Articles
Wolves in Sheep's Clothing
Every once in a while I read an article that raises my blood pressure. Many of them are in the Washington Post. The most recent is from two “clergy” folk: Harry Knox and Alethea Smith-Withers (9/29/14). The actual title of the article is “Reverends like us should never oppose access to abortion or sex ed.” Yes, you read that right; that’s really what it said. Here are some gems from the article along with my comments:
Decisions about reproduction are morally complex … The wisdom found in our faith traditions is rich, nuanced, and rarely absolute.
Comment: First, beware of the term “nuanced.” It is code for moral ambiguity and is always used to lay the groundwork for some controversial claim. Scripture doesn’t present reproduction as “morally complex.” It says things like “flee sexual immorality” (1 Cor 6:18); “because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor 7:2); “fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb 13:4). And these two “reverends” have the same access to the Bible I have.
We absolutely believe that every woman should have the ability to make her own decision on whether and when to raise a child. Her health insurance should honor the full spectrum of care that she might need, including abortion.
Comment: “Every woman” means young women whom the authors say should have access to sex education and “tools to protect their sexual health” (code for condoms) in public schools. They seem to be very absolute about their own view, even after saying that wisdom from faith traditions is “rarely absolute.” So, Scripture is not absolute, but their political opinion is. And this issue isn’t about a woman making decisions; it is about making others pay for them even if it violates their “faith tradition.”
There are some politicians who do not want abortion to be legal and use the mantle of religion to demand legislation that would close clinics or withhold insurance coverage, making care unaffordable. This is wrong.
Comment: Once again, nothing nuanced or questionable about the authors’ opinion. The only thing doubtful to them is whether life is sacred, sex is restricted to married couples, and morality should be taught to young people. Closing abortion clinics would save countless innocent lives, and making promiscuous citizens pay for their own abortions (which they can certainly afford if they pass on their flat-screen TV and smart phone) respects the consciences of the godly.
As clergy we are called by our faith to promote compassion, respect, and justice for all – in other words, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
Comment: No, as “clergy” you are called by your faith to teach what God has revealed about the sanctity of life and sexual purity. What a travesty to twist Jesus’ words about loving one’s neighbors into justification of abortion. This is nothing more than humanistic, moral relativism masquerading as religion. But nothing new here: “‘Both prophet and priest are profane; Yes, in My house I have found their wickedness,’ says the Lord” (Jer 23:11).
It is time that politicians get out of the business of playing doctor and preacher.
Comment: Maybe it is time for “reverends like you” to get in the business of standing up for what is morally pure and right instead of playing politics – as you accuse the real politicians of doing. And, by the way, what’s a woman doing in the role of a “reverend” anyway? What part of this verse do you not understand: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim 2:12)?!
