Without getting into these issues again, suffice
>it to say that I believe Mr Weiss is unfairly pushing his own opinions as if
>they were exactly equivalent to Christianity. As a Christian who disagrees
>with Mr Weiss on both issues, I would appreciate it if we could all be less
>judgemental and self-righteous.
I don't know, sorry to say, what you mean by Christianity.
Could you amplify? Is there a moral authority in this "Christianity?"
As to the point. I was referring to Clinton's vision for
America. Mr. Clinton is in favor of further pro-choice legislation,
he is in favor of further pro-homosexual legislation. His vision is to
use legislation to increase the legitimacy, if not the practice, of sin.
>As an aside, I find it strange that conservative Christians favor a candidate
>whose church ordains homosexuals and has female priests (Mr Bush is an
>Episcopalian). While the other candidate's denomination just voted to kick
>out any church which condoned homosexuality, and refuses to financially assist
>any church with an ordained woman.
I don't think that it is a given that Bush is favored
by conservative Christians. They may vote for him, but are they doing
so because they favor him, or rather because he is the lesser of two
evils.
On another point, a pretty strong argument could be made to
show that neither candidate's views are representative of their
denomination.
en agape,
Bob
Tim King
This article uses a ridiculous example to demonstrate a point.
>Robert Weiss writes about Bill Clinton's acceptance speech:
>> But he also said: "Scripture says, `Our eyes have not yet seen, nor our ears
>> heard, nor our minds imagined, what we can build.'" Now, this is not in my
>> Bible. The closest there is comes from 1 Corinthians 2:9 which is rendered,
>> "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has
>> prepared for those who love Him." The difference between what Clinton
>> portrays as Scripture, and what it does indeed say, puts what we can build
>> in the place of what God has prepared.
<example mode ON>
kil...@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>Mr Clinton was... a bit uncomfortable with this kind of chop-
>quoting, but Christians do it all the time.
So I guess that means he doesn't have too much of an backbone for
ethics, huh?
<example mode OFF>
And, Darren, as long as we're speculating about Mr. Clinton's intentions...
So which is worse? (1) To totally misquote scripture. (2) To use a
partial bible quote, providing an appearance of scriptural basis, while
the suggestion being made is not biblical.
-Tim
--
Tim King |-_ |
Dedham, MA | -| | Make mine music!
ti...@world.std.com <> | <>
(617) 890-2929 x137 <>
Tim King
>The word `covenant' was not copyrighted by the early Church. It is entirely
>reasonable to see the relation between a president and the populace as a
>covenant: "you put me in charge, this is the kind of thing I will do."
>I saw `New Covenant' as just another bit of sloganeering, and I'm pretty
>conscious of the Scripture twisting that goes on around us.
As an isolated point, this may hold water. But consider this in
conjunction with the other scripture twisting this man's done. I
think it would be wise to keep in mind that what Mr. Clinton says
concerning the bible is somewhat less that authoritative. I would
also advise being aware of the possibility that Mr. Clinton may be
using biblical-sounding phrases to try to attract christians without
making a commitment to uphold a Godly standard.
Tim King
>One view is that he is misquoted, the
>other view is that he takes Scripture out of context.
As I didn't make this point clear in my last post, I'll say it now:
Taking scripture out of context is not "misquoting" in the literal sense;
however, it is inarguably _ misrepresenting _ scripture. In other words,
Bill Clinton made it sound as if scripture says something that it does
* not * say. Thus my question: Which is worse? To misquote or to
misrepresent?
My answer: Misquoting is a form of misrepresentation. The lack of ethics
does not lie in the act of misquoting. The lack of ethics lies in the
act of misrepresenting someone else.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Concerning my earlier remarks about Bill Clinton's speech, "there hath been
brave disputation". This article clarifies my position, discusses the use
of Biblical symbolism and wording in modern culture, considers what kinds of
things should be expected from a "Christian nation", and ends with a question
that I dearly hope someone can answer.
Firstly, let me be clearer about Mr Clinton's speech:
I didn't say that the oddball quote about "no eye hath seen"
wasn't garbage, I said it wasn't necessarily a misquote.
Maybe Mr Clinton did a lousy job of exegesis; maybe he misremembered the verse
and didn't bother to look it up; maybe his first draft made sense and his
later revisions ruined a good idea. I don't know what happened, and I don't
think anybody else here does either. I don't know which is more flattering,
and I don't particularly care: I'm not trying to make him look good.
The point is that Mr Clinton didn't invent chop-quoting; he wasn't the first
to do it, and he surely won't be the last. It's been done by Republicans and
Democrats, Christians of all denominations, non-Christians trying to ridicule
the Scriptures, and by people trying to defend/attack ( Trinitarianism |
Incarnational Theology | Unitarianism | Homosexuality | Inerrancy | Eternal
Damnation | Annihilationism | Universalism | Slavery | anything-else-you-can-
think-of ).
To act as if we are all in trouble should this particular Scripture-twisting
person become President is ridiculous. When Thomas Jefferson was President he
produced his own version of the Gospels by cutting out the parts he didn't
like and gluing the remainder together. (To see the Gospel According To
Jefferson, there is a photo in the 17 June 1983 edition of Christianity Today,
on page 18.) God didn't zap the US for electing Thomas Jefferson, and I think
Mr Clinton is much more reverent than was Mr Jefferson.
There is something that I think bears repeating: by making Christianity
available to politicians to be used as a tool, we are tempting them into sin.
We may not like it when they use our religion, but we're the ones who made it
possible and attractive. Some of the blame lies on us.
Some other comments were about "New Covenant" -- yes, it was planned ahead of
time, but so what? Mr Clinton was clearly talking about a covenant between
government and the people, not a covenant between God & Man. He sees public
office as a covenantal relationship, and he thinks the current government
coventant needs re-writing. I'm not too keen with the name collision, but it
hardly qualifies as blasphemy. Maybe he did steal the idea from the Bible
because he liked the way it sounded: realising that your past way of doing
things has to be changed. But the Bible is well-written, and people steal
from it all the time. Why does plagiarising Scripture suddenly become a
problem when Mr Clinton does it, when I've never read a single post on
Christia complaining about anybody else?
Finally, there were comments about Clinton's ideas for the future course of
the US. And again, many people are speaking as if electing Mr Clinton will
lead us down an immoral course, forsaking the US Christian Heritage.
Which heritage is that? The European invasion of the Americas and the near
genocide of the inhabitants? The dealing in human lives as property? The
continued subjugation of people with dark skin even after allowing them some
degree of self-determination? The funding of "Contras" who were trying to
overthrow their government? The overthrow of British rule by the founders of
the US? (Thomas Jefferson probably cut Romans 13 out of his Bible, which is
why Ronald Reagan didn't know about it.) Is that the Christian heritage that
we're afraid of losing?
The US Constitution, when written, specifically defended and legitimised the
practice of slavery -- their vision included the legitimacy of sin. Is that
the model of Christian Morality that we're upset about losing?
This country has NEVER lived up to Christian moral principles -- I rather
doubt that any of the politicians who have run our government ever even tried.
(Those who would like to give a counterexample are welcome to try; all you
need is a single Administration wherein nothing contrary to the Scriptures was
done or advocated by the US government.)
On a final point, it's been commented that both Mr Clinton and Mr Bush have
public policy beliefs that are not representative of their denominations. I
think this is worth some examination.
The Southern Baptists have an official statement which says that "the church
should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work". Therefore, it is
entirely possible for a Southern Baptist to believe that homosexual activity
is sinful, that unrepentant homosexuals should be ejected from church, and
still oppose anti-gay legislation. Two homosexuals living together may be
sinning, but if they aren't hurting anybody else, then it isn't the business
of government. Sin is the business of the church. Similarly, one may feel
that drinking alcohol is immoral, but that it isn't the domain of the
government. Many Baptists are strict teetotalers, but would never dream of
re-instituting Prohibition. So while Mr Clinton's public policies would make
homosexuality legally acceptable, and his church teaches that homosexuality is
immoral, there is not necessarily a contradiction.
I am less certain about Mr Bush. I have trouble producing an argument the
other way: that Christians should try to influence the government to outlaw
sin, but that the church should do nothing about unrepentant sinners. Using
the example of drinking again, it is as if Mr Bush is saying "Prohibition is
needed to stop the immorality of using alcohol, but it's okay for my church
to say that alcohol is acceptable".
Is there anyone on this list who believes that some sins should be outlawed,
but that those same sins are acceptable for the church? For example, do we
have any readers who support anti-homosexual legislation but at the same time
approve of gay/lesbian priests? If so, can you please explain how you came to
such a position?
I suppose that some may be reticent to change denominations, especially among
the more Catholic of our readers. But how far does this extend? Mr Bush
opposes (or claims to) legal abortion, but his denomination teaches that the
final decision must remain with the pregnant woman. Is there anyone here who
believes that Roe v Wade should be overturned, but who is a member of a church
that is officially pro-choice? If so, why do you remain with a church that
approves of things you believe should be illegal? Is there any public policy
issue that would cause you to leave the denomination?
( The obvious person to ask is George Bush, since he's the pro-life member of
a pro-choice church. Does anybody know his e-mail address? Somehow I think
that "gb...@whitehouse.gov" won't work. 8-)
Darren F Provine / kil...@gboro.glassboro.edu
"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes." -- Second Witch, later ripped off by
Ray Bradbury
Kerry Stephenson
Regarding the position of Bush on abortion. No, you are not wrong.
Bush has been prolife only since 1980. He used to be a favorite of
Planned Parenthood (they gave him some awards in the 70s), and was
a major architect of the Family Planning Act. But at least he has
Quayle. It is my feeling that Bush may lose many of his prolife voters
without a major prolife commitment by the Republican party. We'll
see what happens at the convention.
---Missy Justice
Kerry Stephenson
(there was already a Kerry there.) Figured I'd let you know, in case
I forget again.
--Kerry
Robert Weiss
Kerry,
Who would he lose his voters to?
It would appear that Mr. Bush is following the lead
of the President before him. That is, say that he is pro-life,
but offer no real leadership to the pro-life cause. It seems apparent
that all that is necessary to get a lock on the pro-life vote
is to presume a certain stance, and not engage in actual legislation.
For the time being, that is all that is necessary. The
loyal opposition has constantly provided the nation with a
pro-choice platform. That by itself has caused the pro-life
Democrats to side with the Republicans, and the minimal action
on the part of Reagan and Bush has all that has been needed
to keep the perceptions of being pro-life. That minimal action
has been a few strategic vetoes, and a few strategic placements.
I'm sure that the pro-life voters would love to see more from
him, a more direct role from the supposed pro-life president and veep.
However, I don't see this as being an issue that will lose him
voters. There is no place else to go for. The choices seem to be:
Don't vote.
Write-in someone who will lose.
Vote for a solid pro-choice ticket.
Vote for a weak pro-life ticket.
Which choice seems to be the most pragmatic?
en agape,
Bob
Lauren H. Arango
>As an aside, I find it strange that conservative Christians favor a candidate
>whose church ordains homosexuals and has female priests (Mr Bush is an
>Episcopalian).
The Episcopal Church does *not* condone the ordination of practicing
homosexuals. Bishop Spong (who went against the Episcopal Church and
ordained a practicing homosexual) is an embarrassment to all Episcopalians
I know. Bishop Spong does not represent the position of the Episcopal
Church; he represents the position of Bishop Spong (on this issue and
on many other issues). Please don't judge a whole denomination by one
individual.
>His [Bush's] religious
>denomination takes an official position in favor of keeping abortion legal,
>and says the state should not remove a woman's right to choose -- how many of
>you would remain in a church that took such a position? (Not entirely fair,
>since Episcopalians tend to be very loyal.)
The official position of the Episcopal Church is much more complex than
just "we favor keeping abortion legal". I (and others) wish that our
denomination took a harder line (and, in my opinion, a more scriptural
position) against abortion.
Will I remain in a church that takes such a position? Yes. Am I very
loyal? Yes. But I am remaining not because I am loyal. I figure that
I have a much better chance of working to change the Episcopal Church's
position on abortion from *within*, rather than from without. I suspect
that that is how the many members of NOEL (National Organization of
Episcopalians for Life) feel as well.
God's peace,
Lauren
Greywolf
> Is everybody packed?
But ... Where are we supposed to *go*?
I don't know of too many Christian nations in today's world...
--
-Jordan .. PEACO...@iscsvax.uni.edu
.OO. Jordan Peacock (Jordan Greywolf)
O/\O (New Address): 1610 Parker
-- Cedar Falls, IA 50613
Greywolf
>
>
> Robert Weiss writes about Bill Clinton's acceptance speech:
>
>> But he also said: "Scripture says, `Our eyes have not yet seen, nor our ears
>> heard, nor our minds imagined, what we can build.'" Now, this is not in my
>> Bible. The closest there is comes from 1 Corinthians 2:9 which is rendered,
>> "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has
>> prepared for those who love Him." The difference between what Clinton
>> portrays as Scripture, and what it does indeed say, puts what we can build
>> in the place of what God has prepared.
>
> This is not necessarily correct.
>
> Mr Clinton was speaking, not writing; we do not know where his quote ended.
> The intention may have been to end the Scriptural quote after `imagined'; that
> is, instead of quoting the Bible to talk about human greatness, he quoted the
> Bible's imagery for impact. I'm a bit uncomfortable with this kind of chop-
> quoting, but Christians do it all the time.
Oooo!! Hold it just a minute there, bub! Putting a piece of Scripture in your
sentence and ending it with something completely different sounds a bit on the
questionable side to me, even more so if he intentionally quoted scripture up
until "imagined" and then stuck in "what we can build". This completely
changes the meaning of what was said, and sticking "Scripture says" in the
front of it seems to validate the whole thing. If I hear someone say
"Scripture says ABC", my natural inclination is to think that "Scripture says,
'ABC'.", not "Scripture says, 'AB'... C."
As for chop-quoting, that's something that I do not appreciate in the least.
It has been quite confusing for me, ever since I decided to try reading through
the Bible myself (I've technically made it all the way through, but I've been
having to go back through to try to make sure I've *really* read it all. Ack!
Those 'begets'! Aieee!) I've often made discoveries that scriptures that were
often quoted at me to prove a certain point were *completely* out of context
... leaving me a bit confused as to what to think about that. No, chop-quoting
does no justice. If it's done, from my experience, what it accomplishes is to
change the meaning of Scripture ... which it what apparently has happened here.
> I think we should be glad there's a candidate who can find Scripture passages
> vaguely relevant to his ideas; I suspect that quite a few of them have more
> dust on their Bibles than they'd care to admit.
No reason to be happy if it's a candidate who does just enough Scripture
reading so he can pull some strings so all those happy Christians out there who
don't bother to read their own Bibles (I'm *trying*!) will hear something that
sounds vaguely familiar ... but has a few twists to it. Basically, it sounds
like he's trying to tickle some ears so those Christians out there will think
"Boy, this is a real Godly man!"...
>
> Mr Weiss also commented on Mr Clinton's position on abortion, and his view of
> homosexuals in the military. Without getting into these issues again, suffice
> it to say that I believe Mr Weiss is unfairly pushing his own opinions as if
???
> they were exactly equivalent to Christianity. As a Christian who disagrees
> with Mr Weiss on both issues, I would appreciate it if we could all be less
> judgemental and self-righteous.
Uh oh! There go those key words again! "Judgemental" and "self-righteous".
You know, it kind of strikes me funny when I hear that, because, in so
labelling someone like that, you just might be "judgemental" and
"self-righteous" YOURSELF! (Of course, correspondingly, by saying that, *I*
might be judgemental and self-righteous. Bummer. Kind of a vicious circle,
don't you think?)
> As an aside, I find it strange that conservative Christians favor a candidate
> whose church ordains homosexuals and has female priests (Mr Bush is an
> Episcopalian). While the other candidate's denomination just voted to kick
> out any church which condoned homosexuality, and refuses to financially assist
> any church with an ordained woman.
These days, I don't know what demoninations mean anymore. The national
denominations say one thing, and I find local churches that follow something
almost entirely different. I've done quite a bit of church-hopping (I'm a
college student, as if that explains it) and particularly I've found Lutheran
churches that were almost indistinguishable from some Baptist churches I've
been to, and some Lutheran churches that ... well, they were *different*.
> to the Anglican Catholics". I don't usually trust politicians much (certainly
Who does? Who would be willing to admit that they do? Not fashionable.
> recent Supreme Court decision a victory, even though they specifically refused
I'd suggest reading up a little more about the reasons *why* they refused to.
> As I recall, he used to be pro-choice and only `converted' when he ran with
> Ronald Reagan -- this makes me doubt his sincerity. (Of course, I Could Be
> Wrong.)
Hm. Still, is it better to trust someone who is apparently sincere in holding
to values that are non-Christian, as opposed to someone who may waffle on
holding to values that are Christian? "Lesser of two evils" springs to mind...
(Not Biblical, I know, but politics is a strange thing to try to apply one's
faith to.)
Greywolf
> Oh, good grief.
>
> The word `covenant' was not copyrighted by the early Church. It is entirely
Yeah, but when you hear "covenant", what do you usually categorize that word
as? I mean, it's one of those "churchy" words. It *sounds* religious to the
guy on the street (or to the guy in his basement typing on a computer keyboard,
in this case).
> twisting that goes on around us. (Next thing somebody's going to discover
> that "William Clinton" adds up to 666.)
Hee! =) Give them time!
> And what about those graduation prayers recently struck down by the Supreme
> Court? What about the prayers offered at the Republican Convention?
I know people are gonna hate me for this, but I'd have to go along with the
Supreme Court in theory. Institutionalized prayer is not something to have in
a democratic society. Exactly *who* we'd be praying to could change depending
upon who's in power. Now, maybe if we happened to have a Christian King
appointed directly by God who would maintain the US as a Christian Nation,
then ... Well, I doubt that's going to happen for a while. Really.
Now, what starts getting on my gall is when things are set up to prevent
"institutionalized religion", but when teachers interpret that as meaning that
they have to squash any Christian expression. I had a few teachers who acted
like that in high school, who seemed rather defensive about anything that
seemed vaguely Biblical. A *few*, mind you. I wasn't a martyr or anything.
> sighted at best to speak as if this shows some kind of moral decay in the
> Democrats, while ignoring the numerous other situations where the same things
> are done.
Besides, *moral decay* in the Democrats? I thought they had pretty much
reached rock bottom anyway. =)
{duck!}
>
> much church-state intermixing. People who don't care about Christianity will
> act as if they do, in order to be more politically popular. Religion
Unless you're on a college campus.
> eventually becomes a tool or an empty ritual -- people will sit piously during
> an invocation before some event, and then laugh at you for saying you believe
> in Jesus was bodily resurrected.
Hm. Can't argue with *that*.
> use the Church. "He who lives by manipulation . . ."
Manipulation? Amazing how terms change depending upon whose values are being
promoted. Churches manipulate the government. Others use the democratic
process to influence their elected officials. Or something like that.
Roger A. Phyall
>In article <CHRISTIA%9207180...@ASUACAD.BITNET>, Kerry Stephenson
><KS...@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
>> Is everybody packed?
>
>But ... Where are we supposed to *go*?
>
>I don't know of too many Christian nations in today's world...
>-Jordan .. PEACO...@iscsvax.uni.edu
> .OO. Jordan Peacock (Jordan Greywolf)
> O/\O (New Address): 1610 Parker
> -- Cedar Falls, IA 50613
Jordan, my brother in Christ:
Shame on you, you slept what Kerry was talking about. She was speaking in
terms of the "Last Days" prior to the "Rapture". As I replied to her, I have
not seen any evidence of the "Anti-Christ" as of yet. Therefore it isn't time
to pack our bags and get caught up as of yet. Also the Christian Nation will
radiate from Isreal after Christ returns.
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| | Cordially & Sincerely yours, |
| Temple University (038-15) | |
| Computer/Math Bldg. Rm 851 | Roger A. Phyall |
| Broad St. & Montgomery Av. | VM System Programmer |
| Philadelphia,PA 19122-2585 | (215) 787-1292 |
| | |
| Internet: | Bitnet: |
| RO...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU | ROGER@TEMPLEVM |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kerry Stephenson
Now, what starts getting on my gall is when things are set up to prevent
"institutionalized religion", but when teachers interpret that as meaning that
they have to squash any Christian expression. I had a few teachers who acted
like that in high school, who seemed rather defensive about anything that
seemed vaguely Biblical. A *few*, mind you. I wasn't a martyr or anything.
FYI, when my friend Mark was teaching middle school, he
assigned his students to deliver a persuasive speech to
the class. He called the NEA and asked them, "What if
one of my students decides to write a speech exhorting
the members of the class to accept Jesus Christ as their
Lord and Savior?" Their reply? (After a long pause.)
"We would advise you to structure the assignment so that
such an outcome would be impossible."
Just thought you'd be interested.
Love INC,
---Kerry
Kerry Stephenson
When I asked if you (we) were packed, I meant, are we all prepared for
the Rapture--cause things sure look like they're "waxing worse and
worse" to me. Sorry for the confusion.
Love INC,
---Kerry
Greywolf
> On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 00:29:52 -0500 Greywolf said:
>>In article <CHRISTIA%9207180...@ASUACAD.BITNET>, Kerry Stephenson
>><KS...@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
>>> Is everybody packed?
>>
>>But ... Where are we supposed to *go*?
>>
>>I don't know of too many Christian nations in today's world...
> Shame on you, you slept what Kerry was talking about. She was speaking in
> terms of the "Last Days" prior to the "Rapture". As I replied to her, I have
Oops. My misinterpretation! I guess it's just that I've heard a few fellow
Christians lamenting about the state of our nation and almost seeming to
suggest that it's time to just "give up" on it, but I tend to wonder just what
that would *mean*.
Yeah, I'd be kind of surprised if the Anti-Christ were already here. I'd
imagine the AC to be loved by one and almost all as far as the world is
concerned. Somebody who can win just about everybody's heart. i.e. nobody
that I know of.
-Jordan
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
This is mostly about particular issues and denominations, and mentions some
politicians as examples. But the general points are much wider: What does it
mean to support a church that teaches things you consider immoral? How does
the relation between church ideas and individual beliefs work? How do people
see their support of a denomination that disagrees with them? Hopefully the
questions are of interest, and the answers (if any are offered) will be
educational.
Lauren H Arango takes issue with some of my earlier comments about the
Episcopal Church. Several Episcopal bishops (John Spong of New Jersey, and
at least one other) have ordained active homosexuals to the priesthood; I
took this to be an indication that the denomination has moved away from a
more strictly traditional view of sexual behaviour.
In any case, if there are official statements from the Episcopal Church that
would clarify the group-as-a-whole's position on human sexual behaviour, by
all means educate me.
Also, in the particular context, Mr Bush was asked about the recent ordination
of an active lesbian -- he did not reply that he considered it wrong, or a
mistake, or anything else. Only that he wasn't "quite ready for that". The
wording implies that he accepts homosexual ordination as the direction the
church is moving, but it's moving a bit too fast for him. What I found odd
was that he wants the US Armed Forces to have stricter sexual rules than his
church.
It is that which I am trying to understand; the belief that the World should
be held to stricter rules than the Body of Christ is held to. Hopefully there
is somebody out there who shares this idea and who can shed some light on it.
Ms Arango also writes:
> The official position of the Episcopal Church is much more complex than
> just "we favor keeping abortion legal".
The same is true of my position, and Bill Clinton's, and Ross Perot's, but
that doesn't mean diddly-squat. Kerry Stephenson recently wrote this:
ks> The president is essentially useless, but I will not vote for anyone who
ks> advocates the unconscionable slaughter of the innocent for the convenience
ks> of the selfish, no matter how ineffective he may prove to be.
So far as I can make out, Ms Stephenson equates "avoiding legislation to stop
abortion" with "advocating abortion". If it is true of presidential
candidates, then it is true of Christian denominations.
Where the rubber meets the road -- ie, where ideas turn into action -- the
Episcopal church is not significantly different than any other pro-choice
organisation. If you support the Episcopal church financially, then you
support a group which (in the minds of some pro-life people) "advocates the
slaughter of the innocent for the convenience of the selfish".
If I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment:
> I figure that I have a much better chance of working to change the Episcopal
> Church's position on abortion from *within*, rather than from without.
Is it okay for me to join the KKK provided I try to change them from within?
How about the Communist Party or the American Nazi Party? The Mafia?
I rather doubt that, eg, Randall Terry would remain a member of the Episcopal
church given their official statement about abortion. He doesn't have a net
account that I know of, but certainly some other pro-life Christians can tell
us how they see this.
I understand the position "I disagree with the official statement of the
church on issue XXX, but since it is peripheral I don't mind" -- but Mr Bush
campaigns on the abortion issue. How can it be peripheral if he is as upset
about it as he claims?
What I am trying to understand is how a strongly pro-life pro-legislation
person sees his financial support of a pro-choice group. Some people boycott
companies that are pro-choice or that advertise on programs with a pro-choice
agenda. Others see that as too indirect to be worth bothering about. To
them, it is some distance from putting gas in your car to approving abortion.
But the financial support of a church is a lot closer, I would think. Some
people don't see it that way, apparently. I do hope some of them will tell me
HOW they see it. Any takers?
Darren F Provine / kil...@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Boy, they were big on crematoriums, weren't they?"
-- George Bush at Auschwitz, Sept 1989 (cited in _Bush Speaks_)
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
On the specific topic of President Bush losing pro-life voters, it's that
those people won't vote at all. It's true that pro-life voters would like
to see more from Mr Bush, the supposed pro-life president -- but he's also
supposedly the Education President, the Environment President, and he used to
be in charge of the War on Drugs. LOTS of people would like to see more from
him . . .
Robert Weiss writes that pro-lifers have several voting choices:
> Don't vote.
> Write-in someone who will lose.
> Vote for a solid pro-choice ticket.
> Vote for a weak pro-life ticket.
There are several other things to do:
1) Accept that there are no pro-life candidates, and select a candidate on
more than one issue. (I recommend this latter idea in any case.)
2) Try to measure who will reduce abortion the most without legislation.
In particular, suppose one candidate has extensive social and educational
programs that:
a) advocate and teach abstinence/chastity
b) provide free counseling and medical help during a pregnancy
c) provide free contraception and training to those who cannot afford it
[ I do not claim that there are any candidates who meet this description. ]
Such programs and ideas, presuming they can be instituted and paid for, may
well prevent many abortions. (Paying for them is a big problem given the
current US deficit; ironically, Ronald Reagan may have done more to keep the
government from stopping abortions than any pro-choice president would have
done. Now that we're in the results of Mr Reagan's fiscal irresponsibility,
I suspect government intervention to reduce problems like abortion will be
much more difficult to arrange.)
I know some people don't think much of providing contraception, but people
are sinners and they are GOING to sin. I see contraception as much less awful
than abortion. If the object is to reduce the damage done by people who don't
act like you want, free contraception looks like the lesser of two evils.
There are ways of reducing abortion besides just using legislation; if you
can't find a candidate who'll stop abortion with legislation, look for one who
will try something else.
(Of course, it is worth considering whether a candidate can do what he
promises. Sometimes I think of voters who consider only a pro-life platform
to be as someone who only votes for candidates who promise to make the sun
rise in the west.)
Darren F Provine / kil...@gboro.glassboro.edu
"It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort
to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics and
chemistry." -- H L Mencken
Lauren H. Arango
Bill Clinton quoted in his acceptance speech comes not from the Bible,
but from the Book of Mormon.
Does anyone know if this is so?
God's peace,
Lauren
Renee
In the text of Bill Clinton's acceptance speech printed in THE BIRMINGHAM
NEWS on last Friday, there were quotation marks around the sentence "where
there is no vision, the people perish" (don't know if that is exactly right,
I do not have the speech at work) but there WERE NOT quotation marks around
the remark in question. Unless the rules of grammer have changed dramatically,
this leads me to believe that he/his speech writer never intended for people
to debate if that is found verbatum in the Bible - he is not saying that it
is!! If people wish to debate the practice and implication of "chop-quoting"
this is fine, but please, before you get all upset that he made up scripture,
check some of the punctuation - its a pretty clear clue as to whether someone
was quoting directly/paraphrasing/chop-quoting, etc.
Hoping that the reminders about "rumors" regarding Sandi Patti, Mike
Warnke and the like also apply to Bill Clinton (and the like).
Kerry Stephenson
"Where there is no vision the people perish" is perfectly acceptable.
What is NOT acceptable is the use of "New Covenant" as the name of
a political platform. What is NOT acceptable is Clinton's usage of
1 Cor 2:9. What the Bible says is this: "No eye has seen, no ear has
heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love
him." Clinton replaced "what God has prepared for those who love him"
with "what we can build." He also prefaced his statement with "As it
says in the Scriptures..." This leads the audience to believe that
God would be supportive of the entire statement, when in fact the opposite
is true. (Remember the tower of Babel?) In addition, the Bible verse
finishes with "but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit." Clinton
discards the remainder of the verse, losing its real meaning, and twisting
it to imply that "we" can figure it out on our own.
I strongly feel (big surprise :-) ) that it is highly inappropriate for
anyone, much less a public figure seeking to lead a nation, to use the
words of Scripture to support an idea that Scripture argues against. For
a Rhodes scholar, this is a pretty inappropriate way to quote the Bible.
He should know better.
Love INC,
---Kerry
Marty Helgesen
You write, "Including getting rid of that legislation that permits
abortion on demand? Or is that considered legislation? After all,
it was legislation that enabled abortion on demand right? Why not
just get rid of that legislation and not enact new legislation to
stop abortion?"
Wrong. It was not legislation that legalized abortion on demand for
the full nine months of pregnancy. It was a pair of Supreme Court
decisions. The Court, in what Justice White described in his dissent
as "an exercise of raw judicial power", decreed that all laws re-
stricting abortion are unconstitutional. And despite the screams of
outrage from pro-abortionists over the recent decision on the Penn-
sylvania laws, that is still the law. If a woman wants an abortion
at any time during her pregnancy up to the moment of birth, no law
can forbid her from getting it or can prevent a physician from per-
forming it.
Marty Helgesen
Robert Weiss
>There are several other things to do:
>
>1) Accept that there are no pro-life candidates, and select a candidate on
> more than one issue. (I recommend this latter idea in any case.)
..and in an earlier post he wrote:
>Where the rubber meets the road -- ie, where ideas turn into action -- the
>Episcopal church is not significantly different than any other pro-choice
>organisation. If you support the Episcopal church financially, then you
>support a group which (in the minds of some pro-life people) "advocates the
>slaughter of the innocent for the convenience of the selfish".
[...]
>What I am trying to understand is how a strongly pro-life pro-legislation
>person sees his financial support of a pro-choice group. Some people boycott
>companies that are pro-choice or that advertise on programs with a pro-choice
>agenda. Others see that as too indirect to be worth bothering about. To
>them, it is some distance from putting gas in your car to approving abortion.
>
>But the financial support of a church is a lot closer, I would think. Some
>people don't see it that way, apparently. I do hope some of them will tell me
>HOW they see it. Any takers?
These two views don't appear to be congruous.
In one post, the recommendation is to see abortion as just one
issue, then average in this one issue along with other issues, and to
vote for the person with the best average. This could, in practice,
be a recommendation to vote for a pro-choice candidate; whether the
voter herself is pro-life or pro-choice.
In the earlier post, there there is the view that the
Episcopal church is a pro-choice organization, and that supporting it
is questionable for pro-life people.
In one post, Darren cannot fathom how a pro-life person
could be a member of a pro-choice organization; in a later post he
recommends a course of action that may put such a person in just
that position.
I'm finding it hard to reconcile these two positions.
en agape,
Bob
Stephen Kingston
There is a verse in doctrine and covenants that comes close, but not
much closer then the original quote from the Bible.
--
Gweleis i rac neb nym gweles pop annwyl. ef diwyl yneges. Gweleis i pasc.
(I saw the one above all men, he saw me; he, the beloved of his people,
who fulfills his mission. I saw Easter.) "Yspeil Taliesin" ---Taliesin---
s...@uk.ac.aber --- spk%uk.ac...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk --- Stephen Kingston
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
[ Politics as a model for just about anything else. ]
Among the issues that I find interesting in religion are questions of what
people consider important, how they put those ideas into action, and what
kinds of action are acceptable for them.
Several disconnected articles on slightly different topics have confused
Robert Weiss, so I will clarify what I was getting at.
I commented that for a pro-life person with only pro-choice candidates, the
least-of-all-evils might be to choose based on other issues. Suppose all the
candidates are in exact agreement about abortion, and none will do what you
think should be done: you can still influence other bits of public policy, and
perhaps you should do so. (Note that some pro-life people have said that they
find this unacceptable.)
In another article, I was writing about being pro-life in a pro-choice church.
In particular, I asked how someone who is STRONGLY pro-life feels about going
to a church whose leadership is pro-choice. The difference between this and
voting is that there are pro-life churches on can join, so one is not left
choosing between pro-choice churches only. I do not think there are any truly
concerned pro-life candidates running for President this year, so for one who
considers this an important issue there isn't much of an option. But there
are concerned pro-life churches; one of those could be an option for a
pro-life person.
Of course, one may consider abortion a relatively minor issue compared to some
theological issues, which would be of overriding importance.
I don't mean to say that supporting a pro-choice church is improper for pro-
life people, nor do I mean to say that supporting a pro-choice candidate is
acceptable. Everybody has their own ideas about how important issues are, and
what methods of accomplishing things are acceptable, and what degree of care
should be used in avoiding support of immorality. I'm not trying to tell
people what they should think is important -- I'm trying to get THEM to tell
ME what they think.
One person remains Episcopalian at least in part hoping to change the stand of
the Episcopal church. My (unclear) question was about where the line should
be drawn in such situations; is it okay to be a member of the KKK if you hope
to change the KKK? Would it be okay to work with the Gestapo while trying to
change it from within? At what point does remaining a member become improper,
and why?
One person considers voting for pro-choice candidates improper because voting
is an endorsement of a candidate's ideas; does this apply to everything and
everyone who is pro-choice?
Some pro-life people don't bother with boycotts; apparently they feel that the
jump from buying soft drinks to supporting abortions is too far. But would
you go to a clinic that performs abortions for some routine medical care? Why
or why not?
Almost everybody disagrees with their church over at least some doctrines/
practices/ideas. At what point does this disagreement become so big that one
has to leave? Is there any one topic so important that it's the only thing
you consider important? What is it?
How do people see issues of converting belief into action? To what extent
will you join forces with those who disagree?
Those are the issues that come up in elections and in support of churches;
we have some people who think different things, and who take different
approaches to living their faith. All I want is for them to talk to me.
Darren F Provine / kil...@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -- " (Robert Frost)
Kerry Stephenson
I do not think there are any truly
concerned pro-life candidates running for President this year, so for one who
considers this an important issue there isn't much of an option.
Actually, the Reverend Pat Mahoney is a candidate for President.
If he's not on the ballot in your state, you can always write
him in.
FYI,
--Kerry
MARCI HENDRIX
with a fellow employee. I happen to know that my fellow employee, Ken,
is a member of a different church, but same denomination as I. So, in
casual conversation I asked how church was (this was this past monday).
When I did, it clicked in his head that I attended the "fundamentalist"
church in town and he proceeded to slam dunk my church based on the
fact that we don't ordain women, we advocate the right-to-life, we believe
in the inerrancy of the Bible, and on and on. He really wasn't attaching
me, but it got me to thinking, actually I felt quite drained after that
conversation.
Any-who: I am very uncomfortable with a pastor who does not believe in
the inerrancy of the Bible. I'm very uncomfortable with a pastor who
is pro-choice. There are certainly pros and cons in any church. You have
to have a vision of your church and realize that every church has quirks
and there is no perfect church. So, if a church is weak in an area (say,
for example, their visitation program), I might not feel like that is a
justifiable reason to leave. I go to an excellent church (in my opinion) but
it has its drawbacks too due to how big it is.
So, for me, the biggest issue would be the value the preacher puts into the
Bible (is the Bible true, or is the Bible false). Plus, does the preacher
use the Bible in his sermons or does he preach and not even open the Bible.
Well, this is my viewpoint - and I hope my views don't get bashed -- they
were already bashed pretty good this week and once a week is dog-gone more
than enough -- smile.
Marci Hendrix
Marty Helgesen
Your questions about attending a church of whose policies one disap-
proves seem to reflect a Protestant understanding of churches. Since
you are a Protestant, this is not at all surprising, but not everyone
shares that understanding. Having seen how even the best-intentioned
and irenical non-Catholics sometimes misunderstand and misrepresent
Catholic teaching and practices I am hesitant to try to describe
Protestant beliefs, so what I am about to say should be understood as
a very broad generalization. Also, I am writing to describe the
beliefs, not to try to prove that the Catholic view is correct, so I
will not cite scriptural and historical evidence to support my be-
lief.
Many (most?) Protestants seem to think of Christ's Church as only the
fellowship of the elect. It is an invisible Church with no necessary
organizational structure. Individual churches, denominations, con-
gregations, etc. are man-made assemblies of members of the one,
invisible Church who agree on certain theological points they find
important or on a particular style of worship, or something like
that. I think that from time to time on Christia some people have
said they had moved to a new home and were looking for a church.
From that point of view if someone finds that he disagrees with the
policies of his local church or denomination it is no big thing to
look for another one that he finds more congenial.
The Catholic view of Christ's Church, which I think is shared by
Eastern Orthodox Christians with some important modifications, is
that Jesus founded His Church as a specific organization. This does
not deny the idea of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. That
is a central Catholic doctrine. However, the Mystical Body and the
organization are interrelated. We believe that Jesus founded his
Church with the Apostles as the first bishops and St. Peter as the
first pope. (Eastern Orthodox Christians accept the first part of
that statement, but not the second.) The bishops of today are the
successors of the Apostles and derive their authority to teach and
govern through that succession. The Church is not just a denomina-
tion. While a Catholic may move from one parish to another for
reasons of style, leaving the Church itself is a major step that
involves abandoning basic beliefs.
You asked specifically about the Episcopal Church. It is in the
middle. Some Anglicans/Episcopalians are very High Church, and
insist they are "Catholic but not Roman." Some others are very Low
Church and insist they are Protestants. Some others are somewhere
in between. I will leave it to Episcopalians to discuss this point
in more detail if they want to. I mention it only to point out that
especially for those Episcopalians who take a relative High Church
view, the idea of leaving their church because of policy disagree-
ments is not as simple as it would be for a Baptist.
Also, it is important to remember that a church's political policies
are not the same as its doctrinal statements. Especially for church-
es, such as the Episcopal Church, that have national organizations,
statements on political and social issues generally are written by
ecclesiastical bureaucrats. These bureaucrats frequently are not
representative of the church as a whole. (This is a problem in the
Catholic Church, too.) Therefore, a pro-life Episcopalian can de-
plore and oppose the pro-abortion policies of his church without
having any disagreements on doctrinal issues. (The pro-abortion
policies may be incompatible with Episcopal doctrine, but that is a
problem for the pro-abortion Episcopalians, not the pro-life ones.)
You say, "One person remains Episcopalian at least in part hoping to
change the stand of the Episcopal church. My (unclear) question was
about where the line should be drawn in such situations; is it okay
to be a member of the KKK if you hope to change the KKK? Would it be
okay to work with the Gestapo while trying to change it from within?
At what point does remaining a member become improper, and why?"
I find that question bizarre. Churches exist to serve God, to wor-
ship God, to proclaim God's revealed truths to the world. I think
that is a point on which Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants agree.
Someone who believes in God and in Jesus as Lord, God, and Savior,
recognizes that these are good things to do. If a member of a church
comes to the conclusion that his church is not doing these things the
way God wants them to be done, it makes sense to decide whether the
things to which he objects are abuses or corruptions that should be
corrected internally or are fundamental defects that make it neces-
sary to find another church that is doing them the way God wants them
done. However, there is no good reason to belong to the KKK. The
Klan is a hate group that exists to promote white, Protestant, na-
tive-born-American-of-northern-European-ancestry supremacy over
blacks, Jews, Catholics, and immigrants. One cannot improve the
Klan. If one removed the objectionable features there would be
nothing left.
Marty Helgesen
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Kerry Stephenson relates a story:
> FYI, when my friend Mark was teaching middle school, he assigned his
> students to deliver a persuasive speech to the class. He called the NEA and
> asked them, "What if one of my students decides to write a speech exhorting
> the members of the class to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior?"
> Their reply? (After a long pause.) "We would advise you to structure the
> assignment so that such an outcome would be impossible."
From a strictly pragmatic perspective, I'd say this was really good advice.
The potential for trouble is rather large, and I don't think a controversy
would benefit anybody.
But thinking on it further, I start to wonder about my own motivations. Let's
suppose A tries to persuade the class to become Christians, and B attempts to
persuade them to join American Atheists. As a teacher, I should evaluate
these on purely subjective grounds and grade them based on how well they made
their cases, how well they delivered the speech, and so on. But some of that
involves subjective evaluations; might I unfairly credit the Christian more
than the Atheist, simply because I believe the Christian is correct? Giving a
higher grade for reasons unrelated to the quality of the work is inexcusable;
but how can I be sure I wouldn't do it?
Going the other way, suppose I see the potential for unfairness (or even some
unpleasant accusations later) and overcompensate? Might I overlook errors in
the Atheist's speech because I don't want to be seen as unfairly biased?
I do not think I trust myself enough to be impartial in this situation, and
as a result I would try to stick by the NEA's advice. Not just to avoid a
controversy, but to ensure that I don't violate standards of fairness.
What do others think? How certain are people that they could, as a teacher,
grade such speeches fairly?
Darren F Provine / kil...@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Power is an amazing thing." -- Robert Fulghum