This entire enterprise requires perseverance because it is so hard. The churches of the US have largely passively lived in segregated worlds - in life and in church. We haven’t actively worked to live out our unity in Christ in relationships with one another. That’s the way it’s been for 200 years. So now as we intentionally try to live out Biblical theology - see Ephesians 2 or the first sermon in this series (the cross destroys ALL the walls we erect) - we are going to have some hard questions. They may be hard to ask or even answer but we need a safe place to ask them. Here’s the place. If you’d like you can submit them here or if you’d like you can send them to me at dsmith@chpc.org. If you send your questions via email they will be posted anonymously. So be warned - if you are ready for the tough questions then here’s the place. Ask and then listen. Remember, our goal is to listen and understand more than to speak and be understood. We are not trying to debate or convince but we are simply trying to understand one another. It’s not easy but let’s keep walking across the rubble.
#1 by dsmith on February 5th, 2009 - 9:03 am
Here’s one that has come out of the election.
How can a Christian vote for a president who supports abortion and homosexuality?
#2 by dsmith on February 5th, 2009 - 10:01 am
I appreciate this question - of course it isn’t necessarily an issue of black and white because there are many, many whites who voted for our current president. But, this year more than any other the polls say that evangelical Christians voted for the Democratic candidate. We know that wise thinking, God fearing, Bible believing, Jesus loving Christians voted all kinds of ways and this is the kind of clear specific question that can help us understand one another. Thanks for asking it.
I will also point you to a sermon in the summer about politics (July 13 under sermons). Our common call is to pursue justice in every way. We have a common pursuit but we will have some very different ways and methods that we think will work the best in achieving God’s Shalom for all people.
#3 by dsmith on February 5th, 2009 - 10:26 am
Here is a response sent to me:
I am specifically responding to a friend’s question regarding my support for Barack Obama in light of the abortion issue. I should first say that I do not support Barack Obama because of his views on abortion, but because he is, in my opinion, the best man for the job as a whole. As for the issue at hand, my friend specifically asks, “…how do you get past him (Obama) ignoring what the Bible says about the unborn?”
a
Though I’m certainly not exhausting the scripture’s references to life before or after birth, I’m guessing, for most of us, what the Bible says about the unborn can be summarized in two scriptures: Exodus 20:13, “Thou shall not murder”; and Psalm 139:12-14, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made…” Attached to these and built on many more scriptures and the moral foundations of many faiths is a general respect for life, especially the life of the innocent. From these, one can easily conclude the wrongfulness of abortion and a general “how dare we interfere with God’s work.”
a
Even so, I question the badge of “pro-life.” I feel it is an oxymoron, a non sequitur, when one solely defends the life an unborn child without extending that same defense to the rest of human life in terms of the political issues of gun-control, war, and the death-penalty. I will quickly venture to say that (we) liberals make the same mistake when (we) oppose war and the death-penalty and support gun-control but fail to support and seek alternatives to abortion. And this argument is often made because the unborn child has no voice and no defense as it is truly innocent. Without arguing that point, as I agree with it wholeheartedly, might I ask how truly innocent is the life of a young man sent to war when he’s been pumped full of familial and social expectations for duty without necessarily being of a true age of accountability? After all, he’s not old enough to decide if he can drink alcohol responsibly, but he is assumed to have the moral fortitude to choose to kill other human beings. Might I ask how innocent is the man who commits even heinous crimes who has been used and abused since his birth and taught that there is no way out of the only life he knows? I am not saying that we should not expect our citizens to defend their country; I am not saying that we should excuse the behavior of the ones who choose to break the law and destroy another’s life or livelihood; I am certainly not saying that the innocent life of an unborn child is the same as the innocent life of a young soldier or criminal. I am saying that many pro-lifers fail to extend their “respect” beyond the unborn. You might do well to remember who was crucified next to Jesus and how Jesus treated them.
a
I can also not call myself pro-choice. I think this is a cheap description. Like Barack Obama said during one of the debates, I am not for abortion. Furthermore, I think that every alternative should be sought before this one. Having said that, I have a tremendously heavy heart for those who have made this decision. I can only imagine the difficulty of it. I can only speculate that people make this decision out of fear, ignorance, dysfunctional obligation, or, as is my belief about suicide, out of a devastating realization that there really is no other choice. I do not think that women are flocking to the clinics to “enjoy” the freedoms of abortion as many pro-lifers would have us believe. We can judge them for this all we want, but I do know that this is not a flippant decision for most, but a heart-wrenching one that never goes away.
So, how can I support a politician who will not oppose abortion?
1. I believe the abortion issue has hi-jacked the elections of our highest offices at the expense of many other issues that, when ignored, have equally (and somewhat related) devastating effects on our country and our people. For example, look into the life-damning effects of some environmental issues, socio-economic stratification and its corollaries such as quality of life, health, life-expectancy, death rates, education, and employment.
2. I believe a president should be elected for how he will run our country on all this issues, not solely for the chance that he may choose a judge who may or may not vote according to our will on this one issue.
3. I believe we fool ourselves when we think that pro-life is completely pro-life and that pro-choice is not. I believe this happens to be one more flag for the religious right to wave that actually ostracizes the very ones Jesus has asked us to love. I understand the moral imperative and passion that we feel—I just think we’ve gone about it the wrong way.
In the end, I believe that we all must vote our conscience (hopefully influenced by our religious beliefs). That is our right and our responsibility. After all, aren’t all the issues, the campaign promises, and the rhetoric quite flimsy when it comes to real action? We’ve seen that with every President—his real power is in how he can work with and motivate Congress. Our conscience, then, is what we have; it is what we own. I would never ask anyone to deny that. I do, however, as I’ve done with myself, ask you to challenge your conscience. How consistent are my beliefs? How has my prejudice, my bigotry, my anger, my hatred, and my fear, my self-righteousness formed my political foundation? Is there a difference between opposing something and not supporting it? Must I vote for a president whom I cannot support in the areas of economics and social justice (which both carry huge connotations for respecting human life) simply because he says he is pro-life? After all, how can he guarantee that his nominations for the court will indeed back him up?
This response was sent to me on Thursday feb. 5.
#4 by Sam on February 6th, 2009 - 2:29 pm
All this navel-gazing is fine but let’s get back to the topic of abortion. Why is it so hard for “the church” to take a clear stand against this holocaust? Resist the urge to cloud the issue with sidetrips into the topics of war and capital punishment. Isn’t a big purpose of the church to provide moral instruction or should each member be left to define things as they see fit?
#5 by dsmith on February 6th, 2009 - 3:12 pm
Thanks for your contribution which the moderator will allow but ask we stay on topic and try to understand one another. There are plenty of other places for debate and persuasion which are very important but this little place is for trying to understand one another. From this comment I grasp that for this individual and others - abortion (violence in the womb) is of higher significance than war or capital punishment, etc. (violence outside the womb). That indeed is one of the differences to try to understand that would help to answer the original question.
#6 by George McKee on February 6th, 2009 - 10:19 pm
I’m not clear how this discusion got to Obama and abortion, but the logic in #3 above makes me very sad. Yes, there are other issues than abortion. But to use this thinking to ignore 1.2 million (1,200,000)plus abortions a year is sad indeed. Reminds me of, “In those days there was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own eyes.”
However, back to black & white, a couple of Sundays ago Rev Hall said that if the merger of our churches did not happen there would be riots. I believe he said this in jest. However, for someone who lived near Detroit in the late 1960s and who has been refused service because of my race, this is not a comment to be made lightly. I was taken aback that it was even said.
#7 by Roxane on February 7th, 2009 - 10:56 pm
I’m very careful to start equating one social injustice for another, but I really have difficulty when people equate killing innocent babies with soldiers voluntarily going to war in defense of their country or people who have been convicted through trial. God has given us a will, not matter what circumstances we grow up in, to make our choices. Unborn children do not have these choices.
My challenge to the church is that we ask God to examine our hearts and find if there is any offensive way in us. CHPC has barely had a word of defense for the unborn on the eve of what I believe to be a turning point for our country. The so called Freedom of Choice Act is in the House of Representatives right now. In the current state of the bill, it will remove all restrictions on abortion. I believe God grieves this. Teenagers will not need permission from their parents to get an abortion, federal tax dollars will be unlimited to fund abortions, a woman will be able to get an abortion at any state of her pregnancy for whatever reason she desires. It’s a Holocust. I just can’t turn my head to this.
I think we’ve got on the topic of abortion because, I like many of the people in our congregation, grieve the incredible state of compromise our country has come to on this issue. I don’t know how God can honor our country - and our church- if we do not defend the least of our people. Matthew 18:7 states “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!” I will do what I can to prevent another from sinning.
To George’s point, I don’t think we should make our decision about whether or not we merge with Winton Hill out of fear, but through the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Roxane
#8 by NO COMMENT on February 8th, 2009 - 11:07 pm
As for #3, I completely agree.
#9 by George McKee on February 11th, 2009 - 5:15 pm
what happened at the meeting last night? how did our church vote on the issues at presbytery.
#10 by dsmith on February 11th, 2009 - 6:56 pm
The Presbytery defeated the attempt to change the Book of Order by an 83 to 83 vote. What a powerful example of every vote counting. If you are interested in following the vote across the nation check out this site http://www.presbycoalition.org/votingresults.cfm#53334
#11 by dsmith on February 16th, 2009 - 11:02 am
Submitted to dsmith@chpc.org on Feb. 15
“I wanted to share my thoughts on the issue of voting and the issue of abortion. First I want to state that I believe God is the creator of all life, and that all life is sacred. I believe abortion is wrong.
In the 80’s I would have been quick to say this issue trumps all other issues. And to be honest if I believed that any candidate or party could effectively bring change I would still struggle with this as a critical issue. However I’ve had the priviledge of living many more years and have not seen an effect regardless of the political party in charge. In fact I believe the rate of abortions went down during the Clinton administration.
I believe that there are many other factors that may be more effective in reducing abortions.
I think that there is not a legislative solution to this problem of abortion. I see two possibilities for this. First that no candidate can effectively bring legislative change. There have been 20 years of Republican administrations that had a prolife platform, yet the law has not changed. If this issue is not amenable to a legislative resolution then to have this be the number one issue for voting is not helpful. Secondly my more sceptical side wonders if the whole song and dance over “family values”
and “abortion” isn’t an attempt to corral Christian voters into believing there is only one choice. It has been an advantage for those who advance these as political issues keeping the issue active. Maybe it is not a conscious effort, but I doubt the Christian vote would have been so one sided the past 20 years if abortion were not a political issue. In either case I can’t see this being the determining factor regarding my vote.
More generally I appreciate this blog, and hope it leads to more dialogue.
It is easy to write off the views of those we don’t know. We may not come to agreement, but we are more likely to see those who share differing views as sincere, thoughtful, and faithful.
Lastly I am thankful for the grace of God, because I really need a saviour.
If I were to judge my own life and how it reflects on my belief that abortion is wrong, I don’t think my most glaring inconsistency is my voting record, but the selfishness of how I spend my time and money. Have I chosen to love?”
Submitted to dsmith@chpc.org on Feb. 15
#12 by George McKee on February 16th, 2009 - 11:22 pm
Christians living in a republic have a special responsibility. We serve a loving merciful God primarily, but scripture says we also serve governmental authorities where we live. Therefore, we must use our influence to shape our government toward God’s will, so that we may live in peace. We need to study the scriptures and listen to godly men and women to understand God’s will in matters of government and abortion. The church should be a place to learn these issues.
The scriptures lead us to conclude that induced abortion cannot be in God’s will. #3 (above) has used a couple of scriptures from Ex 20:13 and Psm 139:12-14 to say “one can easily conclude the wrongfulness of abortion” and “especially the life of the innocent”. Psalm 139 is powerfully clear. We also have others; Exodus 21:22-25 when a premature birth is caused by an accident and Luke 1:39-45 when Elizabeth’s baby leaped for joy in the presence of Mary’s baby. I think scripture is clear about God’s will for the unborn.
Medical evidence is also clear that the unborn are unique living human beings. They have DNA and genes that are unique different from the mother. Usually their hearts are beating before the mother even knows for sure she is pregnant. 3D sonogram imagery very clearly shows what is in the mother’s womb. I think all medical and scriptural evidence tells us that the unborn baby is just that, a baby. And how can they be other than innocent?
Terminology is widely misused in discussions of abortion. Pro-life, pro-choice, anti-abortion, pro-abortion, women’s reproductive freedoms, etc all have button pushing connotations. No one will say they are pro-abortion. Pro-life people may also support capital punishment, etc. So I will settle for terms that will make few people happy: “anti-abortion” and “pro-abortion.” One thing we know for sure, an induced abortion is the deliberate termination of a unique innocent human life.
Abortion was made nationally political by the “pro-abortion” lobby groups of the late 60s and 70s. Dr Bernard Nathanson of NYC who estimates that he personally performed 75,000 abortions helped found NARAL to get the Supreme Court to make a ruling on the legality of induced abortion. They produced figures of 1,000,000 illegal abortions and 10,000 deaths from these abortions. The Supreme Court used these figures to rule that the Constitution’s right to privacy allows abortion for any reason during the nine months of pregnancy. This simplifies what it says, but that was the effect. Dr Nathanson later admits that those abortion figures were just made up. ( http://aboutabortions.com/DrNathan.html ) The actual numbers were closer to 100,000 abortions and 200-250 deaths. However, since 1973 we have lived with a court ruling that can only be changed by a “political” process. During the past 35 years, states have tried to produce laws to protect mother and unborn, federal legislation has been passed to limit public funding and abortion methods. However, the President and Senate are the only viable way to change the court to correct the basic ruling. In the meantime, we have aborted nearly 50 million (50,000,000) babies in this country. The annual number of abortions went down during the Clinton years not because he was president but because states were passing laws to educate mothers and to have time to think about what they were about to do. #3 and #11 (above) have suggested that “anti-abortion” groups have hi-jacked the political process. I would suggest that the “pro-abortion” groups first hi-jacked the political process. Jimmy Carter was, in his own voice, pro-life before the nomination to his party. After the nomination he became “pro-abortion”. One major political party will not allow any “anti-abortion” members of their own party to speak at conventions or run for national office. This political party openly uses “pro-abortion” as a litmus test for potential judges.
So we Christians have an obligation to carefully sift through the candidate’s beliefs and actions and ignore fancy buzz words. For the following reasons, I could absolutely not support Mr. Obama:
1. As an Illinois legislator, on several occasions he worked to oppose any legislation to protect babies born alive during an abortion process. These laws were abortion neutral.
2. He announced to Planned Parenthood during the campaign that he hoped to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into law as his first act as president. The FOCA would override all state laws on abortion, no waiting periods, no family notification, public funding of abortions, hospitals could not refuse to perform abortions, doctors and nurses could not refuse to assist in an abortion and the partial-birth abortion would be legal again. The partial-birth abortion is too nasty to even talk about and is done just before natural birth. ( http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/diagram.html )
3. He said that if his daughter became pregnant, he would not “punish” her with a baby.
4. As a US Senator he voted against any ban on the partial-birth abortion. He supports partial-birth abortion.
5. During the campaign, Mr. Obama, said he would remove the ban on federal funding of “embryonic” stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research has always been legal, just not the public funding. Privately funded embryonic stem cell research has not created any medical breakthroughs, only the promise of it. Other forms of stem cells can be made to look like embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells have already been proven as medical treatment. The problem with embryonic stem cell research is that it is always fatal.
6. As President, he overrode the Mexico City Policy thus allowing abortion providers, who receive public funding, to promote and perform abortions in other countries. Thus exporting our violence.
7. In the “stimulus” package just passed, he had hundreds of millions of dollars for “family planning”. Buzz words for Planned Parenthood, abortions, condoms etc. When Nancy Pelosi was asked how this was stimulus, she said it would save states lots of much needed money which would otherwise be used to support babies. WOW! At least the “political” Senate removed this funding. However, Mr. Obama supported it initially. Now taking his logic in this matter, what is to keep us from terminating all our relatives and friends in nursing homes, etc. Is my thinking extreme?
These are some of the facts before (and after) the election that lead me to conclude Mr. Obama was the most extremely “pro-abortion” of any candidate for president in US history. For myself, as a Christian, I cannot the election of a person who has demonstrated no respect for the lives of 50,000,000 innocent human beings that have no way to defend themselves.
Yes, there are other ways to reduce abortion than laws. “Anti-abortion” people have created hundreds, maybe thousands, of clinics and support offices throughout the country; such as Pregnancy Care, Salvation Army, Birthright and Care Net. They have adopted, provided homes, food and clothes, places for pregnant women to live, medical care, sonograms, Christian counseling and friendship. If a pregnant women visits the government supported agency (Planned Parenthood) there is a less than 5 percent chance that a baby will come out alive. Is that LOVE? Is it love to not at least give the information a women needs to make an informed decision about her pregnancy? Is it love to not tell young folks what sex can result in? Is it love to not tell of possible emotional and physical problems that may result from an abortion. Is it love to not tell of the connection between induced abortions and breast cancer?
Yes, it has been discouraging to get political and legislative action or solutions. But we must persist and be sure that our unborn and their mothers are protected and informed. Planned Parenthood (PPA) has targeted our African-American population with great success into believing that abortion is the only solution to their socio-economic problems. Now PPA is actively targeting our Hispanic population. Is this love?
Our American military goes to extreme measures to minimize innocent deaths during wars. Capital punishment is applied only after a lengthy judicial process. Are mistakes made? Yes, but usually minimal and only rarely intentionally. There is no comparison to the 50,000,000 unborn victims of our own holocaust.
The church should be a leader in alerting us to injustice. The PCUSA does lots of work around the world trying to correct social and economic injustice, but has barely said a peep about abortion. Twenty nine years after we attempted to bring this to attention at the Detroit General Assembly, only token mention has been made of the problems around abortion. PCUSA continues to fund NARAL (or whatever it is called toady) and has salaried staff marching in protests in favor of partial-birth abortion. We continue to fund the very organization that caused the hi-jacking of politics and promote the most violent form of abortion known to man. God had little mercy for Israel when they sacrificed their children to the gods.
Proverbs 24:11-12 says, “When you see a man being dragged to be killed, go to his rescue, and save those being hurried away to their death. If you say, ’But I do not know this man’, God, who fixes a standard for the heart, will take note. God who watches you – be sure he will know; he will requite every man for what he does.” How can I disobey God?
#13 by Roxane on February 22nd, 2009 - 11:13 pm
Thank you, George. I just want to affirm you message. Recently I stopped by to thank the 2 gentlemen who pray outside an abortion clinic on Jefferson Ave. in Clifton and hand out alternative to abortion literture. In the 5 minutes or so that I spoke to these men, 3 clients drove through the gates. We have no idea how pervasive this is in our country.
#14 by George McKee on February 23rd, 2009 - 7:09 pm
who put together the new series materials reset where did they come from ? Who wrote them ?
#15 by dsmith on February 23rd, 2009 - 11:15 pm
They are developed at Crossroads Church - over 50 churches in the Cincinnati metro area are participating at this time. http://www.crossroads.net/reset has more information.
#16 by Dottie Engle on March 1st, 2009 - 5:27 pm
After filling out the merger survey this afternoon, I’m cautiously encouraged about the process we have undertaken. What I mean is - I can’t see how it would be wrong or sinful for us to engage together as a united body. (Is this a no-brainer, like wondering if prayer would be appropriate or not?) I’m just a little afraid that we could do things badly. On the other hand, somebody wise said in a sermon this year that God’s will is going to be done in general and we can’t really ruin it. That’s a pretty liberating perspective!
One question - can we learn about each church’s outreach ministries and maybe cross-participate on an individual basis? For some of us introverts, a good way to get to know new people is to work with them on some project.
#17 by dsmith on March 3rd, 2009 - 10:14 pm
I’ll pass this on to the exploration team. Thanks!
#18 by George McKee on March 4th, 2009 - 6:53 pm
I just wanted to pass on a web site for Presbyterians Pro-Life:
http://www.ppl.org/
http://www.presbyterianspro-life.blogspot.com/
#19 by jchristian on March 20th, 2009 - 4:29 pm
with a hiring freeze at the church is there enough money to pay for the other minister?
#20 by George McKee on March 20th, 2009 - 4:34 pm
good question Bill
#21 by dsmith on March 20th, 2009 - 5:29 pm
@jchristian
That is one of the major questions from the survey that will need to be analyzed if the congregation chooses to continue with the exploration.
#22 by George McKee on April 7th, 2009 - 4:17 pm
In Turkey our President said, “One of the great strengths of the United States is … we have a very large Christian population — we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
Why does he leave off the part about what our ideals and values are based upon? How should we as Christians take this comment?
#23 by George McKee on April 7th, 2009 - 4:39 pm
The survey shows that most concerns are with worship and money. I have a series of questions that would help me to understand the current merger consideration.
1. How much money is Presbytery sending to WHPC each year?
2. Why is Presbyery going to stop sending money to WHPC?
3. Are there other churches in the Presbytery that face similiar problems? Is Presbytery acting similiar to all of them?
4. What other programs is Presbytery cutting?
5. Does CHPC pay full per capita to Presbytery?
6. If so, is it restricted in any way?
7. If a merger takes place, can CHPC stop all per capita payments to Presbytery to mitigate possible additional costs for staff and property?
8. There are many questions that come up in the survey which if we knew some answers might influence April 19th vote. Will some of these concerns be addressed before that meeting?
#24 by dsmith on April 8th, 2009 - 2:03 pm
Quick responses to your questions.
1. Not sure
2. Two reasons - Presbytery budget is getting squeezed and the idea of a mission church has not been found to be sustainable
3. Yes - all the other mission churches - urban and rural - are loosing this funding.
4. Many of the sustaining moneys for things like the Young Adult Volunteer program are decreasing. The Presbytery mission budget is now being used as seed money or special grant money for specific projects of church partnerships within the presbytery. These funds must be applied for and are not to be used for operating budget but special projects. This is all part of the recent restructuring for the Presbytery.
5. Yes - we do pay our full per capita - $25.83 per active member.
6. Not that I know of but I can check into that further.
7. If a merger takes place then that will not impact our standing, responsibilities nor rights as a member of the Presbytery. All that we can do now we would be able to do then.
8. Some of the questions are being answered in this weeks HOP. Many of the other questions will be subjects of further exploration if the congregation discerns that God is calling us into further exploration. These important issues and concerns will take some significant time and energy to be addressed well. Before we put the energy into these items, the session will ask the congregation to approve further exploration.
As done here feel free to ask other questions or speak to anyone on the exploration team - from CHPC - Lynn Carlin, Frank Baker, and Jason McSwain.
#25 by dsmith on April 26th, 2009 - 4:39 pm
http://www.pres-outlook.com/component/content/article/44-breaking-news/8719-fidelity-chastity-ordination-standard-remains-in-place-in-pcusa.html
This link gives the most recent update on the PCUSA voting on amendments to the Book of Order.
#26 by Annonymous on August 22nd, 2009 - 12:22 am
@Roxane I completely agree with Roxanne and am profoundly alarmed by #3. I just finished reading Randy Alcorn’s book, “Lord Foulgrin’s letters”. It’s similar to “The Screwtape Letters” in which most of the book is in the form of letters from one demon to the other. A key topic in these letters is how Satan strives to use lesser issues to distract warranted attention from those issues which are truly precious to God. Abortion is one of those key issues. As I read #3’s response, all I could think was that this rationalization sounds very much like one of Lord Foulgrin’s “perfect scenarios” in which Satan has succeeded in distracting Christians from the true meat of the matter. Abortion is and always should be a key issue. It’s life and death.
And, as long as we’re on the subject, yes, a woman has the right to control her own body - maybe she should have exercised better control earlier. By the time the question is abortion or no abortion, it’s no longer HER body we’re talking about. It’s someone else’s. What she’s aborting does not have her DNA, therefore it is NOT her body.