(Oh, and BOTH of y'all [Brandon and Tom], respond to me on that other thread.  Seriously.)

Tommy that is sooo not like you. Truth be told, I don't agree with A LOT of what Jon says in this post, however I think it's worth reading. I think Jon had a lot of his facts right. His analysis was spot on at some points. However, I find this post (as with much of the Christian understanding of politics) to be reationary. "Hey, I'm tired of evangelicals jumping on board with the Republican Party! I'm tired of Christians co-opting with Right-wing politics (aka the Religious Right)!" So what do they do? They hop on board left-wing party politics instead of thinking through consistently what government OUGHT TO DO. I don't agree with Greg's theology concerning politics? I mean, we've pointed out many of the inconsistencies on these boards. However, it use to be a term of scorn to be labelled a "Labadist" (descendants of Anabaptists? There is probably some connection at least with how it concerns radical pietism) because they were radically pietistic. So much so that even early Calvinists were considered by Labadists to be "too worldly." In other words, someone is always going to come along who is going to "out-do you in the spiritual department." The point being is that there always exists in the Church a certain strain of Christians who call their brothers and sisters "back to the center" as it were, and voices like Greg's and Jon Trott's need to be heard at this time in the history of America (shoot, maybe even guys like Fred Phelps have a place to be heard). I would say it's a prophetical voice. So this is why I think you should read what he has to say.

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/7/2008 10:59:58 PM (GMT-5)

Well Tommy, don't take it personally!  From his perspective the majority of his readers are complicit in that evil Republican/Evangelical nexus.  Their values are screwed up.  Their values are not biblical, (according to Jon) although they might think they are which is a part of the reason they keep voting Republican.  Some Christians have participated in protests but in the wrong way and I suppose if you have not participated in a protest and you have been for the "War on Terrorism" or been for the war in Iraq and Republican economic policies, then according to him one would be complicit in all of this.

But see, that's the problem, most Christians are still working from this right/left political framework. His article is sooo piecemeal that he can't seem to see past it.  He's steeped in Republican/Democrat/left/right/conservative/liberal political thinking so much so that I wonder if he really would like to see abortion as we know it--on demand, for convenience--end!  Right from the top, when he supports a politician and his platform that still allows legal the right for a women to have unlimited abortion on demand that was capitulation to Democratic values.  But then to see how he tries to have both?  That's capitulation as well!  That's just backwards man.  Are his values (and Obama's) biblical here?  I don't think so.

I wrote to Jon on his facebook (because he linked it there as well).  Here is the ensuing exchange thus far.

Jon:  Brandon, Roe v. Wade isn't likely at all to go anywhere. I'm trying to offer an actual solution which we ourselves can be prime movers in bringing about. I don't think abortion on demand will ever "go away" in the United States... but I do think it could be a compromise between the present very broad outlines in Roe and a far more scaled back version of abortion which recognizes the current medical realities. My two sons, for instance, were born prematurely at only five months gestation. They both lived, and today's medicine has far advanced since their birth year, 1980.

Today our government announced that we killed 33 Afghani civilians, including 12 children, as well as allegedly killing 22 militants -- this in a raid done back in August via dropping bombs. That, too, is a life issue...

Brandon: 

Jon,

Thanks for the response. I think you may be right that LEGALLY speaking, “abortion on demand” will not go away if Roe v. Wade disappeared tomorrow. As you say, the question would then go to the individual states. Some states would be more liberal, some would be less liberal and some would be about the same (personally, I think this may not be a bad move as someone contemplating an abortion in a state that has abolished it will have to go to another state which may act as a deterrent to then get an abortion, this could work in favor of your ultimate goal--to scale back and eventually abolish abortion [admittedly, I don’t quite sense the urgency from you to “end” abortion as I do to scale it back]). Regardless, all this does is push that issue, that question, a step backward. It simply moves it from a federal question to an individual states question, which is what it was before Roe v. Wade. It really doesn’t address what the proper role of government should be which I think has some bearing on your thoughts about this matter. My point is to get to the bottom presuppositions and question what the proper role of government should be whether it falls to the federal government or whether it falls to the individual state governments. Please try to understand the big picture here. Let me try to explain it like this Jon.

Obviously, you say you would like to see abortion on demand as a societal reality become abolished (or else why would you use the analogy from the civil rights movement in terms of slavery?), right? Even if you don’t think this is a realistic goal (I mean who would like to see even one child aborted?) you would like to see it scaled back from it’s present level of 1.2million per yr.

That being the case, while I would agree in part with your argument concerning having a “ground swell of public sediment” it is only part of the picture here (that’s how many laws come to be passed. Actually, it seems to be a two way street. Laws are impacted by those not in government, but once laws come into force? They shape how organizations and institutions and people behave and think. Thus, the movement is both ways). That was one of your spot on points. However, if government is to protect life? It should be protecting it at all levels ie. making sure our water systems are clean, the food is good, the availability of jobs are in place, etc, all of these for the continuance of life. Now, say you or I come across some marital or family crisis. Any response to this SHOULD be from extended family, neighbours, friends, churches, social service organizations, and/or public authorities. The burden shouldn’t be all yours or all mine, and in the case of abortion? The burden of an unwanted pregnancy should not fall all on the mother! Any degradation that befalls us in life (and who hasn’t had some crisis or another ie. loss of a job, ill health, lack of friends, an accident that lays one up or causes a long-term handicap) should be remedied in part by families, friends, service providers, and government. Well, the same goes for someone contemplating abortion. The FIRST step to helping someone with an unwanted or problematic pregnancy should not be to offer an abortion, but should rather be to extend a hand of help by those who are building and strengthening community and making it possible for life to continue even for those in great distress. It’s like when the police or the military use force against those who would threaten a life? They should use it as a last report. Well the same goes for abortion. Abortion ought to be a last-resort option rather than a first-resort option for family planning or for say the social or psychological convenience of those who are responsible for pregnancy.

Again, if a woman is pregnant? The burden of that pregnancy should not fall totally on her especially if this has occurred outside of the marriage. Yes, there may be circumstances in which she is justified in having an abortion but the presumption must be in favor of life, of protecting life and the life-generating communities of marriage and family. When society and the government give up on the protection of life in favor of allowing citizens to have a free choice about when to abort life? Then the movement toward the degradation of life picks up steam. This is a very autonomous decision (which is impossible for any of us by the way) which encourages us to function more and more on our own--leaving each to his or her own devices where no one bears responsibility for the other because each is free to decide whatever he or she wants.

So. What needs to be justified here is not the protection of life but the taking of life! That should ALWAYS be justified in terms of very high standards of life protection, not the other way around. It is not abortion that should be free and easy while any restriction on abortion would have to be justified in terms of a “high standard” of autonomy. That’s just backward man.

So what should government do? It should do everything within it’s sphere of responsibility (yes, I have a Kuyperian streak in me): support adequate health care for pregnant women and for infants, encourage pregnancy counselling, promote adoption, strengthen foster care.

Government must protect ALL life Jon, which means government upholding all the life-generating and life-sustaining institutions, such as marriage, family, friends, neighbours, churches, charitable organizations, clean water supplies, ensuring healthy food, etc, through which human creatures depend on and nurture one another in life (so you really can’t use the “other life issues” argument here ie. look how many Afghani people were kill people our government killed today to justify your position). It really doesn’t work under the paradigm I’m suggesting.

This isn’t just about Roe v. Wade Jon. My vision is much more larger than that. More global than that. It is nothing short of renewal of the whole earth! This is why I can to some degree or another agree with your “shared roots” argument. The problem of abortion is intertwined and enmeshed with so many other areas of life! Obama’s stance seeks to scale back abortions via abstinence education and “other” educational means (what’s that? Liberal sex education? Another contradiction??) while at the same time allowing women to have unlimited abortion on demand is a flat out contradiction especially given what I’m saying above.

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/9/2008 10:20:51 AM (GMT-5)

I thought he and I were saying close to the same thing in terms of abortion being integrated with so many other issues.  A part of abolishing abortion is having healthy families, healthy marriages, healthy charities, healthy relationships, etc.  Sorry, but if we go back to my library analogy, government is detrimental to a just public order.  There's just no way, it seems to me to get around that.

Secondly, you can't have a law like Roe v. Wade on the books and expect for the abortion rate to go down.  As I said, the first step to helping someone with a problem pregnancy is to build stronger communities NOT offering abortions.  So, it's still very hard to see how Obama would eliminate abortion via keeping Roe v. Wade and laws (if passed to the individual states) alive. 

You've been praying about this and the Lord has spoken to you about it...how?

Good stuff, Brandon. 

The following is one good reason why I've had a change of heart and will be switching parties this election.

According to Fredericka Matthews-Green's book Real Choices, 88% of women who get abortions say at least one man, in some capacity, has pressured her to get an abortion.  Theologian John Rankin (Hartford, CT) says most women facing the abortion issue blame their need for an abortion on "male chauvinism," or men who were not willing to accept responsibility in some capacity. Jim Kessler, vice president of policy for Third Way, reports that 83% of all women who have abortions are not married in the “Demographics of Abortion”.  Were men to practice sexual purity by keeping sexual intercourse within the bond of marriage, the great majority of abortions would never occur.

Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 10/11/2008 9:03:22 PM (GMT-5)