I recently had the priveledge of speaking with Phil Johnson. As we spoke, Phil reminded me that almost all of the new fads and trends that permeate modern evangelicalism are rehashed heresies from centuries ago. The emergent movement is no exception. They like to portray themselves as cutting edge "theologians" with precious new and fresh insights into how nobody has ever really understood the Bible and that they are the first ones humble enough to admit it.
Brian McLaren is at the forefront of this trend when he writes:
If I seem to show too little respect for your opinions or thought, be assured I have equal doubts about my own, and I don't mind if you think I'm wrong. I'm sure I am wrong about many things, although I'm not sure exactly which things I'm wrong about. I'm even sure I'm wrong about what I think I'm right about in at least some cases. So wherever you think I'm wrong, you could be right. If, in the process of determining that I'm wrong, you are stimulated to think more deeply and broadly, I hope that I will have somehow served you anyway. (A Generous Orthodoxy p19-20)
It is easy to see why God is not the author of confusion - Brian Mclaren is!
I have just finished Ray Comfort's book "Luther Gold" where he harvests some of the best golden nuggets from the extensive writings of Martin Luther. In one of the excerpts, Luther recounts his "conversation" with a group known as the "Sophists". As you read on you will notice that this ancient sect has an uncanny resemblance to Brian McLaren and the emergent movement.
Since we have been persuaded to the contrary by this, by that pestilent saying of the Sophists, "the Scriptures are obscure and ambiguous," we are compelled, first of all, to prove that first grand principle of ours, by which all other things are to be proved: which among the Sophists, is considered absurd and impossible to be done . . . let us proceed, and drown that pestilent saying of the Sophists, in Scriptures.
Psalm 19:8 saith: "The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes." And surely, that which enlightens the eyes is not obscure or ambiguous! Again, Psalm 119:130: "The door of they words giveth light; it giveth understanding to the simple." Here it is ascribed unto the words of God, that they are a door, and something open, which is quite plain to all and enlightens even the simple. Isaiah 8:20 sends all questions ". . . to the law and to the testimony;" and threatens that if we do not do this, the light of the east shall be denied us.
Malachi 2;7 commands, ". . . that they should seek the Law from the mouth of the priest, as being the messenger of the LORD of hosts." But a most excellent messenger indeed of the Lord of hosts he must be, who should bring forth those things, which were both so ambiguous to himself and so obscure to the people that neither he should know what he himself said, nor what they heard!
And what, throughout the Old Testament, in the 119th Psalm especially, is more frequently said in praise of the Scripture, than that, it is itself a most certain and most clear light? For Psalm 119:105 celebrates its clearness thus: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." He does not say only - thy Spirit is a lamp unto my feet; though he ascribes unto Him also His office, saying, "Thy good Spirit shall lead me into the land of uprightness" (Psalm 143:10). Thus the Scripture is called a "way" and a "path": that is from its most perfect certainty. (Luther Gold p86-87)
The entire emergent movement just got "owned" by Martin Luther!
I was reading through Matthew 25 yesterday during the gathering of our fellowship and I was reminded of the social gospel/political activism "ministry" called "The matthew 25 Network" which was pioneered by Brian McLaren. The Matthew 25 network came to my attention in September of 2008 with my post The Lie Of The Social Gospel. Brian McLaren used the money of donors to fund political advertisements in support of radical pro-abortionist Barack Obama. The hypocrisy of McLaren is staggering enough considering his years of pontificating against conservative Christians for their political involvement. But as I read through the 25th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, I was staggered between how far removed it was from the agenda outlined on the Matthew 25 Network mission statement:
We are a community of Christians from diverse paths gathering in response to the words and acts of Christ. We humbly seek to love and care for all our neighbors.
Government policies and the election of our public officials reflect our core values. As citizens we recognize our responsibility to partake in and affect our national and global community through our government. We believe people of faith and good will should actively engage in the political process as advocates for social justice.
We engage the world as it is and hope for the world as it ought to be, working to strengthen families, to see the dignity in all, to conserve God’s creation, and to seek peace and justice at home and abroad – unabashedly advocating for the least of these.
The Matthew 25 Network identifies their main issues as health care, immigration reform, prison reform, "abortion reduction" (can you smell what that is code for), environmentalism, domestic poverty, rural investment, inner city investment, foreign aid, and civil rights. And what does this have to do with Matthew 25? Good question!
The first part of Matthew 25 (verses 1 to 13) is the parable of the ten virgins which warns us to be ready for Christ's second coming in any event. However, you will find nothing on the Matthew 25 Network about Christ's second coming. Perhaps this is because McLaren doesn't even believe in the "ten virgin" warning:
The phrase “the Second Coming of Christ” never actually appears in the Bible. Whether or not the doctrine to which the phrase refers deserves re-thinking, a popular abuse of it certainly needs to be named and rejected. If we believe that Jesus came in peace the first time, but that wasn’t his “real” and decisive coming - it was just a kind of warm-up for the real thing - then we leave the door open to envisioning a second coming that will be characterized by violence, killing, domination, and eternal torture. This vision reflects a diversion, a return to trust in the power of Pilate, not the unarmed truth that stood before Pilate, refusing to fight...
If we remain charmed by this kind of eschatology, we will be forced to see the nonviolence of the Jesus of the Gospels as a kind of strategic fake-out, like a feigned retreat in war, to be followed up by a crushing blow of so-called redemptive violence in the end. The gentle Jesus of the first coming becomes a kind of trick Jesus, a fake-me-out Messiah, to be replaced by the true jihadist Jesus of a violent second coming.
This is why I believe that many of our current eschatologies, intoxicated by dubious interpretations of John’s Apocalypse are not only ignorant and wrong, but dangerous and immoral.” (page 144, Everything Must Change).
Don't you just wish McLaren could be a little more succinct in articulating his denials of established Christian teaching? Anyway, the disconnect between the Matthew 25 Network and the Matthew 25 of Scripture doesn't end there.
Following on in Matthew 25 we come to the "parable of the talents" (verses 14 to 30)before closing with the terrifying account of God separating the sheep (true converts) from the goats (false converts) (verses 31 to 46). Both the parable of talents and God's separation of the sheep and the goats contain overwhelming warnings of eternal damnation. Again, the subject of hell is an absent subject on The Matthew 25 Network. The irony is staggering.
Surprise, surprise, Brian McLaren is not a big fan of the doctrine of hell . . .
The Matthew 25 Network should consider naming themselves after another chapter in the Bible like . . . actually I can't think of one that describes their agenda.
Brian McLaren has grown more and more brazenly heretical with every new book he writes. Is he changing his theology over time or unveiling more and more of what he has always believed?
I think the reason Tony Jones seems to have disappeared off the "emergent radar" is not because of his multitude of heresies, nor that he has run out of foundational Christian truths to deny (he's denied just about everything). I believe it is because Tony was just not being vague and cryptic enough - his sheep suit was becoming too obvious! Which leads us back to Brian McLaren, because his sheep suit has more holes than a box of Krispy Kremes (no that wasn't product placement, I'm just bitter that they opened a store in my hometown the month after I left the country).
Some of my Aussie friends recently wrote to their local Christian bookstore to protest them stocking Brian McLaren's books (and you'll soon see they had good reason). I am posting their letter today and the response of the Christian bookstore for three reasons.
1. To see how overtly blasphemous Brian McLaren is willing to be in his most recent book. 2. So you can cut and paste this letter and send it to any bookstore that stocks this poisonous trash. 3. To introduce you to the modern world of "pragmatic integrity" as demonstrated by the bookstore.
First up, Phil Leaney's letter to the "Christian book store":
Hi XXXXXXX,
I wanted to write and share my deep concerns about XXXXX stocking Brian McLarens books, especially his last two books “Everything Must Change” and “A new kind of Christianity”. The XXXXX History/Ethics statement says in part "To effectively supply and promote an extensive range of Christian products that will be of spiritual benefit to the body of Christ." And yet in a very tangible way, stocking Brian McLarens books goes directly against this statement. For something to “be of spiritual benefit to the body of Christ”, I would have thought it should conform to at least some basic core doctrines of Christianity – not oppose them. Because someone uses a bible, quotes a few verses and has a following does not validate in any way their message. Their message must be examined in light of the true gospel. Go to McLarens own website and see encouraging letters from atheists about his books and messages – his beliefs are just what they thought Christianity should be like. Hell is removed, the cross belittled and blood atonement questioned. All inclusive, all embracing, non confronting..
In his book “A New kind of Christianity” there is a chapter entitled “Is God violent?” When talking about the flood in Genesis McLaren says “a god who mandates an intentional supernatural disaster leading to unparalleled genocide is hardly worthy of belief, much less worship. How can you ask your children—or non-church colleagues and neighbours—to honour a deity so uncreative, over reactive, and utterly capricious regarding life?” He goes on to say that he treasures the Bible, even calling it God’s inspired Word, but then goes on to say that much of it, especially the older parts, are just plain wrong…..
In the next chapter “Who is Jesus” ……. the Son of God – nope that’s never mentioned or discussed. A critical, pivotal point on which our salvation depends never mentioned – he (Jesus) seems in the book a great example and hero of the oppressed, coming not to redeem us from the curse, but instead to turn social injustices around. To McLaren, this seems to be Jesus primary purpose for coming.
Just one more; in the first chapter about – what the bible is about… why, why, why, does he make this statement: “I’d rather be an atheist than believe in the God that most of us think that is in the Bible”. Wow…. He doesn’t like the God of the Bible, and that’s why he wants a new kind of Christianity…. And it’s on your shelf.
It really doesn’t take too long, or too much study to see that his books are filled with heresies (and I don’t banter that word around lightly) and the fact that they are stocked on your shelf is a concern. I believe XXXXX would do far more for the body of Christ by removing books like these. I know it’s far easier to just keep them on the shelf, but ultimately we will all answer to God for that which we have done. Let us not to put a stumbling block before our brothers and sisters.
Regards Phil Leaney
Now, behold the "pragmatic integrity" of the bookstore:
Dear Phillip,
Thank you for your email bringing to my attention some of the things McLaren is saying in his recent book. We have prepared our catalogues introducing the book to the market in June and July. Taking on board your criticisms I’ll exclude the book from further catalogues after that. We also have some high stock levels of his other books that we have bought as remainders which should clear through soon.
Our policy at XXXXX is to allow the various debates in the Christian church to be aired and for views and counter views to be expressed. Due to high customer demand we’ll continue to stock the McLaren books but I’ll endeavour to keep them out of our catalogues.
Yours Sincerely, XXXXX
As far as taking a bold stand goes . . . we've come a long way since Luther and his 95 theses!
There is a lot of coded rhetoric that oozes from the mouth of Brian McLaren. It often centres around the emergent idea of "bringing the kingdom" through social programs and not preaching the Gospel. It generally serves as a great smokescreen because who is going to argue against helping the poor and fighting social inequality. In the following audio John Macarthur (the other voice you'll hear is Todd Friel of Wretched Radio) clears the smokescreen through a sound grasp of Scripture and the Gospel itself. I found this really helpful because something very sinister lies beneath the surface of these "humble" self proclaimed good samaritans . . .
The following article is courtesy of R. Scott Clark at www.heidelblog.wordpress.com and is a great expose on all this "bringing the kingdom" talk that is a constant thread in Brian McLaren's conversation.
Sunday night I heard a sermon on Acts 28 during which my attention was drawn to the way Luke uses the expression, “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” (Kingdom of God). I was struck by eschatological character of Luke’s conception (and by implication, Paul’s conception, as Luke reports his preaching).That passage pushed me to go back to the beginning of Acts to see how the expression occurs in the rest of the book. Though we rightly think of Matthew’s gospel as the “kingdom” gospel, it is interesting to note that Luke begins Acts by summarizing Jesus’ instruction of the disciples “περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ” (about the kingdom of God). The disciples, of course, still thinking like dispensationalists, theonomists, and pharisees wanted to know when Jesus was going to establish an earthly dominion. How did Jesus answer their query? By taking visible, bodily leave of them! The ascension is Jesus’ response to the disciples’ lust for this-worldly power, for the restitution of the Mosaic-Davidic-Solmonic theocracy. His answer to the query was also, of course, the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the visible church through the ministry of Word and sacrament and confirmed, in the apostolic period, by signs and wonders.
Luke characterizes Philip the Evangelist’s preaching ministry (Acts 8:12) with the expression: “εὐαγγελιζομένῳ” (preaching the Good News) “περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ” (about the kingdom of God). Luke quickly fills in the blank as to what he means by “kingdom,” however, as he connects the message about the kingdom of God not to anyone or anything else but “τοῦ ὀνόματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,” i.e. “of the name of Jesus the Christ.” In other words, Philip’s Good News was about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Luke further narrows the conception of the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” by connecting it to the administration of the sacrament (i.e., the covenant sign and seal) of salvation: baptism. The essential character of the Kingdom of God is eschatological but, in Acts thus far, its only earthly manifestation is Christ-centered and ecclesiastical in character.
In 14:22 the fundamentally eschatological character of the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” is made clear when the preaching of Paul and Barnabas is characterized in terms of entering the Kingdom of God through “many tribulations.” Immediately, the message is contextualized in terms of the visible, institutional church (v. 23) where elders are appointed with prayer and fasting. The instruments of the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” are counter-intuitive and decidedly spiritual. For Luke to think about the kingdom is to think in eschatological terms but when he thinks about its manifestation in the earth, he thinks of the visible, institutional church.
Without a broader context, the brevity of the references in Acts 19:8 and 20:25 might be enigmatic but as it is, we do not have to guess at the content of the Apostle’s evangelical preaching. He was pointing his hearers in the synagogues and in the churches to Jesus the Messiah, the fulfillment of the promises and the ascended and reigning king who earned his throne with blood and a cross. That this is so is made certain by Acts 28:23:
From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God (διαμαρτυρόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ) and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
The book ends much as it began: with preaching about kingdom of God. This time it is not our Lord but it is the Apostle Paul. We find him in prison but the Kingdom is not imprisoned nor is the good news of the kingdom imprisoned. Paul proclaimed the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” which Luke identifies, epexegetically, as “teaching about Jesus Christ” (Acts 28:31). Indeed, it seems to have been Paul’s burden to continue to do exactly what our Lord himself began to do just before his ascension. To convince folk that the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” is not an earthly program obtained by planning and administration or by the proper distribution of goods (even though there was a program for poverty relief within the visible church), or even of healing (which certainly occurred as part of the ministry of the Word), but it is fundamentally other-worldly, heavenly (located where Jesus the King is!) and that it has broken into history in the person of Jesus the Messiah and in the outpouring of the Spirit and his work of the ascended Lord through his Spirit in Apostles through the gospel. Whoever is united to Christ by faith alone, by sovereign gift of the Spirit alone, is a citizen of his kingdom (Phil 3). That kingdom is consistently administered in Acts by the preaching of the Word and the administration of sacraments.
There is no obvious evidence of any political or cultural agenda associated with the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” in Acts. At every point when the Apostles had opportunity to “speak truth to power,” to challenge the socio-economic or political or cultural status quo they refused. According to many modern conceptions of the Kingdom of God, the disciples failed rather badly to “bring in the kingdom” or to restore it. Instead Paul insisted on preaching the foolishness of the crucified Messiah and the foolishness of his resurrection. Terrible way to take back a culture I know, but there it is. Perhaps the apostles learned something at Pentecost? Perhaps they learned that the kingdom isn’t something we bring in? Perhaps they learned that it isn’t a matter of culture or earthly power or influence, but of the inbreaking of the power of salvation through faith alone in Christ the king alone, in whom alone the kingdom is embodied and in whom alone the kingdom comes in this world through the proclamation of the gospel?
I never cease to be amazed at the talent of the young kids in my 'hood. Several of them got together recently trying to do their best impression of emergent guru Brian McLaren! Check it out . . .
All those mean conservative Evangelical Christians just keep hurting Brian's feelings. And Brian doesn't want to hurt anybody's feelings or cause division with anybody . . . except maybe God!
Boo Hoo Brian. What about how God feels about the issue? What about loving gay people enough to warn them of their peril? By dodging the question you are actually giving false comfort and approval to people who are under the wrath of God . . . oh yeah, that's something else you don't believe in!
If Rob Bell is the Anakin Skywalker of the "emergent conversation" then Brian McLaren would have to be the Yoda (isn't the resemblance uncanny? Hey, I've never seen them in a room together. One is a fictional character and the other is a fictional Christian). As the leader of the leaderless emergent movement, McLaren continually speaks in philosophical psychobabble that somehow manages to impress "Christians" looking for a "new kind of gospel". One of his favorite cards to play is the "I'm orthodox but" card. He uses this card to great effect by appeasing suspicious church goers with affirmations of historic Christian confessions out of one side of his mouth all the while redefining the terms and conditions out of the other side. Welcome to the fog that is postmodernism!
So where is Brian McLaren on the evangelical spectrum? Well, in his own words he is a "Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN" (from the cover of "A Generous Orthodoxy"). We now know why God is not the author of confusion - it's McLaren's job!
And you can forget about non-negotiable basic Christian doctrine because Brian McLaren simply finds that sort of certainty redundant. In his own words:
If I seem to show too little respect for your opinions or thought, be assured I have equal doubts about my own, and I don't mind if you think I'm wrong. I'm sure I am wrong about many things, although I'm not sure exactly which things I'm wrong about. I'm even sure I'm wrong about what I think I'm right about in at least some cases. So wherever you think I'm wrong, you could be right. If, in the process of determining that I'm wrong, you are stimulated to think more deeply and broadly, I hope that I will have somehow served you anyway. (A Generous Orthodoxy p19-20)
But amidst all this uncertainty McLaren seems to be very certain about one thing - all those biblical fundamentalist conservative Christians are wrong. Sometimes his postmodern fog clears for a brief moment and he tells us what he really thinks about the epicentre of the historic orthodox Christian faith - penal substitutionary atonement . . .
Most of us know what Jesus said happens when the blind lead the blind. It's why I think "emergent churches" should be called ditches. Hmmm, I guess if we extend that thought then emergent congregations of more than 1000 could be called "mega-ditches". If you attend one of these churches where this kind of teaching prevails - run for the exit. If you're reading one of McLaren's books - burn it (it's about as helpful as an ashtray on a motorbike). Am I being perfecly clear in an unpostmodern way? I hope so - I don't want the reader in any doubt as to where I stand on these issues.
Anyway, that's enough of trying to nail honey to a wall for today! I'll dig a little deeper into Brian McLaren's world of confusion and heresy on Monday.
Gianna Jessen is a true hero and revealer of truth concerning the horrendous things that happen to babies that "survive" abortion procedures. Barack Obama can try and play technicalities all he wants - the fact is that he is the pro murder candidate.
I often hear Ronald Reagan's name maligned by intellectuals but unlike Obama he showed that the issue of life was not “above his pay grade”. When asked when does life begin Reagan (like Obama) said he did not know, but in contrast to Obama he said that that uncertainty was reason enough never to allow abortion. It would seem that, if elected, Obama should get minimum wage.
Again I want to stress that I am not overly interested in the political realm but I take keen interest in engaging a Christian worldview where our morality is biblically aligned and our political allegience lies with truth. And in light of this it is important to shed light on candidates who attempt to lure the Christian vote with a deceptive agenda and Obama continually attempts to position himself to the voting public as a Christian voice even though he denies so much of basic Christian truth including the exclusivity of Jesus. My concern lies not with people voting for Barack Obama, my concern lies with the undiscerning church goer who votes for the pro murder candidate because he thinks he's voting for a Christian.
Don't think for one minute that this is an endorsement of John McCain. Christian brothers and sisters, we should not kid ourselves about what can be achieved through politics. Civil law only serves the purpose of restraining a wicked and perverse generation enough for the Gospel to be preached. As I often say the heart of he human problem is the problem of the human heart and preaching is the God ordained means of bringing this about. For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe (I Corinthians 1:21).
The emergents, liberals, and "red letter" crowd have railed long and hard against the "religious right" for being too political and campaigning for the wrong issues. In fact guys like Tony Campolo (standing on the Democratic party platform), Jim Wallis (who chastened the religious right for their failure to be civil whilst saying "George W. Bush was, and is, clueless about how to be the president of the United States") and Brian McLaren (who is doing and funding TV commercials or Barack Obama) continually claim to be above partisan politics.
The truth is that the "religious right" gets it wrong. But their failure has not been the issues they have fought or political opportunism. They have fought the right issues but have shifted the emphasis in evangelicalism from mission to activism. It is good to fight moral issues but fantasy to think that morality can be legislated. I often say that the heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart and God's ordained method for changing the human heart has been faithful preaching; "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe" (I Corinthians 1:21). No amount of legislation can do what can only be done by God's Holy Spirit - regenerating the human heart.
The left on the other hand takes getting it wrong to a whole new level. They have been the actual political opportunists who have politicised moral issues, abandoned the authority of Scripture, and redefined the Gospel.
Christians need to remember that civil laws, ultimately, only serve to restrain a wicked and perverse generation enough for the Gospel to be preached. We are strangers in a strange land that is temporal and perishing. We serve a King who is eternal and has left this strange land to go and prepare a place for us. In the meantime Christ has called us to preach His Gospel in only two situations - in season and out of season. Remember that when you vote.
A lot of negative things are being said (often by emergents, liberals and "red letters") concerning being a single issue voter. True - saving lives of the unborn is not the only issue. But we need to remember that a single issue can disqualify someone from being president and some issues are so BIG that they can outweigh all the others in one single swoop. If you are a preacher or a church and you don't get the Gospel right then everything else is a waste of time.
By Joe Belz from World Magazine
It's become an increasingly frequent reminder to us evangelical Christians not to let our cultural identity be framed by "single issues."
It was a reminder implicitly included in the "Evangelical Manifesto," a document whose basic content we at WORLD have applauded but whose political direction I questioned in our last issue. Why are the Manifesto's backers so ready to join the cultural left in suggesting a guilt trip for those evangelicals who have been preoccupied with the evils of abortion and same-sex marriage?
And if some argue that the rising generation of younger evangelicals is a bit embarrassed by what they think is an out-of-balance focus by their elders, and thinks it's time to get equally exercised over issues like racism, economic justice, and the environment—well, if that's the case with our twentysomethings and our teenagers, then maybe we need to go to work and do a better job of explaining to them why we've put the emphasis where we have for the last generation and why we believe that it's time not to lower our voices.
Evangelicals shouldn't be embarrassed to say boldly and clearly: Abortion and same-sex marriage are uniquely heinous sins. They rattle the foundations of a civilized society. They take a culture in a dreadful direction. We haven't been wrong to say so. We aren't fanatics.
And I'm not referring here so much to the young women caught in the anguish of an unexpected pregnancy or folks bewildered by their sexual identity. I'm talking mostly about a society that goes all out to tell such people that what they're doing is just fine. There's forgiveness for individual sinners. There's judgment for societies that lead them astray.
It's true that we evangelicals sometimes haven't been as zealous as we ought in fighting racism, abuse of the environment, and poverty. But on all those fronts and more, we're at least facing the right direction. We're sometimes slow.
But here's the difference: What evangelical do you know who says insensitivity to the poor should be promoted? What evangelical leader is calling for more racism? Who advocates the uncontrolled plundering of the environment?
That is exactly the kind of cheerleading that is going on for abortion and same-sex marriage. Whole movements and organizations devote themselves to telling us how good abortion and same-sex marriage are for society. It now is expected that Barack Obama feature on his speaking schedule, as he did on June 26, a New York fundraising dinner for the Democratic Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council—where the news account reports casually that Obama helped the homosexual lobby raise $1 million in just one evening.
But here's the core of the matter. To be robustly and consistently anti-abortion is at the very same time to cast your vote for environmental sensitivity, against racism, and for economic justice. These are not independent, isolated packages.
It's hard to see how anyone can claim to be a protector of the environment and not put a high priority on the preservation of human babies. To defend a focus on the future of polar bears and whales, while asking evangelicals to get less noisy about infant humans, is an embarrassing contradiction.
Similarly, keep in mind that abortion is one of the most racist of all social causes in history. Minorities don't just happen incidentally to be targeted by the practice of abortion. The history of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations is racist to the core—as is their current practice.
And no economist can look at the loss of 50 million American babies over the last 45 years and not wince at the impact of such a drain on the economic vitality of our society. Today's poor Americans are poorer than they would have been if we'd taken care to preserve enough consumers—and workers—to fill a state one-and-a-half times as big as California. Tomorrow's elderly will worry about Social Security more than they would have with 50 million more contributors to the system.
So stop apologizing for having focused on a single issue. Don't let the "Evangelical Manifesto" or anyone else shame you into an overly narrow self-image. It's the folks promoting causes like abortion and same-sex marriage who are the real "single issue" fanatics, falsely teaching that you can mess with just one or two aspects of life without upsetting the balance God so wondrously installed in His creation order. We need to expose that lie for the tragic falsehood that it is—and to teach the next generation what a very bad bargain they have been asked to accept.
I have recently touched on the ridiculous fiasco of Rick Warren inviting rabid pro abortionist Barack Obama to his AIDS conference to talk about saving lives. Then, many from the "emergent", "red letter", and social justice camps (who have been pontificating for years about the religious right being too political) decided to turn it into a political issue. This stinks on so many levels and I just don't know where to begin unpacking this.
First of all, just because Barack Obama calls himself a Christian doesn't mean he is one. This is how Barack Obama describes his faith: "I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people." Hmmm how can I say this gently . . . "many paths" IS NOT CHRISTIANITY. The Christ of Barack Obama is not the Christ of Scripture. Barack Obama might speak christianese but he doesn't follow the TRUE Christ Who is the ONLY path to salvation. C'mon, this isn't that hard to figure out.
Secondly, Obama really brings nothing new or helpful to the fight against AIDS as his solution revolves around sex education programs rather than promoting abstinence before marriage. AIDS, as far as the big picture goes, is a moral issue because it is mainly spread through sexual promiscuity.
Third, all this focus on AIDS, global warming, opposing the war in Iraq is becoming disturbing - not because those issues don't matter but because of the silence on the abortion issue. All these "progressive Christian Leaders" rallying around Barak Obama and talking about taking the "holistic approach" is just one big fat disgraceful joke. If you were to add the total number of deaths from AIDS, the war in Iraq, and "the melting icecaps" it does not even come to one twentieth of the 46 MILLION estimated abortions each year (abortionno.org). Abortion is an outrage that dwarfs these other issues. If these people cared about abortion they would be making plenty of noise about it because they have no problem making a song and dance about our "carbon footprint" and they would never endorse Obama's pro death policies.
Genuinely concerned Christians wrote to Rick Warren pleading with him not to invite Barack Obama to his AIDS summit because of his pro abortion stance. Here is a copy of the letter:
As those who have worked to defend preborn children from the horrors of abortion in America and who have stood uncompromisingly against the legalized slaughter of an estimated 50 million Americans in the womb since 1973, we join with one voice in expressing our indignation and opposition to Rick Warren's welcoming of Senator Barack Obama to his church on December 1, 2006. Rick Warren is bringing Senator Obama to his church to speak for his Global Summit on AIDS and the church and to take an AIDS test in front of the cameras at a noon press conference.
Senator Obama comes to Rick Warren's church believing that abortion should be kept, "safe and legal". When Barack Obama campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his wife wrote a fundraising letter for him that revealed his support of partial-birth abortion. She said Obama's position is that the "partial-birth abortion ban . . . is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned." Support of partial-birth abortion goes a lot farther than the politicians who want abortion to be "safe and legal." Senator Obama actually supports the barbaric practice of allowing abortionists to kill babies by allowing them to be partially, born, their skulls punctured and their brains sucked out. Further, he repeatedly opposed an anti-infanticide bill in the state of Illinois that only passed after he left. Killing a child at any stage of life is a violation of God's clear command, "Thou Shall Do No Murder". In addition,Obama's solution to the growing AIDS crisis has been and continues to be the widespread distribution of condoms, not chaste behavior as directed by the Bible.
In the strongest possible terms, we oppose Rick Warren's decision to ignore Senator Obama's clear pro-death stance and invite him to Saddleback Church anyway. If Senator Obama cannot defend the most helpless citizens in our country, he has nothing to say to the AIDS crisis. You cannot fight one evil while justifying another. The evangelical church can provide no genuine help for those who suffer from AIDS if those involved do not first have their ethic of life firmly rooted in the Word of God. Accordingly, we call on Pastor Rick Warren to rescind his invitation to Senator Obama immediately. The millions of silent victims who have died because of the policies of leaders like Senator Obama demand a response from those who believe that life is a gift from God. The name of the seminar at which Senator Obama will be appearing is entitled, " We Must Work Together." No, Mr. Warren, Mr. Obama, we will never work with those can support the murder of babies in the womb.
Did you count the number of times the word "democrat" got mentioned in the letter - big fat zero. That is because this letter was solely conerned with Obama's pro murder stance.
Well those so called "progressive Christians" like Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis got wind of this letter and wrote a response. As you will see tomorrow, the real problem of political opportunism is not from the "religious right" but from these disgraceful individuals. Read their response tomorrow
Brian McLaren is at the forefront of this trend when he writes:
Since we have been persuaded to the contrary by this, by that pestilent saying of the Sophists, "the Scriptures are obscure and ambiguous," we are compelled, first of all, to prove that first grand principle of ours, by which all other things are to be proved: which among the Sophists, is considered absurd and impossible to be done . . . let us proceed, and drown that pestilent saying of the Sophists, in Scriptures.
