Continuing to examine “Rev.” Dr. Pastor (ad infinitum) Lee’s mid-term Election piece located here,
http://www.patheos.com/Topics/Politics-in-the-Pulpit/The-Church-Should-Not-Weigh-In-On-Ballot-Issues-Brian-Lee-110314.html
“Rev.” Dr. Pastor (titles ad infinitum) Lee (but who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles and who is not a coward) wrote,
How then shall we best love our neighbors outside the church? How shall we preserve and protect those lives that are not directly subject to the moral government of the church?
We have no comparable clarity here. Shall we enact laws against abortion? Christians may, in our wisdom, decide it is best to do so. But neither the Church nor her preachers can say unambiguously that such laws must be enacted. She lacks the authority, and the wisdom, to do so. Perhaps such a law will backfire; perhaps it will lead to more abortions, to more deadly abortions. Perhaps it is politically unwise, though being morally just. If she bases her actions on what God’s word teaches, the church must remain agnostic on such questions.
Therefore, the church should be mindful of its members’ dual citizenship, and differing degrees of clarity on how God’s law shall be applied in different aspects of their lives. God’s law is not multifaceted. It is one and simple and true. But our grasp of it, and our application of it to our neighbors in particular times and places, is finite and variable.
Yet while the church is bound and limited in what she may teach, the individual Christian is free. She may engage in politics, may lobby for pro-life causes, may hold civil office. But the church may not compel her to do so.
1.) The implication that the Institutional Church and her Ministers is directly subjecting pagans to the moral government of the Church when it speaks against matters like abortion is a red herring. When the Institutional Church and her Ministers speak consistent with the Heidelberg Catechism seeking to “protect our neighbor from harm as much as we can” it is hardly subjecting them to the moral government of the Church, unless you consider keeping them from harm a matter of direct moral governance.
2.) “Latin Lee” insists that we have no comparable clarity here but Heidelberg Catechism q. 107 says otherwise. Whose words shall we take on the matter?
3.) Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee then launches off into the law of possible unintended consequences. If we followed Lee’s logic on this none of us would get out of bed in the morning. Perhaps such a law will lead to nuclear holocaust.” “Perhaps such a law will lead to more than 1.3 million abortions every year.” This is such a reach one seriously wonders if the good minister is receiving a commission from Planned Parenthood? Lee’s fretting changes the question from “Shall we do evil that good may abound,” to an imperative, “We shall not do good because evil might abound.” Doctor Rev. Pastor Lee, we are responsible to be obedient. God is responsible for the consequences.
4.) “To more deadly abortions?”
More deadly abortions?
More deadly abortions?
God forbid that we would want to go from dead abortions to even more deadly abortions.
5.) “Perhaps it is politically unwise, though being morally just.”
Only a former bureaucrat could possibly think like that. Doctor Rev. Pastor Lee, we are responsible to be obedient. God is responsible for the consequences.
6.) Keep in mind that you, Dear Reader, read above, a Minister of the Institutional Church of Jesus Christ say, “the church must remain agnostic on such questions” of whether or not Ministers should verbally, from the Pulpit, support laws ending abortion.
What reasons are given?
a.) such laws might backfire
b.) such laws might lead to more deadly abortions
c.) such laws might be politically unwise
And despite the requirement in question 107 of the Heidelberg Catechism to “protect our neighbor from harm as much as we can” we are told that the Institutional Church and Her ministers must not speak on this kind of matter.
Such council is to boggle the mind.
7.) But Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee is not done. His next statement almost seems to channel Joseph Fletcher — he of “situational ethics” fame. Lee warns us about the, “differing degrees of clarity on how God’s law shall be applied in different aspects of their lives. God’s law is not multifaceted. It is one and simple and true. But our grasp of it, and our application of it to our neighbors in particular times and places, is finite and variable.
If this is not situational ethics it then sure sounds like cultural relativism. God’s law is not multifaceted, and is simple and true but we can’t get to it because we are finite and variable. Paging Dr. Immanuel Kant, there is a severe case of the noumenal realm in room 17.
And here we end our analysis. If this is what Christianity has become, I have no interest in being a Christian.
Bret you would probably find some commiseration with Kierkegaard in his books written under his own name (the pseudonymous ones are voicing a different sort of critique). He was as disgusted by the gutless Christianity of “Christendom” as I am sure you are with so much of the visible church in our age. His irony is biting and his analysis is often spot on, though he misses a bit wide on the answers.
Joshua,
I read a good deal of Kierkegaard in undergrad.
If it makes you feel any better, I think you sound more like Machen than Kierkegaard. But Kierkegaard is a bit saucier than Machen, at least from what little I’ve read of Machen.