Christians are staggered to see good souls who stand by millennia-old religious convictions portrayed as deplorable bigots.
Clinton with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993-suddenly under serious attack. Edgar Hoovers.Ĭhristians especially blanch to see religious liberty-once thought settled under Mr. Perhaps voters could be excused for hoping to pry Old Glory from the sticky fingers of a thousand unelected J. The stakes are therefore even higher than in 2016, not least because many are rightly scandalized at the attempts to undo that election. Trump not at least imagine that removing him could lead to something even worse? Can the Democratic metamorphosis into an openly antiborder, socialist movement responsibly be ignored? Trump’s removal, they are missing the haystack for the needle. Obama missed the moral forest for the trees. In this genuinely transactional compromise, Christians supporting Mr. They gave the good family man Barack Obama a mulligan or two, winking at his Janus-faced repudiation of traditional marriage and his dehumanizing unborn children. Clinton’s acquittal, these Christians opted out of the “culture wars,” pretending it possible merely to “preach the Gospel” and avoid politics. Trump is the best choice?īut some left-leaning evangelicals long ago grew tired of being portrayed as jug-headed rubes and prudes. Isn’t it conceivable that faithful Christians think Mr. But what is sneeringly called “transactional” is representational government, in which patriotic citizens vote, deputizing others to act on their behalf for the good of the country. The pejorative du jour is to call evangelicals “transactional,” as though buying a loaf of bread and not simply praying for one were somehow faithless. If slavery was rightly considered wicked-and both a moral and political issue-how can this macabre practice be anything else? How can Christians pretend this isn’t the principal moral issue of our time, as slavery was in 1860? Can’t these issues of historic significance outweigh whatever the president’s moral failings might be? Despite ultrasounds and 4-D imaging, Democrats endorse abortion with near unanimity, often beyond viability and until birth. Clinton spoke of making abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” No longer. Neither party could exclusively claim the high ground on this deepest of moral issues. In the 1990s some Democrats were antiabortion. Clinton have been trampled beyond recognition by something untethered and wild, like horses racing to Venezuela. Christianity Today’s long-faced essay is meant to be that dressing-down, triggered by the “facts” of the impeachment.īut does the Clinton “character” comparison make sense? Aren’t the political realities different two decades later? The triangulating practicality and moderation of the Democrats under Mr. Trump’s detractors, evangelicals are hypocrites who’ve sold their souls for political power unless they issue a withering philippic against Mr.
The reason for the editorial is that evangelicals pronounced Bill Clinton unfit for office because of his moral failings. It is not what one does that makes one a Christian, but faith in what Jesus has done.
For Christianity Today to advance this misunderstanding is shocking. Having thus defenestrated objectivity, the editorial cited his behavior in general as “profoundly immoral,” his character as “grossly” so.īut these subjective pronouncements promote a perversion of Christian doctrine, which holds that all are depraved and equally in need of God’s grace. The article cleared its throat-and conscience-by declaring “unambiguous” the “facts” of the president’s guilt.
0 kommentar(er)
