Some Good Stuff to Ponder [SK]

John Piper does what most pastors won't do: confront the President of the United States during a Sunday morning sermon. That's courage, and we need more leadership like John's if we are to turn things around.



Professor Micah Watson of Union University has a piece entitled, Obama, Abortion and the Promise of Racial Equality:

Sadly, though, that hope for a better future is not available to all young black human beings. This promise is undercut by the ugly truth that the youngest blacks in America first have to survive the harrowing gauntlet that is their first 40 weeks of existence. The latest data portray a stunning picture of gross racial inequality when it comes to the lives taken through abortions.

J.P. Moreland (Talbot School of Theology) explains why evangelicals and their pastors shoud engage the political process, not retreat from it:

I think that Christians believe the Bible has something to say about everything. The Bible has something to say about science, it has something to say about sex in marriage, it has something to say about money. Well why wouldn’t the Bible has something to say about the state? It doesn’t make any sense to me that the Bible would be silent about this one topic when it has something to say about virtually everything else including art, history and so on. So I think what pastors have to do is to simply teach their congregations and lead by example about what the Bible says about the role of the state in public life. I think it’s more important to teach a general political theology than it is to get involved in specific issues from the beginning, because it’s going to be your political philosophy that informs those issues. And so if I were a pastor, I would begin to develop a theology about what the Bible says about the role of the state.

Melinda Penner writes of the tolerance bargin.

LTI Podcast Episode 1 is up! [Serge]

Life Training Institute is now available on the go. You can listen right here or download the file here. It should be available in Itunes in a couple days, or you can copy/paste the RSS feed into your MP3 player here.



Show Notes and links:

Scott and Serge discuss the Obama presidency and its impact on pro-life advocacy. Is it time to give up on politics and accept our defeat or become even more politically involved?

Links: Father Euteneuer's advice for pro-lifers in 2009.

Staying Alive: Pro-Life Advocacy in the Obama Era
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/11/stayin-alive-pro-life-advocacy-in-obama.html

In Defense of Both/And: My Reply to Phil Johnson
http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/in-defense-of-bothand-my-reply-to-phil.html


Serge takes on an article claiming that abstinence pledges are ineffective.

Dr. Rosembaum's article in Pediatrics in full.

Update: the podcast can now be subscribed to via ITunes at http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=303709975

Links and Stuff [SK]

Steve Hays reviews David Boonin's defense of abortion and finds it wanting.

Trevin Wax interviews Russell More on the role of pro-life Christians (HT: Justin Taylor):

We should gladly join hands with atheist pro-lifers such as the Village Voice journalist Nat Hentoff or with Mormon or Hindu pro-life citizens. We also should articulate that we believe this is so important precisely because we serve a King who has told us that we will be judged on the basis on how we treat the most vulnerable among us.

My presentation on genetic engineering and ESCR this last Sunday at First Family Church can be viewed for one week here. The presentation is not technical, but covers general concerns.
-

Is Hope Going Away for Pro-life Obama Supporters? [Serge]

In an answer to Scott's question, a beliefnet blogger already sees through the rhetoric of the Obama presidency. All Obama has offered for those who value human life are words and hope, and he's already begun to backtrack even on that:

Today, as promised, he is expected to repeal the "Mexico City policy" a.k.a. the "gag rule" -- the policy that prevented overseas family planning groups from mentioning abortion as an option if they receive U.S. money. He earned some praise from pro-life supporters by delaying the order by a day so it wouldn't coincide with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which many pro-life people view as a day of grief.

But I think the real signficance -- and the reason pro-life Obama supporters ought to be disappointed -- is the combination of the gag rule repeal (which was expected) and the language he used in his Roe v. Wade statement yesterday.

He did mention the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies. But keep in mind that pro-life Obama supporters believed that their big victory during the fights over the Democratic Party platform was not the language about reducing unintended pregnancies -- but rather the language about helping women carry babies to term, if that was their choice.

That thought was absent from yesterday's statement.

Is Hope Enough? [SK]

I'm amazed at a few friends (who I know to be more pro-life than not) and their unqualified praise for President Obama. They laud him for the "hope" he allegedly brings to the human family, but ignore completely his refusal to answer the fundamental question of WHO belongs to that family in the first place. That is, does that family include embryos and fetuses?

Indeed, hasn't the man already told us that precise question is "above his pay grade?" Nevertheless, he has no problem using our tax dollars to kill those same entities he's not sure are subjects with rights or something else.

That's what's wrong with liberalism. While it pretends not to preach, it quietly decides who lives and dies.

SK

Media Idiocy of the Week Part 3 [Serge]

98% of this article is actually quite good, especially this quote from an adult stem cell researcher comparing the funding of ESCR with that prior to the sub-prime mortgage crisis:

"The scramble to fund human embryonic stem cell experiments looks like the scientific equivalent of sub-prime mortgages," says Raisman. "One wonders how long the large sums of money and hype can go on chasing such a distant goal before the bubble bursts."

That's good stuff, but I still can't let the author get away with this statement, which is just a complete, blatant falsehood:

Under George W Bush, federal funding of ­human embryonic stem cell work was banned in the United States for religious reasons.

:sigh: Here we go again. Bush did not ban federal funding for ESCR - in fact he funded ESCR for the first time in American history. He limited funding to the human embryonic stem cell lines to those that were already existing, enabling continued research in ESCR without the additional federally funded death of human embryos.

Second, I don't recall Bush quoting Scripture or relying on Sacred dictum to make his decision. I realize that in Brave New Britain in may be difficult to imagine that one can still use secular reasoning to defend the intrinsic value of human life, but here in the states we still seem to be able to.

For Those Tempted to Give Up [SK]

Consider this from Abraham Lincoln, who wrote in July of 1858:

I have never professed an indifference to the honors of official station; and were I to do so now, I should only make myself ridiculous. Yet I have never failed – do not now fail – to remember that in the republican cause there is a higher aim than that of mere office – I have not allowed myself to forget that the abolition of the Slave-trade by Great Brittain [sic], was agitated a hundred years before it was a final success; that the measure had it’s open fire-eating opponents; it’s stealthy “don’t care” opponents; it’s dollars and cent opponents; it’s inferior race opponents; it’s negro equality opponents; and it’s religion and good order opponents; that all these opponents got offices, and their adversaries got none – But I have also remembered that [inserted: though] they blazed, like tallow-candles for a century, at last they flickered in the socket, died out, stank in the dark for a brief season, and were remembered no more, even by the smell – School-boys know that Wilbe[r]force, and Granville Sharpe, helped that cause forward; but who can now name a single man who labored to retard it? Remembering these things I can not but regard it as possible that the higher object of this contest may not be completely attained within [2] the term of my [inserted: natural] life. But I can not doubt either that it will come in due time. Even in this view, I am proud, in my passing speck of time, to contribute an humble mite to that glorious consummation, which my own poor eyes may [struck: never] [inserted: not] last to see –

Thanks to Fletcher Armstrong for alerting me to the highlights of this quote.