|
Dr. Ron Gleason's Column
ETHOS -- March 17, 2005 ------ Please visit my web site at http://www.rongleason.org
A New Vision for Faith & Politics in America
Jim Wallis & Christian Social Ethics (II)
A Consistent Ethic of Life
Chapter 18 of Jim Wallis' book, God's Politics, that we're
discussing, deals with two "hot ticket" ethical items:
Abortion and Capital Punishment. This is as good a place as any
to start engaging our culture. In fact, in light of our Supreme
Court's recent decision on juveniles and the death penalty, (Roper
v. Simmons), this is a highly appropriate place to begin. It is
interesting that in their dissent, Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and
Thomas (and to some degree Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) tie the
recent decision regarding the death penalty for people under the
age of 18 to the abortion issue. We must be acutely aware that the
two are inextricably bound-as are other "right to life"
ethical questions such as the Terri Schiavo euthanasia case.[1]
Therefore, at the appropriate time and place, we'll inject citations
both from the Supreme Court decision as well as the remarks from
the dissenters.
But for now, let's get back to Mr. Wallis' chapter on abortion
and capital punishment. He opens the discussion by reference to
a talk that he gave at Notre Dame University a while back. He mentions
that "The meeting room was packed to overflowing," as
just a small indication of what an important and engaging speaker
he is.[2] Just kidding.
Apparently, Mr. Wallis discussed a wide variety of ethical issues
with the students at Notre Dame and, inevitably, the matter of abortion
arose-among a group of predominantly Roman Catholic students. Mr.
Wallis took issue with both Republicans and Democrats for being
inconsistent and insensitive on this matter. To his credit, Mr.
Wallis criticizes both parties-sort of. He points out that the Republicans
overlooked Gov. Schwarzenegger's stance on abortion-pro-choice-while
the Democrats refused to allow former Pennsylvania governor Robert
Casey, a Roman Catholic, to speak at the 1992 and 1996 Democratic
conventions because of his pro-life views.[3]
Before we move on, I want to make just a few pertinent comments.
My first comment is the most critical. Here it is: According to
the blurb on the dust jacket, Mr. Wallis is an evangelical and the
leading figure at the crossroads of religion and politics in America
today. According to Cornel West, he is the major prophetic evangelical
Christian voice in the country. Wow. I'm impressed.
That being the case, combined with his odyssey for a consistent
ethic of life and his question of when Jesus became a selective
moralist, you would think that he would present some substantial
biblical data to support his position. He doesn't. There is no use
of Scripture in the entire discussion in chapter 18, with the exception
of a quotation from Psalm 139:13, which he mentions in passing and
to which never returns for any meaningful exegesis.
My point here is simply this: if Mr. Wallis intends to deal with
two enormously controversial topics such as abortion and the death
penalty, you would expect-I would expect-a substantially more complete
set of biblical texts that deal with the sanctity of life and why
capital punishment is unbiblical. We search, however, in vain for
such an approach from Mr. Wallis.
Second, in the realm of politics there were a number of conservative
Republicans who were and are well aware of Gov. Schwarzenegger's
relatively conservative fiscal policies as well as his leftist social
policies. In terms of the untenable financial situation former governor
Gray Davis had gotten California into, Arnold was an improvement.
Davis had snatched defeat from the jaws of overwhelming victory
and through a series of ridiculous decisions on deregulation and
out of control spending from the liberal state legislature, the
state plummeted into near cataclysmic financial ruin. The Californians
were caught between the proverbial rock and hard place and opted
for the lesser of evils.
Third, Wallis' observation that "to be a pro-life Democrat
is to be a very lonely political creature in America"[4] is
on the mark. Robert Casey is not atypical, especially these days
when people like Howard Dean is chairman of the DNC and Nancy Pelosi,
John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy-all far left-wingers-form the current
core of the party. With them in charge, it is highly unlikely that
even the major prophetic evangelical Christian voice in America
will have much impact.
Where are Their Congregations?
Reading material like Wallis' book often raises the question in
my mind just where the churches are of those who are "prominent
Christian prophets." If Mr. Wallis is a minister, does he actually
serve a congregation? If he does, he is silent about his denominational
affiliation. I'm told that he's a "nationally renowned preacher,"
but I'm not told where. Maybe that comes from his prophetic office.
He also mentions the plight of Democrat Jesse Jackson-and I would
add to that list the Rev. Al Sharpton. The same question applies
in their cases: Where are their congregations?
Anyway, Mr. Wallis contends that "Jesse Jackson was virtually
forced to change his pro-life views, which were typical for a black
church minister, when he decided to run for the presidency."[5]
Really? Who forced him? Was he roughed up in the process or was
his decision actually one of political expediency rather than coercion?
There are a number of black minister who are standing their ground
and speaking out against abortion. These ministers have a congregation
that they serve and are, thankfully, willing to follow the truth
of the Bible on the sanctity of human rather than chasing after
a political whim.
Mr. Wallis is not going to like this, but I'm going to say it anyway:
being pro-choice and being a Christian is inconsistent.[6] If Mr.
Wallis is searching for a consistent ethic of life based on the
teachings of Jesus, then he is compelled by his own thesis to search
the Bible. In the Bible we are told that Jesus is God (cf. John
1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8-9; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John
5:20)[7] and that there is no difference between him and the God
of the Old Testament-they are one and the same. That being the case,
there can be no inconsistency or contradiction between Old Testament
truth and the New Testament teachings of Jesus, Paul, or the other
human authors of the Word of God. Surely, as a Christian theologian,
not to mention being a prophet, Mr. Wallis will readily acknowledge
the truth of what I just wrote-won't he?
My read on Rev. Jackson is that he changed his position on his
pro-life views by his free, unforced volition. He understood that
"Nobody gets to speak from the Democratic Convention rostrum
whose abortion views don't toe the party line."[8] Clearly,
Rev. Jackson recognized his dilemma and had to make a choice. To
my mind, that choice would be clear and easy. It is recounted for
us in the book of Acts when Peter and the apostles answered the
high priest and all who were with him (cf. Acts 5:17) that they
must obey God rather than men (5:29). In their case, they were told
that they were no longer to preach in the name of Jesus. The apostles'
answer was clear, courageous, and unequivocal. They didn't quibble
or whine about being virtually forced to change because of religious,
political pressure. They simply never tired of doing the right thing
(cf. 2 Thess. 3:13).
How any of what Wallis has said to this point amounts to a "consistent"
ethic of
life is beyond me.
Pastor Ron Gleason, Ph.D.
Yorba Linda, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Just as an aside, Terri Schiavo can hardly be considered euthanasia
in the sense
of a "good" or "soft" death. If her feeding
tube is removed she will die an
excruciatingly painful death from starvation and dehydration. Doesn't
anyone care?
[2] Wallis, GP, 297.
[3] Ibid., 298. He also points out that Rudolph Giuliani is another
prominent
pro-choice Republican.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 299.
[6] That great paragon of Christian morality Alan Colmes recently
raised his
eyebrow, wrinkled his forehead, and questioned if there were a contradiction
between
being a practicing homosexual and being a Christian. Yes, Alan,
there is.
[7] Also compare the following texts where the Greek word for Lord
and applied to
Christ applies to Yahweh in the Old Testament: Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3;
Luke 3:4; John
1:23; [Isa. 40:3]; Luke 1:17; [Mal. 4:5-6]; Acts 2:21; [Joel 2:32];
13:47; [Isa.
49:6]; Acts 15:17 [Amos 9:12]; Rom. 10:13; [Joel 2:32]; 14:11; [Isa.
45:23]; 2
Thess. 1:9; [Num. 16:5]; Heb. 1:10; [Ps. 102:2]; 1 Pet. 2:3; [Ps.
34:8].
[8] Wallis, GP, 299.
Searching for bin Laden
Dr. Ron Gleason, Ph.D.
Pastor Grace Presbyterian Church
23655 Via del Rio, Ste. G
Yorba Linda, CA 92887
bavinck@prodigy.net tel:
fax:
mobile: 714/692-2390
714/692-2491
714/318-6843
|
