Oh … Bird is the word.
So much could be said. But there some times that leaving people to speak for themselves seems quite enough.
Enjoy.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 8:04 PM
Search
First Things
Loading
Masthead
Recent Comments
Archives
Categories
Monthly
June 22nd, 2010 | 11:07 pm | #1
Hmm. It looks like she’s channeling Sarah Palin.
“Bird?”
June 23rd, 2010 | 12:32 am | #2
Really? The Evangel blog has now taken to mocking people’s confessions of faith because they disagree with that person’s politics. Really? If this post is intended as a mockery of Ms. Pelosi it is truly shameful.
June 23rd, 2010 | 2:30 am | #3
Seems like a confession of faith might actually require one to affirm the values of that faith? Speaker Pelosi is an avowed Liberal, and Liberalism is a religious world view that stands in antithesis to Christianity. I recall Jesus saying something about knowing people by their fruit and I wonder how someone can claim to follow Jesus, who died for our sin, while justifying the sin for which He died? Pelosi does this by advancing the radical gay rights agenda and her support for abortion.
June 23rd, 2010 | 4:19 am | #4
I’m tempted to dismiss comment #3 as the voice of ignorance, even a sort of triumph of ignorance and a caricature of the religious right. But do other readers here share “Blue Collar Todd’s” views?
June 23rd, 2010 | 5:40 am | #5
Janice,
It’s an old song. From the 60s.
What Pelosi did here was to manipulate her religious belief for her political ends (as she applies it to, as she says, “public policy”). And she did so in a manner which is laughable. You can see at the beginning her uneasiness with even talking about “the word”. The way she grits her teeth.
This type of manipulation is typical of the behavior of the Religoius Left, which has manipulated Christianity in DC since the early 50s, 3 decades longer than the Religious Right.
June 23rd, 2010 | 5:53 am | #6
I’m not sure Pelosi affirmed any religious views here, actually. Is there any content to this?
June 23rd, 2010 | 5:56 am | #7
Oh, and Jonathan, I didn’t think Collin was identical with the Evangel blog. He’s a contributor to the blog, but he’s a human being, not a blog, and I don’t see the blog doing any actions at all, certainly not mocking anyone. So even if that’s what Collin is doing, it’s not exactly accurate to say that the blog is doing that.
June 23rd, 2010 | 6:59 am | #8
#7, is this a joke?
June 23rd, 2010 | 8:53 am | #9
She sounds like she is trying to apply new age applications to the Gospel. This strikes me as very goofy and flimsy.
June 23rd, 2010 | 11:27 am | #10
Oh, the moral OUTRAGE! It’s delicious, isn’t it?
Collin, FYI, only self-effacing humor is allowed for single video posts.
Permission is granted for funny videos of politicians only when accompanied by an equal number or time length of videos of members of the other political party, lest Evangel blog aka First Things, aka the Church, aka God be seen as supporting a Democrat or a Republican. God is NOT a Republican, Collin.
That is the Christian way.
June 23rd, 2010 | 11:58 am | #11
She said that the Word was made flesh and made His dwelling among us, a quote from the Gospel of John. To me, this seems to indicate that Nancy Pelosi is affirming the religious view that Jesus was both God (this is explicit in the same section of John she quotes, and implicit in just calling Jesus the Word since it’s meant to evoke God creating the world using a word) and man (men have flesh).
She also says this is the “great mystery of our faith”, which is maybe a quote of 1 Timothy 3:16, which further says “[God] was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” It might just be a reference to the Trinity in general.
She also says that Jesus “is coming back” and that at that time we will have to give an account to him “as to how we have measured up” (I guess in our roles as politicians, engineers, sons, wives, or whatever).
I tend to despair of the account she will give, but I’m not too proud of the one I’ll give, either.
June 23rd, 2010 | 1:58 pm | #12
Janice,
This is serious.
Albert,
This is not about party politics/partisanship.
My concern is the heresy of Marxism and how it uses to faith to its own advantage.
June 23rd, 2010 | 2:28 pm | #13
“My concern is the heresy of Marxism and how it uses to faith to its own advantage.”
And this is why you posted the video clip?
Are you a member of the John Birch Society, by chance?
June 23rd, 2010 | 3:37 pm | #14
I am certainly not fit to comment on Nancy Pelosi’s inner life. But it’s clear she was trying to use “Christian” code words and phrases without using the Name. Who is the word that became flesh? Who is coming again? (and what is that word coming again to do?)
It appears either that she is trying to place herself into the Christian camp without mentioning Jesus(which name is divisive – and probably actionable – in her circles), or trying to convince people that she is in, but in a thoroughly tone-deaf fashion.
June 23rd, 2010 | 3:54 pm | #15
And this is why you posted the video clip?
Well, since she is using her faith for political advantage … and she does it oh, so well.
No JBS here. No political organizations, other than voter registrations. In fact, for 17 years, a member in good standing in a Mennonite church. That’s hardly “religious right”.
June 23rd, 2010 | 3:55 pm | #16
So let’s have it: how is it that everyone here thinks they know that Nancy Pelosi is not a Christian?
Are you all not perhaps relying on a rather parochial conception of both Christianity, and of the way one’s Christian faith should guide one’s policy positions in a free and pluralistic society?
Do you also suppose that Ted Kennedy wasn’t a real Christian? How exactly do you make these judgments?
June 23rd, 2010 | 4:10 pm | #17
“Well, since she is using her faith for political advantage”
Can’t the same be said of countless other American politicians, both Democrat and Republican? Christians are probably in the best position to do something about this unfortunate problem. So ask yourself this: when you vote, how important is it that the person you’re voting for is a Christian? How difficult would it be for you to vote for a Muslim or an atheist?
June 23rd, 2010 | 4:16 pm | #18
To put the question another way: how much more trusting did you become towards George W. Bush and Sarah Palin when you recognized their rather distinct “Evangelicalese” accents?
June 23rd, 2010 | 4:36 pm | #19
Well, if you go over to my blog you’ll see my opinion of Bush as mediocre and Plain as not ready.
June 23rd, 2010 | 4:50 pm | #20
Although the larger issue here is not really about Colin Brendemuehl’s curious predilections, I can only imagine your opinions of the non-Evangelicalese versions of Bush and Palin.
June 23rd, 2010 | 5:35 pm | #21
David C. Miller, thanks; I agree. In any other politician’s mouth, this would be considered a fairly obvious, albeit manifestly uncomfortable, reference to her Christian faith. Face it, folks: Coming from an ultra-liberal leader of a liberal party, this is about as much of a Christian confession as we will get. If she is being hypocritical, that’s between her and God. I am willing to accept it as a (manifestly uncomfortable) Christian confession, even as I also reject virtually every political stance Pelosi takes.
Janice, I’m glad you actually got around to presenting some substance. The sneering, condescending, dismissive, side-swiping posts weren’t going anywhere.
June 23rd, 2010 | 6:32 pm | #22
I have no problem with clumsy confessions of faith, they would probably be very common from members of my church.
the issue here is when a person, who like many other political members nowadays. by all their actions do not love the things God says that His people will love, state the code words of religion for personal gain.
for reference, see the third commandment.
I do not know any of these people personally, and could not judge their hearts if I did, but their lives seem to indicate that the God of the bible is NOT whom they serve.
And Janice, why would you judge these people with so much more grace that the Evangel blog respondents? Seems curious.
June 23rd, 2010 | 7:31 pm | #23
“Janice, why would you judge these people with so much more grace that the Evangel blog respondents?”
But Mike, it’s these “Evangel blog respondents,” like yourself, who are passing judgment. Hence my questions.
June 24th, 2010 | 7:37 am | #24
Janice, with respect to your questions in #17, surely you recognize the difference between
(a) A politician who consistently expresses belief in Christian doctrine, who promotes values that Christian voters agree with, and who thereby experiences a political boost from those Christian voters,
and
(b) A politician who seldom speaks positively of Christian beliefs, who promotes values that Christian voters decidedly disagree with, and yet on rare occasions, stutteringly, mouths Christian doctrine.
Politician (a) is more likely to be speaking from integrity; politician (b) is more likely to be using Christian words for political ends.
I don’t know if Pelosi is a believer or not. I do think that we who are the governed under her leadership have a responsibility to assess her trustworthiness. Her inconsistency on Christian beliefs and values does not support her credibility.
June 24th, 2010 | 7:47 am | #25
Additionally in response to this:
I think that could be re-worded, “Are you not aware there are other conceptions of Christianity, and of the way it should guide policy positions?”
The answer is, yes, we are aware there are other conceptions of Christian faith. We even recognize that Pelosi’s policies are in full accord with some of them. We disagree with them. Is that “parochial?” Followers of those other versions of faith consider our views wrong. Are they being any less parochial?
Every person needs to stand with what he or she considers true. Even though others disagree.
June 24th, 2010 | 8:34 am | #26
Janice, #4: “I’m tempted to dismiss comment #3 as the voice of ignorance, even a sort of triumph of ignorance and a caricature of the religious right. But do other readers here share “Blue Collar Todd’s” views?”
I’m tempted to view comment #4 as a “sneering, condescending, dismissive, side-swiping” (per Craig Payne in #21) voice, even as an accurate reflection of many or most liberal leftists.
But do other readers here share “Janice’s” views?
June 24th, 2010 | 10:08 am | #27
Tom, could you provide some examples here? Are you claiming that Pelosi explicitly contradicts some tenant of the faith, or are you saying that you have a difficult time understanding why any Christian would endorse Pelosi’s policy positions? Do you, with “Blue Collar Todd”, think that “Liberalism is a religious world view that stands in antithesis to Christianity”?
This depends Tom. If, in disagreeing with each of these “conceptions of the Christian faith,” you’re saying that these conceptions are not really even Christian–then I’d say “yes,” that’s parochial. If you’re saying that true Christians wouldn’t endorse Pelosi’s policies, then again, your own conception of the faith is quite parochial. It’s sort of like a form of Islam that says the only true Muslims are those that dress in the fashion of 6th century Arabia.
June 24th, 2010 | 12:08 pm | #28
I consider Nancy Pelosi’s expansion of government and her enthusiastic support for homosexual and abortion rights to run counter to a biblical worldview.
As for parochialism, you didn’t answer my question. I would invite you to look at it again: are liberal Protestants who disagree with my evangelical Christianity any less parochial in their view than I am? Apparently you think many of us here are wrong, too. Pelosi’s understanding of life and Christianity disagrees with many, many others’. What makes one person’s opinion regarding truth and falsehood parochial where another’s is not?
June 24th, 2010 | 1:54 pm | #29
Nancy Pelosi is a practicing Roman Catholic. I am not. Her support for public policies that promote abortion on demand are in direct conflict with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. That is a matter of objective fact.
The state of her heart, I am in no position to make any sort of judgment on. Her actions (particularly in her capacity as the Speaker of the House, third in line to the Presidency of the United States) are a legitimate topic for discussion.
This video clip, in my opinion, is a clear attempt to play the “God is on my side” card to tacitly support her political views. This is something she has done many times before. She is not the only politician (Democrat or Republican) who is in the habit of doing this and I don’t like it when any politician does it.
Arguing your point of view in moral terms or even giving reasons of faith to explain one’s position are fine. But there is a difference between owning one’s own views and pandering.
June 24th, 2010 | 2:28 pm | #30
Tom, I’d like you to try to make this argument. In claiming that the “expansion of government” runs “counter to biblical worldview” it almost sounds like you’re claiming that God is a libertarian.
By a “biblical worldview” I take it you’re including, among other things, the view of biblical view regarding fundamental political questions for a democratic government of a free and pluralistic society. What is the biblical view on this Tom? Is this view essential to the faith? Is it a view upon which one’s salvation depends?
Again, it depends. Suppose we’re talking about a (presumably unusual) liberal Protestant who believes that the only true Christians are those who share his distinctively liberal views about Christ, the Bible, and the “biblical view” of democratic government in the United States. This liberal Protestant is pretty parochial–much like you would be if you maintain that other “conceptions of Christianity not really even Christian”, or “that true Christians wouldn’t endorse Pelosi’s policies.”
It looks like you’ve missed the point here. Whether or not you subscribe to Tarski’s “opinion of truth and falsehood” is besides the point–as is whether or not you believe that Pelosi’s Catholicism includes many false ideas.
June 24th, 2010 | 2:40 pm | #31
Correcting a typo. The first sentence of my second paragraph should read:
By a “biblical worldview” I take it you’re including, among other things, the biblical view regarding fundamental political questions for a democratic government of a free and pluralistic society.
June 24th, 2010 | 2:51 pm | #32
Steve, it’s a nice point you’re making here. As much as the next person, I despise a poseur.
But suppose that Pelosi really does consider herself to be a Christian, and that she really has found herself spiritually moved by the biblical teachings about “the Word.” Is it wrong for her to try to communicate this publicly–even if she is partly motivated by the (perceived) beneficial political consequences of doing so? Suppose she thinks that people (like many of the readers here at Evangel blog) are misunderstanding her and her relation to the faith. Is it wrong for her to try to correct this–even if in doing so, she is again partly motivated by the beneficial political consequences?
June 24th, 2010 | 2:53 pm | #33
Janice, the argument concerning expanded government is too long to enter into here. It has to do with recognizing humans’ limitations in a fallen world, with freedom of conscience, with personal responsibility, with the role and responsibility of the church and local community, and much more. That’s all I’m going to take time to say here.
By “biblical worldview” I mean something much larger than what you have said here, which I think you recognize. There is no one biblical view on how states should be governed, but there are boundaries around biblical views. Again, it’s too large an issue to detail here.
Let’s not focus just on that. Abortion and homosexual rights also enter in, as I have said. Her positions on these are decidedly unbiblical.
I’m on my way out to a 4:00 meeting, so I’ll reserve further comment for later this evening or tomorrow.
June 24th, 2010 | 2:57 pm | #34
A quick additional question (my meeting being slightly delayed): is parochial necessarily equivalent to wrong or false?
June 24th, 2010 | 3:00 pm | #35
Certainly not.
June 24th, 2010 | 3:07 pm | #36
I am pretty sure she does consider herself a Christian (again it is a matter of public record that she is a practicing Roman Catholic).
I disagree with most of her political points of view and frankly, she seems a bit disingenous (sp?) but I don’t know her heart so I would give her the benefit of the doubt.
And again, her support of abortion on demand is directly in conflict with her professed faith (or at least the clear and unequivocal teachings of the Roman Catholic Church) and she has been called out publicly on this by more than one diosecean Archbishop. I also think this position is unbiblical and is against the large mainstream of historical Christian teaching (across all denominations).
I have no problem with her using God-talk, but commenting on these contradictions are fair game.
June 24th, 2010 | 3:59 pm | #37
Steve, I understand that the RCC regards abortion as sinful, but is it also the clear and unequivocal teaching of the RCC that it is sinful to oppose legislation that would ban or criminalize abortion? Isn’t that, after all, the only sense in which Pelosi shows “support of abortion on demand”?
It would be one thing for the RCC to teach that a person shouldn’t sin. It would be quite a different thing for the RCC to teach that it is sinful not to support/promote any legislation that would coercively prohibit actions which the church regards as sinful. Surely the RCC doesn’t teach the latter.
June 24th, 2010 | 4:56 pm | #38
Collin Brendermuehl: “This type of manipulation is typical of the behavior of the Religoius Left, which has manipulated Christianity in DC since the early 50s, 3 decades longer than the Religious Right.”
Collin,
Could you provide operational definitions of what you mean by “Religious Left” and “Religious Right” so that I can better understand your claim about how Christianity has been manipulated in DC by those two groups?
June 24th, 2010 | 5:53 pm | #39
Janice,
Your question to Steve is a good one:
My answer to that is no, in that case it would certainly not be wrong for her to do that. But in view of her national leadership position, it is also not wrong—indeed it is our duty—for voters to use evidences at our disposal to assess whether we think that is likely to be the case.
Returning to our own dialogue, the point of my last quick comment to you could be summed up in this: “parochial” tends to be little more than an empty pejorative.
June 24th, 2010 | 8:05 pm | #40
Fair enough. But this really just shifts the question back to the earlier one: “how is it that everyone here thinks they know that Nancy Pelosi is not a Christian?” (Or, perhaps we should now say: how is it that some folks here seem to think they know that Nancy Pelosi is not a Christian, or that she is being deceptive in this instance?)
I don’t think so. Or that, at least, was not the way I was using the term. I rather had in mind this: a person’s view of the Christian faith is parochial to the extent that this person regards parochial beliefs, attitudes and actions as indicators of whether or not another person is a true Christian. The relevant beliefs, attitudes and actions would be parochial to the extent that the peculiar beliefs, attitudes and actions can be reasonably understood as inessential to the Christian faith, bearing in mind historical facts and sound reasoning.
Here’s an example drawn from earlier: If Pelosi denied that the murder of the innocent is sinful, it would not be parochial to view this denial as an indicator that Pelosi is not a Christian. However, it would be parochial to view Pelosi’s support of progressive taxation (or expanded government regulation of health care, or her opposition to any government law that would coercively restricts an individual’s ability to sin) as an indicator that she’s not a Christian.
June 24th, 2010 | 8:45 pm | #41
The last sentence was phrased poorly. Here’s what I mean: just as the RCC presumably does not teach that it is sinful not to support/promote any legislation that would coercively prohibit actions which the church regards as sinful, it’s presumably not an essential part of the Christian faith that a U.S. citizen give his individual political support to every piece of legislation that might coercively restrict an individual’s ability to sin.
June 25th, 2010 | 9:15 am | #42
Wow. The discussion sure took off recently.
Janice and others who share her views (things in bold are to links that get more in depth);
I suggest you read Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen. He argues that Liberalism is a religion that totally redefines key Christian doctrine in an unbiblical way. Charles Spurgeon understood the threat that Liberalism poses to the Christian faith, and anymore Liberalism ought to be thought of as a theological outlook that leads to a particular political philosophy.
Christians are to be set apart, holy, having a value system grounded in the Bible, not the world. Pelosi and many like her are propagating the sin of homosexuality, and are so pro-abortion that they are willing to tolerate infanticide. Christians clearly cannot be pro-choice or support those who are. Fruit matters and the support of something evil like abortion and homosexuality is wrong. Also, Christians are called to love one another and how can a Liberal Christian claim this while supporting an agenda that will actually help lead to the persecution of their fellow Christians? Hopefully the answer is clear.
June 25th, 2010 | 1:24 pm | #43
Janice,
I don’t know that Nancy Pelosi is not a Christian. I see fruit in her life that certainly does not fit the faith, which is strongly indicative that she is not, but I do not consider that conclusive.
Is she being deceptive? As voters we deal with likelihoods, not with certainties, and I think in this case it’s likely.
Your clarification of “parochial” is helpful. I just read today that Billy Graham supported Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, so it’s obviously wrong to equate large-government liberalism with unbelief in God. I think lessons learned over the past few decades have made a large-government liberalism less tenable for believers, but there are still some like Jim Wallis who hold that position.
Her stance on abortion and homosexual rights remains clearly inconsistent with belief in biblical truth.
I’m not Roman Catholic, but if I recall correctly, many bishops and possibly the Pope have said that support for abortion or homosexual “rights” is grounds for withholding the Eucharist. I think that addresses your 8:45 pm issue.
June 25th, 2010 | 1:50 pm | #44
Alright, let’s suppose this is true (I think you’re right about this). As a non Roman Catholic Christian, consider the person who takes herself to be Roman Catholic, but, on moral or political grounds, disagrees with certain of the RCC’s positions and conscientiously opposes them (in the sense of a “conscientious objector”). Surely this does not mean that such a person is not a Christian.
This is the conclusion I would like to still hear your argument for. Pelosi, I take it, opposes legislation that would restrict a woman from having an abortion; she also supports SSM. Are you claiming that either of these positions is clearly inconsistent with belief in biblical truth? What’s the argument for this?
June 25th, 2010 | 8:07 pm | #45
She supports abortion and homosexual rights. That’s unbiblical. No need to restrict the discussion to her legislative position; it’s her position, period.
This is not the time or place to re-state all the arguments showing abortion and SSM are unbiblical.
June 26th, 2010 | 3:06 pm | #46
How is it that Pelosi’s support for “abortion and homosexual rights” anything more than a “legislative position”? I just need to know what sort of stuff you’re ascribing to Pelosi. Are you saying that Pelosi has some particular belief or attitude towards abortion and homosexuality that is unbiblical? Exactly what belief or attitudes are you ascribing to her? Define the clearest case and we can discuss it.
For the sake of this discussion, I accept that it is contrary to the explicit teachings of the Bible to murder (at least when murder someone isn’t one’s God-given instructions) and to voluntarily engage in homosexual sex.
June 26th, 2010 | 5:05 pm | #47
“For the sake of this discussion, I accept that it is contrary to the explicit teachings of the Bible to murder (at least when murder someone isn’t one’s God-given instructions)”
Again, the rhetorical flourishes intrude. Just for the record and not to sidetrack the thread, according to Strong’s Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, the Hebrew word for murder is never used as a command by God in the Old Testament. Murder is forbidden by God, most notably in the Ten Commandments. So murder in the Bible is never a God-given instruction; it is prohibited.
You may resume.
June 26th, 2010 | 5:19 pm | #48
Craig, the German word for ‘murder’ may never have been used in any of Adolf Eichmann’s commands. Would this be proof that Eichmann never ordered anyone’s murder?
June 26th, 2010 | 6:05 pm | #49
No, it would not be proof. Surely you can see the distinction between words used prescriptively, where the word means what it means, and words used descriptively/deceptively.
June 26th, 2010 | 6:14 pm | #50
So I’m glad we agree. But we’re getting off track. Let’s pick up where we left off at #45.
June 28th, 2010 | 10:22 am | #51
The Roman Catholic Church has made it very clear that politicians who support a pro-choice position ought to be prevented from receiving communion. I don’t know how clearer it can get that they disapprove of the policy position itself as well as the moral position behind Pelosi’s policy views. You can’t be a Catholic in good standing and further the pro-choice position in the political realm. Maybe you can be a Catholic in good standing and privately hold that the pro-choice view is correct, but you can’t do anything in public to further the position without putting yourself in a position to fall under condemnation of a serious enough nature to prevent you from receiving what Catholics see as a crucial means of grace.
June 28th, 2010 | 10:24 am | #52
I think some of this discussion talks past each other. Janice wants to say that certain views of who is and who is not a Christian are too exclusive. Tom and others have been saying that we have to accept that some things people say are false. But that’s compatible with thinking someone’s view of who is and who is not a Christian is too exclusive. You can be more inclusive in terms of salvation without denying that there’s such a thing as objective truth. Janice’s position is perfectly coherent, whether it’s right or not about how inclusive salvation really is.
June 28th, 2010 | 1:50 pm | #53
I think I see why the discussion stopped. In #50, I meant to say: “Let’s pick up where we left off at #46.”
Jeremy, thanks for your clarifications. As you suggest, my contention is that some of the folks here seem to be “relying on a rather parochial conception of both Christianity, and of the way one’s Christian faith should guide one’s policy positions in a free and pluralistic society” (comment #16).
June 29th, 2010 | 2:08 pm | #54
Janice,
When a Christian church (Roman Catholic or any other) excommunicates someone, there is a judicial declaration involved. This declaration states, at bottom, “your actions or beliefs have shown us that we cannot treat you as a Christian”, and in effect puts the person out of the jurisdiction of that church. The church is henceforth treating that person as an unbeliever (and, in Pauline categories, leaving them under the judgment of God).
So if the RCC denies communion to people who believe or support abortion, it is saying, “In doing this you demonstrate that, by our standards, we may not assume you are a Christian, and must prohibit you from the eucharist lest you eat and drink damnation to yourself.”
Since no human, priest or otherwise, can read the heart, our judgment may not be correct – which is why we leave the ultimate judgment to God. But we are called to carry out, within this limited scope, a judgment by outward words and actions.
June 29th, 2010 | 2:59 pm | #55
Mark B. Hanson,
Thanks for your input on this. The question, however, is really about the reasons that Christians, or the authorities in the RCC, can offer for judging Pelosi to be not a Christian. So far, all the reasons offered are either obviously parochial (in the sense characterized in comment #40), or seem to conflate the teaching that a person mustn’t sin with the teaching that a person must use her political office to support all legislation that would coercively prohibit actions which the church regards as sinful.
I’m open to other suggestions; I just haven’t heard any.
June 29th, 2010 | 6:09 pm | #56
The “conflation” is not with “the teaching that a person must use her political office to support all legislation that would coercively prohibit actions which the church regards as sinful.” The connection is with the teaching that a person must not use her political office to promote and support sin (Matthew 18:6).
June 29th, 2010 | 6:23 pm | #57
So, if a congresswomen or a Supreme Court justice opposes a law criminalizing gay sex (or even gay dating), then she is violating a clear biblical command?
Were the six Justices supporting the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) sinning?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
(This would seem like a good example of “relying on a rather parochial conception…of the way one’s Christian faith should guide one’s policy positions in a free and pluralistic society.”)
June 29th, 2010 | 7:27 pm | #58
Did I miss where someone other than you brought up the question you’re asking here? I thought the topic was Nancy Pelosi—who supports and promotes abortion and embryonic stem cell research, among other things.
June 29th, 2010 | 7:31 pm | #59
Tom, I guess I’m not understanding your question. My comment #57 is addressed to your comment #56, which is in turn, I take it, a response to my #55.
June 29th, 2010 | 7:40 pm | #60
You keep forcing the question toward “the teaching that a person must use her political office to support all legislation that would coercively prohibit actions which the church regards as sinful.” In #56 I tried to steer it back toward the more basic question of supporting or promoting sin, which Pelosi most clearly does. I don’t know how that led to your comment #57.
Aah, now maybe I see, going back to #46. Are you asking, how do we conclude from her legislative position that she supports or promotes sin?
June 29th, 2010 | 7:41 pm | #61
From #37, Janice writes,
It would be one thing for the RCC to teach that a person shouldn’t sin. It would be quite a different thing for the RCC to teach that it is sinful not to support/promote any legislation that would coercively prohibit actions which the church regards as sinful. Surely the RCC doesn’t teach the latter.
Interestingly, I think that the church (RCC) does teach the latter. Consider this from the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
Now please consider the letter from the USCCB of November 7, 2009 to Congress regarding the bishops’ support of the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962). The bishops maintained in that letter that passage of this amendment “allows the House to meet our criteria of preserving the existing protections against abortion funding….”
Please correct me where I err, but I believe that this shows: 1.) Roman Catholics are “bound” to follow the teachings of their bishops and 2.) the bishops have taught that they are in favor of legislation which, to borrow your phrase, “coercively prohibit(s) actions which the church regards as sinful”, meaning abortion. (This binding of Catholic consciences to official church teachings actually has a very long history.)
Therefore, Speaker Pelosi’s support for abortion funding puts her squarely at odds with #2 and outside of the bounds of #1.
To tie up one last loose end, I suppose we should define what “sin” is. According to para 1849 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church sin is, “an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience…” The Catholic Church must maintain that the Magisterium (i.e. the pope and those bishops and cardinals in communion with him) is “reason, truth and right conscience” so that Ms. Pelosi’s public and well-documented stand to the contrary would justifiably be considered an “offense”, therefore a sin.
So the Catholic Church does teach that, “it is sinful not to support/promote any legislation that would coercively prohibit actions which the church regards as sinful.”
Thank you for your focus on this issue.
Peace.
June 29th, 2010 | 8:48 pm | #62
Constantine,
I appreciate your excellent argumentation here, along with the supporting documentation. Although I concede that Can. 212 shows (1), and that quoted portion of the USCCB letter shows (2), it isn’t entirely certain that Pelosi is actually disobeying her bishop(s) in the sense given in (1) if she supports a bill that excludes an amendment which would ensure that the bill meets the bishops’ criteria. Setting that embarrassingly nitpicky reservation aside, let me concede for the sake of argument three points:
(a ) Without the Stupak amendment, the bishops have declared that Roman Catholics mustn’t support health care bill.
(b) Knowing this, Pelosi supported the health care bill without the Stupak amendment.
(c) Therefore, Pelosi knowingly sinned according to the definition of “sin” explicitly taught by the RCC.
Now I want to clarify two things. First, none of this shows that the RCC generally teaches “that it is sinful not to support/promote any legislation that would coercively prohibit actions which the church regards as sinful.” Second, for Christians generally, none of should be sufficient to demonstrate that Pelosi is not a Christian.
Even among Roman Catholics, I suspect there is much sympathy for Pelosi’s apparent status as “conscientious objector” to the dictates of her bishops. Going one step further, I’d imagine that there are many Christians (including many “Roman Catholics”) who are highly respected as Christians (and who are even respected as Christians by Roman Catholics) who conscientiously reject (with, one might even say, a “Lutheran” obedience to conscience) certain of the teachings of the RCC and its bishops. I’d be happy to hear your opinion regarding this though.
June 29th, 2010 | 8:59 pm | #63
That’s correct (and I appreciate your efforts at charitable interpretation here). My comment #57, regarding Lawrence v Texas etc., is addressed to your claim that “a person must not use her political office to promote and support sin (Matthew 18:6).” And I’m making this comment with the following question still in my mind:
June 30th, 2010 | 6:23 am | #64
Janice, if I’m reading you correctly, the answer you expect to your question would be something like,
Support for [morally significant issue x] is nothing more than a legislative position
It seems self-evident that to support x is to take a personal stance on a morally significant issue—unless a legislative position has absolutely no connection to the legislator herself.
I can hardly believe that’s what you intended, so I’m going to ask you to let me know what I’ve misunderstood here.
June 30th, 2010 | 6:42 am | #65
Tom, for someone, in her political office, to support a law allowing same-sex marriage is certainly for that person to take a stance on a morally significant issue. In particular, it is for her to take the following stance: the given law is an appropriate law for someone in my office to support.
When Pelosi supports a given law, that’s the obvious connection that we may assume. We may also assume everything that’s entailed by that connection (though you might want to spell out what you regard these entailments to be). Beyond that, it’s unclear to me what we should infer about an officeholder on the basis of her support for a given law or policy.
June 30th, 2010 | 11:42 am | #66
Janice,
First, it may be unclear to you what we should infer about Pelosi from her support for abortion and SSM, but it’s not unclear to me. She considers them at least morally acceptable enough for the government to endorse them. That’s a moral stance.
Second, it seems you haven’t been listening to the same Pelosi I have.
On SSM:
On partial-birth abortion:
June 30th, 2010 | 1:28 pm | #67
Thanks for the quotations. It seems we can say the following:
(i) Pelosi enthusiastically supports legislation allowing SSM in CA.
(ii) Pelosi has always supported legislation allowing SSM in CA.
(iii) Pelosi thinks that partial birth abortion is a medical procedure that any parent would want her daughter to have access to if she needed it; as such, Pelosi thinks that it should in some way be legally accessible to child-bearing women.
Is there anything else we should add? Are there any further inferences you want to draw from these attitudes, or do you think that they are sufficient to show that Pelosi, in having them, stands in clear contradiction to a Christian essential? If the latter, then let’s hear that argument.
June 30th, 2010 | 5:07 pm | #68
TUD,
The terms “religious left” and “religious right” are both a bit ambiguous. The RL never took that name but argued under that flag in support of the socialistic policies of the 50s and 60s, and later. The expansion of the welfare state under the guise of “compassion” as well as the eugenics of abortion behind that same mask (“every child a wanted child”) saw broad-based liberal religious support. The NCC/WCC efforts have been noted for decades.
The vagueness of the RR brand is as seen as it is often applied to any conservative evangelical or RC (or others of similar bent, such as Mormons) even though they may not subscribe to many of the tenets of the movement — that the kingdom of God can be advanced via the domination of societal agencies.
June 30th, 2010 | 8:38 pm | #69
Hi Janice,
Thank you, again, for your very thoughtful response.
You have written:
Now I want to clarify two things. First, none of this shows that the RCC generally teaches “that it is sinful not to support/promote any legislation that would coercively prohibit actions which the church regards as sinful.” Second, for Christians generally, none of should be sufficient to demonstrate that Pelosi is not a Christian.
To your first point, I take it to mean that your sense is that the RCC has not placed a positive interdiction (i.e. declaring sinful) on a failure to act (i.e. “not to support…legislation…”, etc.) But that seems at odds with the whole Augustinian tradition that sin is indeed a lack of good. In this case, where the “good” would be either adhering to the Magisterial lead or supporting legislation of the type you mention, failing to support would qualify as sin.
Further, Vatican I anathematizes anyone who withholds their “assent” about “the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the church.” ” (Vat. I, Canon 3 (6)). There is no doubt about the official teaching of the church on this matter (see the USCCB letter) so even the withholding of Ms. Pelosi’s assent is a damnable sin.
So without belaboring the point, it does seem to be a “general” teaching of the RCC that to “not support” what the church supports is a sin. In the case of Vatican I, lack of “assent” is a damnable one.
Your second point is a little muddy by the conflation of Catholic with “Christian”. Sticking to the “Catholic” side of things, the anathema of Vatican I would be sufficient to demonstrate that Pelosi is not a Catholic. (Whether she is a Christian should be left to another time.) And of course, this fact, and the failure of her bishop to say so is what causes so much angst for him and confusion for the conservative faithful. Whether or not you or I or a million Catholics think this an “insufficient demonstration” is of absolutely no import. The RCC may be accused of many things, but democracy will never be one of them.
To sum up then, I believe that the RCC does “generally” teach that it is sinful not to support legislation, which the church, in its official capacity supports. I offer Augustine and Vatican I as two quick sources. Secondly, Pelosi’s failure to assent results, necessarily, in an anathema from Rome, which, by definition, means she is not a Catholic. Undoubtedly many Catholics and Christians might disagree but one thing that can never be said of Rome is that it is a democracy!
Thank you, again, for your thoughtfulness.
Peace.
July 1st, 2010 | 12:24 am | #70
Constantine,
I was happy to see your reply.
Earlier I claimed that “none of this shows that the RCC generally teaches ‘that it is sinful not to support/promote any legislation that would coercively prohibit actions which the church regards as sinful.’” I now realize that, as a result of my own carelessness, my statement was ambiguous. Here are the two distinct claims:
(1) None of this shows that: there is some piece of legislation or other that would coercively prohibit actions which the church regards as sinful, and the RCC teaches that it is sinful not to support/promote that piece of legislation.
(2) None of this shows that: for every piece of legislation that would coercively prohibit actions which the church regards as sinful, the RCC teaches that it is sinful not to support/promote that piece of legislation.
It appears that you have interpreted me to be claiming (1), whereas I have always meant to assert (2). That is, I had meant to mark the important distinction between (a) doing what the RCC declares sinful, and (b) failing to support legislation that would coercively prohibit actions which the RCC declares sinful. Given the generality in (b), it would be very surprising if the RCC declared (b) to be sinful.
You also write, “Your second point is a little muddy by the conflation of Catholic with “Christian.” But here I have to object. When I use “Christian” rather than “Roman Catholic” my choice of terms is very deliberate. It is important that we do not presuppose that the only Christians are Roman Catholics. I am certainly not interested in defending Pelosi’s status as a Roman Catholic in good standing. I will let the RCC decide that issue using whatever criteria they want, however parochial.
July 1st, 2010 | 4:24 pm | #71
Janice,
in regards to #67, do I understand you to be argueing that support for legislation while in office, can or should be seperated from living an obedient subjected life before Christ in the rest of one’s life?
if we do consider it acceptable to seperate Sunday from the rest of the week (as it were) and live a compartmentalized existance where our guideline is “what would be a reasoned and acceptable response by a reasonable and competant person in this particular position at this particular time”, we race toward positions that would be difficult if not impossible to align with Christianity by a Biblical standard.
July 1st, 2010 | 5:02 pm | #72
Mike,
Thank you for your question. My interest is rather to emphasize the distinction between (a) sinful actions, and (b) legislation that would coercively prohibits sinful actions. It’s one thing to think that, as a Christian essential, one mustn’t knowingly and habitually engage in a particular sinful action whatever that sinful action may be. It’s quite another thing to think that, as a Christian essential, one mustn’t refuse to support legislation that that would coercively prohibit a sinful action, whatever that sinful action may be.
For example, it’s much more reasonable to insist that a Christian must not, habitually, engage in homosexual sex. It’s much less reasonable to insist that a Christian must not, habitually, refuse to support legislation that would criminalize homosexual sex.
July 1st, 2010 | 8:27 pm | #73
It’s much less reasonable to insist that a Christian must not, habitually, refuse to support legislation that would criminalize homosexual sex.
Not really.
http://bible.cc/romans/1-32.htm
and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
July 1st, 2010 | 8:38 pm | #74
Does anyone else agree with Colin that a refusal to support laws criminalizing gay sex is as sinful as performing gay sex? (supposing that you believe that the latter is sinful)
Colin, you never cease to surprise.
July 2nd, 2010 | 2:13 am | #75
Supporting biblical marriage, supporting traditional marriage, supporting historic marriage, where marriage is one man and one woman only (ala the Manhattan Declaration) …
is not tantamount to “criminalizing” gay sex.
July 2nd, 2010 | 2:41 am | #76
That’s right Tuad, but observe how comment #74 responds to #73, which in turn responds to #72, and so on. Notice the curious pattern here: each new comment responds to some claim made in a previous comment. But now notice how your comment, #75, doesn’t continue this pattern.
Here’s the takeaway: next time try to say something that’s relevant.
July 2nd, 2010 | 2:51 am | #77
Biblical marriage is relevant.
Pelosi does not support biblical marriage only.
Taking Pelosi to task for not supporting biblical marriage only, given her professed belief and standing as a Roman Catholic, is relevant.
July 2nd, 2010 | 3:14 am | #78
Tuad, your observation that “Biblical marriage is relevant” is again completely irrelevant the preceding comments, and to everything else in this thread.
Take it slowly; the skill of formulating a relevant comment just takes some people longer to learn.
July 2nd, 2010 | 7:08 am | #79
Janice,
The person who believes on biblical grounds that x is wrong believes it on at least two levels: it is wrong for me, and it is wrong, period. You’ve been speaking of it on the first level, exemplified by your repeated phrase, “as sinful as performing gay sex” (my emphasis). The action x, performing gay sex, is wrong for me to participate in. The second level for the biblical believer is this: that x is just wrong, period. (Note that I am speaking of the case x where x is wrong in all circumstances, not some case y where y is wrong-depending-on-circumstances. The Bible is aware of both x‘s and y‘s.)
Now if I believe that x is wrong, the question arises, do I declare x is wrong, and to whom and with what authority? The answer differs according to different cases of x. There are things I declare wrong to my children that I do not mention to others. I have not yet posted anything on any blog about leaving socks in the hallway.
You may ask whether anyone ever has any business declaring anything wrong from a biblical perspective. Let me just say that the one who believes x is wrong from a biblical perspective, and who accepts the truth of the biblical perspective, considers x to be wrong, period. If that person also considers x to be harmful from a biblical perspective, then that person considers x to be harmful, period. What I’m saying is that for this person, the biblical perspective is not just a perspective; it is a view on what is actually true. Thus if x is wrong and harmful, it seems quite appropriate to declare it so (directed to the appropriate audience; see the prior paragraph).
Now, you may or many not have noticed that the x you have been focusing on, performing gay sex, is not one of the x‘s we’ve been consistently pointing at, abortion or same-sex “marriage.” This is significant, because your x is private, and it is not entirely clear that the public has an interest in it.* I am quite sure sodomy is wrong and harmful. Does its harm extend beyond those who participate in it? I think it probably does, but its public harm is indirect, and the point could be argued either way; and the fact that arguments could go either way muddles the issue. So I would say that those who think performing gay sex is wrong need not thus conclude it should be criminalized.
Neither, however, should they celebrate it, as Collin astutely pointed out.
That’s the question you’ve asked, and that’s an answer for you. I hope that settles it.
But you’ve been asking the wrong question. The right question has to do with abortion and SSM. Abortion is not essentially private, because there is at least one non-consenting victim who dies. It only takes one victim: the state has an interest if a man murders his aged mother, even if she has been a recluse and no other human has seen her for 20 years. Marriage is even more essentially public than abortion, and while there is some argument concerning whether SSM is harmful to the public, for those who take a biblical stance on it the answer is quite obvious. (I think it’s obvious from a natural-law and from a sociological perspective too, but that’s another story.) It’s clear that one who doubts it is harmful does not start from a belief in biblical revelation on the matter.
(If I were Catholic I could probably also inject something here about the Church’s position on the matter. I don’t know enough about it to speak to it, though, except this: I’m sure it makes the matter more clear-cut, not less so.)
So if Pelosi considers herself a believer in the Bible, and if the Bible declares SSM and abortion to be wrong, then on pain of inconsistency she ought to consider SSM and abortion wrong. Now your question might be rephrased, if she considers it sinful to engage in those practices herself, must she also consider it sinful not to promote legislation that prohibits them?
That brings us back to, “do I declare x is wrong, and to whom and with what authority?” Certainly if she speaks on abortion and SSM, she ought to say they are wrong. She speaks to the entire country, so that is the audience to whom she should declare it.
If she agrees with the Bible that abortion and SSM are wrong and result in harm, then I think it follows that she would consider them harmful in such a way that the state has an interest in them. With what authority should she declare it? As a legislator it is her responsibility before God and before the citizenry to support legislation that limits actions that are harmful and in which the state has an appropriate interest.**
In summary, your question was, “is a refusal to support laws criminalizing gay sex as sinful as performing gay sex?” I’ve said above the answer could well be no, it is not necessarily sinful. (The comparative “as sinful as” is neither necessary nor helpful in this discussion.)
But if your question were, “is a refusal to support laws criminalizing abortion or prohibiting SSM as sinful as participating in those same acts,” I would say that especially for the Speaker of the House, it is clearly sinful not to support legislation that limits that which is clearly wrong and publicly harmful, and in which the state has a proper interest.
*There can be exceptions to that. There was a highway rest area in Michigan that was closed down because of frequent public performance of the x you’ve been focusing on. The state acted appropriately in that case. Patrolling and arresting would also have been appropriate, though too expensive in that case. I’m willing for present purposes to limit discussion to the purely private act.
**In the U.S. there is also the question, if we agree the state has an interest, which state has the interest? Marriage and murder have been historically under the jurisdiction of the 50 states in most cases. So if she said it was a matter for the 50 states and not the federal government to take up, and if she supported measures to get the federal government out of the states’ way, I could consider that also to be consistent with the biblical position.
July 2nd, 2010 | 8:59 am | #80
Tom, you write:
Good, and, contrary to Collin’s suggestion, I think this is the only reasonably thing to conclude. Significantly, this shows what should be obvious: there is no direct inference from “x is wrong” to “x should be criminalized.” Likewise, there is no direct inference from “x to be sinful” to “it is sinful to refuse to support legislation prohibiting x.” Likewise, it is not always true that we should say: “if Pelosi believes x to be sinful, then she should support legislation prohibiting x.” Nor should we say: “If Pelosi doesn’t support legislation prohibiting x, then she must not believe that x is sinful.” All this should now be very clear.
So now, what additional facts about x, or of Pelosi’s beliefs about x, would make it legitimate to conclude that Pelosi must also support legislation prohibiting x (on pain of acting contrary to her Christian faith)? You suggest that it would be enough if x is something that “the public has an interest in” insofar as its harm—according to a plausible extrapolation from the Bible–“goes beyond those who participate in it.”
That, I take it, is your central proposal. Before investigating it, let me first ask you this. In your opinion, would a Supreme Court Justice also be required by her Christian faith to support, in her office as a Justice, a legislative prohibition against x—given the only same facts about x we supposed in the preceding paragraph? (Remember, all we know about x is what is stipulated, namely, (a) the Bible teaches that x is sinful, and, (b) according to a plausible extrapolation from the Bible, the harm of x goes beyond those who participate in it.) If not, why not?
July 2nd, 2010 | 9:43 am | #81
Janice,
Here’s something that’s relevant:
Have you ever at some time before in your life professed to believing in the historical and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?
P.S. On a prior thread you said that you did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. This question is different. Two responses to select from:
(a) I’ve never believed in the historical and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
or
(b) Yes. I once did profess to believing in the historical and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. But I no longer profess to this belief.
Janice, (a) or (b)?
July 2nd, 2010 | 10:08 am | #82
Janice,
I don’t have a well-thought-out position on the Supreme Court question you have asked. This much I know: any court’s primary responsibility is to the law; first to the Constitution, then to legislation, and then to precedent. What I have not developed clearly in my own thinking is where natural law fits in, nor am I clear on other kinds of law like executive orders.
A judge’s position is different from a legislator’s. I believe a legislator should vote her conscience within Constitutional bounds (the Constitution is quite satisfactorily biblical). If her constituency disagrees, they can replace her at the next election. I can’t see any case in favor of a legislator denying conscience. That doesn’t mean her vote according to conscience couldn’t be wrong; whether Pelosi is legislating in accord with or against her conscience, she’s frequently wrong, either way.
It’s not as clear to me that a judge should rule on the basis of conscience, if conscience and the law (broadly speaking) disagree. I tend to think that there would be two competing principles of conscience or ethics at play, and usually the principle of sticking to law should rule. Otherwise the legislators’ and voters’ decisions can be brought to nought, which violates our democratic principles. That’s my belief, but I couldn’t call it a studied conviction.
July 2nd, 2010 | 4:01 pm | #83
Tom, I think you’re right in saying that the office of a Supreme Court Justice often requires the Justice to favor principles that may result in a ruling contrary to the ruling that he or she may personally happen to regard as best, or best in light of his or her own personal religious beliefs. The same goes for a trial lawyer, a soldier under orders, and the Seventh-Day Adventist pizza chef making someone else’s meat-lover’s pizza. In light of this common phenomenon of role-specific norms, why think that there are not also restrictive norms that apply to the office of a Congresswoman, when she is making laws that would coercively restrict the freedom of her fellow citizens?
Secondly, just as a Supreme Court Justice may limit his rulings by an “originalist” view of Supreme Court’s responsibilities and the proper role of a Justice, why not suppose that a Congresswoman may also limit her legislating by a liberal or a libertarian view of the federal government’s responsibility and the proper role of a Congressperson? Why think that such views can’t themselves be a matter of “conscience” (here recall your statement, “I can’t see any case in favor of a legislator denying conscience”)?
Finally, consider a proposed law that would ban gay dating services. According to a plausible extrapolation of Bible teachings, why shouldn’t we say that gay dating services are committing a harm that “goes beyond those who participate in it”? After all, it would be argued, such services facilitate sinfully gay relationships and contribute to the overall degradation of society and its more traditional sexual norms. So, would you also say that, on pain of acting contrary to the Christian faith, a Christian Congressperson must support the proposed law prohibiting gay dating services?
July 2nd, 2010 | 4:34 pm | #84
Janice, I’m surprised you would ask this:
There’s a simple answer. One, the others you referred to are interpreting or following instructions. Legislators make them. Two, there is a restriction, which I have already mentioned: the Constitution. (As for the Adventist, that’s even easier. Apparently you forgot something.)
We’re talking about cases where there is public harm and the state has an interest, Janice. I was clear on that. If a legislator weighing these things in her conscience thinks that being a liberal or libertarian outweighs issues of public harm and biblical ethics (which ex hypothesi we are supposing this legislator accepts), then I think she is nuts.
As to gay dating services, I wonder why you are asking the question. That question wants to take us far from where we started. The point of this discussion has not been to parse the finest gray shades of ethical boundaries. We have been discussing a legislative leader’s position on ethically clear questions; nothing gray about it, from a biblical perspective.
July 2nd, 2010 | 6:20 pm | #85
Tom, I asked:
In your reply you seem to beg the question. Let me concede this: certainly the role-specific norms of legislators aren’t the same as the role-specific norms for Justices, soldiers, or pizza chefs. And it’s also true that a legislator makes laws. But this hardly shows that role-specific norms don’t apply to their activity of formulating those laws.
Yes, Tom, but we were also clear on the fact that the “public harm” is inferred from a “plausible extrapolation from the Bible.” If it can’t be shown to harmful on more general grounds, this will be highly relevant to someone with liberal view of legitimate law; likewise, the libertarian view will put various constraints on the sorts of “public harm” preventing laws that can be legitimately enforced. (Think of a proposed law prohibiting motel owners from renting single-bed rooms to same-sex couples–this law might also be viewed as preventing a public harm on an plausible extrapolation of biblical teaching similar to that suggested above regarding gay dating services.)
On the liberal conception of legitimate law, recall our discussion regarding public reason under this thread: http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/gay-rights-aggression-distortion/#comments
As for the proposed law prohibiting gay dating service, I mention this as case in which the proposed law seems fits your criteria. I ask you about it because I’m wondering if you’re going to follow your criteria consistently–even if this forces you to conclude that a Christian Congressperson would be required by the Christian faith to support such a proposal. (And can’t you here see how this would conflict with many plausible liberal and libertarian views of the proper role of the federal government–views which might well be appropriate matters of conscience? If so, then this should make you think about your criteria.)
July 2nd, 2010 | 8:08 pm | #86
Janice,
What question am I begging? Are you using that term in some non-standard manner? It means to employ one’s conclusion as a premise. Could you identify my actual fault in that?
Here’s my response to that. You may recognize it:
(It’s not only ex hypothesi, by the way: How many times did Nancy Pelosi say “Word” in that video?)
And
You asked for my opinion, and now you have it. Twice.
You think that my principles force me to a certain conclusion regarding the gay dating service. Do you think I am unaware of the possibility of competing principles at play? And that it may be necessary to consider their relative weights? I spoke of that expressly in my comments #82 and #84. There are issues on which the proper policy position is less obvious than the ones that I keep trying to keep us focused on: certain issues obviously relevant to the woman speaking in the video in the original post.
You seem to want to shift the question. At first it was whether Nancy Pelosi is being hypocritical in that video, considering her various seriously anti-biblical policy positions. Now it’s about some hypothetical legislator and some hypothetical gray-area legislation. I’m not interested in chasing your questions all around the block, Janice.
July 2nd, 2010 | 8:43 pm | #87
You’re begging the question of whether or not there are role-specific norms constraining that apply specifically to Congresspersons, or, more broadly, to those employing the coercive powers of state to constrain the liberties of fellow citizens. That, after all, is the possibility I raised.
Here you might ask yourself this: suppose a Christian Supreme Court Justice subscribes to an “originalist” judicial philosophy. If originalist interpretive principles lead to a ruling other than the ruling one would be led to following purely “biblical ethics”, is such a Justice also nuts in maintaining consistency with originalism?
Or might “biblical ethics”, applied to a free society, actually allow a variety of judicial philosophies, just as it allows a variety of legislative philosophies?
As you note, we should add to this: “…in Tom Gilson’s opinion.” And this is the opinion for which I am asking you to argue.
By all means Tom, state these other “competing principles.” After all, maybe they apply in SSM and abortion issues too.
No Tom. Here’s how to characterize our dialectic: Tom tries to back up one of his claims with a principle; Janice then tests that principle, to see if Tom is really going to maintain the principle consistently; Tom then complains that Janice has shifted the question. We’ve been here before Tom. (Remember your principle for applying the term “ban”?)
July 3rd, 2010 | 5:34 am | #88
Janice, you say,
I’ll quit worrying about whether you mean “begging the question” in the proper sense of petitio principii, and take it that you’re asking, why am I not taking seriously the possibility that there are role-specific norms of the sort you’ve just named.
Bear in mind that we’re talking about someone who claims to believe the Word is “everything.” She said this of “the Gospel reference,” to which we must “give voice in public policy,” and “it means the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” and “will come again.” Bear in mind also that the discussion is about whether she is speaking sincerely.
As I see it, the question you’ve asked is relevant to that question only in that you think there might be some norms that might make it possible for someone to hold a belief in the Bible and yet support and promote legislation in favor of abortion and SSM.
What’s vexing about your asking that question this time is that I’ve already given you my answer. You don’t agree with my answer, which is your right; but you haven’t argued against it. You’ve raised a possibility. That’s not a good enough reason even for me to re-state my answer.
You’ve asked me again about a Supreme Court Justice. I refer you to my answer already stated in #82.
Okay, then, there’s nothing gray about it from a biblical perspective in the opinion of Tom Gilson and millions of conservative Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians. You’ve heard our arguments before (this is about abortion and SSM still), and I refer you to that entire decades-long debate.
No.
I’ve already made it clear that I’m not following you down this rabbit trail. I have to give you credit, though; it’s the only thing I’ve said lately against which you have raised a fresh argument:
No, here’s the dialectic. Tom backs up a claim with a statement of principle and with a clear indication that he views it as one of a set of differently weighted principles that must be considered together. Out of that, Janice identifies “a principle… the principle” (emphasis added) to which she apparently thinks Tom must hold without regard for any other thought. If that’s the case, Janice, would you tell me, please, what is “the principle” that rules over everything I believe, such that I must hold to it tooth and nail in order to “maintain the principle consistently”?
July 4th, 2010 | 6:29 am | #89
[Note: this is a response to comment #90, which had been posted earlier in the morning but whose time stamp was somehow shifted afterward.]
Janice, you said,
Sheesh. I know what begging the question is. I know the technical and the casual usage of the term. I was trying to find out what you meant in this case, since it wasn’t clear to me. You first used it in #85 after I had argued for a position. You said I seemed to beg the question, and since I had not done so that
Since you find yourself so free to complain about my style of argumentation, let me say a few things in closing and then let others answer your challenge.
1. I did argue for my position that these norms are not the same for legislators as they are for other positions (#84). That was not an assumption.
2. I didn’t argue that there are no role-restrictive norms applying to legislators. Hence it was not an assumption (not mine, at any rate).
3. I did argue that legislators are limited by the Constitution, their constituency, and their consciences (alliteration not intended).
4. I did make the point that some issues are more morally weighted than others.
5. You tried to extract from all of this some one principle to which I ought to be consistent, but I don’t see just one principle in what I have written, I see several that must enter in to any legislators’ position (summarized in points 3 and 4 here).
6. You say I do not know how to secure a conclusion. Thank you for that constructive criticism, but I wasn’t actually trying to secure a conclusion with you, Janice. If you don’t take abortion and SSM to be as morally weighted as I do, then we won’t secure a conclusion together. How long have these debates been going on, after all?
7. For the last several rounds, in fact, the topic of the discussion has shifted. You yourself seem to have been trying to secure a conclusion: that I am not holding fast to my one principle; to which I have responded, I wasn’t relying on just one principle.
We’re spinning our wheels, and your tone has turned uncharitable. If anyone has a response to Janice’s challenge I’ll be glad to respond to it. Janice, thank you for the conversation, and please consider carefully my points 1 through 7 here.
July 4th, 2010 | 9:50 am | #90
Tom, it was an odd thing for you to worry about, but perhaps you’re just learning the traditional of the term. So let’s be very clear. Your earlier response was that Congresspersons aren’t bound to the same role-specific norms as “the others.” Since you take this to show that there aren’t also restrictive norms that apply specifically to Congresspersons, you assume the very thing that you are being asked to show, namely, that there aren’t other role-specific norms that apply specifically to Congresspersons. We call this “begging the question.”
Tom, this makes it look as if you’re also not familiar with what it takes to secure a conclusion. You were attempting to show that Pelosi is acting contrary to the faith. You demonstration assumes, however, a denial of the possibilities I’ve raised. When I asked you “why assume this?” you begged the question” (you will learn this term!).
I wrote:
Tom Replied:
If you read back over our dialogue, you’ll find it very difficult to extract from your comments that “set of differently weighted principles that must be weighted together”—must less any indication of how these different principles should be weighted! So as before, this makes it look as if you’re also not familiar with what it takes to secure a conclusion. So here’s my challenge to you (or to anyone else reading this): try for yourself to reconstruct Tom Gilson’s argument for why Pelosi is acting contrary to the Christian faith. I’d love to compare your findings.
July 5th, 2010 | 5:53 pm | #91
Janice,
You made an irrational leap, as was noted. So let me be even clearer:
1. Calling ‘x’ sin is proper for the Christian where the Bible is clear the ‘x’ is sin.
2. Supporting the ‘x’ sinful practices amounts to a sinful act, as described in Romans.
3. This in no way equals criminalization. I do not take the theocratic position.
4. It is not unreasonable demand that one who names Christ as Lord must follow Him and His Word consistently. Christianity is not merely label of convenience and political advantage, but a commitment to Christ as Lord. (When the term “Lord” describes Jesus in the NT it means “absolute sovereign” and nothing less.)
Yet still you raise questions of ethical standards. I wonder — what is your foundation for morality? What makes anything absolutely right or wrong?
July 5th, 2010 | 6:02 pm | #92
Collin,
You seem to have forgotten what you wrote in comment #73 (the comment to which I was responding):
Here’s the statement you denied:
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact