abortion and evolution

[rmwilliamsjr]

i'm involved with a discussion elsewhere and i made this statement.

I think that membership in theologically conservative churches has a litmus test of anti-abortion and anti-evolution, a litmus test being a quick and handy guide to who is inside and who is outside.

i posted this to a few places i haunt to see what people think, just substitute conservative for fundamentalist

I think that membership in fundamentalist churches has a litmus test of anti-abortion and anti-evolution, a litmus test being a quick and handy guide to who is inside and who is outside.

i'm not here to debate the issues. what i would like to do is ask people about their emotions about the issues. to ask people about how important psychological and for unity of the fundamentalist community these issues are.

the problem is that i can read definitions of fundamentalism, like the one given in this forum FAQ. but that doesn't tell me how people really identify brethren in say a casual conversation with a visitor after church.

so with this background what i am asking is:

how important to fellowship and trust as a fellow fundamentalist or Christian are the issues of abortion and evolution? Can a Christian genuinely support abortion or be an evolutionist? if someone you didn't know talked to you after church and you found out that they supported legal abortion or were an evolutionist would this be more important than the fact that they could subscribe to the list of things that make a fundamentalist in this forums FAQ*? simply put, does either a pro-abortion or evolutionist stand trump the doctrines for membership in fundamentalist churches?

thanks.

* this FAQ is at:
http://www.christianforums.com/t672730-rules-for-this-forum-read-before-posting-updated-6-16-05.html

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Richard,
This strikes me also as quite interesting. I suppose I am throughly persuaded on the first, but less so on the second (abortion+, evolution-). Although, I would want to know just how far that "evolution" commitment went as well. Personally, I think the 6-day, young earth position will perpetually win the "survival of the fittest" exegetical contest.

I just know too many "old earth" conservative presbyterians for me to think of that issue as a good litmus test, at least inside our churches. In other words,, too many people that I think belong "inside" might well classify themselves as moderately tolerant of some views that are home turf for "evolution." Thus, I think that as a "litmus test" it is less reliable than the abortion question.

I personally think the OPC took the proper stand when they upheld the removal from office of the RE who affirmed Adam had primate ancestry. I cannot see how that view is sustainable on Scriptural grounds nor on the "litmus test" of Confessional fidelity. But I think we can rub shoulders with people who have strong differing views on this matter, and still consider them close brethren, even if I wouldn't want them leading the congregation.

Abortion is (thankfully) more cut and dried, despite some assertions of ambiguity. Christians ought to view God as the Lord of life, granting and taking it as his pleasure, and according to his law. This is a hill to die on. Not even the pagan Hipocrates and generations of his disciples countenanced this immorailty as being moral or justified.

If a person finds it permissible to kill the defenseless, no human category is safe. Perhaps he will permit the extermination of those "mental patients" who believe in the divinity of some man named "Jesus Christ". It may be distasteful but necessary for the survival of our race/country. Go on, put them out of their (our!) misery.

That bit's just the "naturalistic" argument against abortion. Scripture treats humans as dignified, individualistic personalities even in the womb. Abortion seems to be as clear a boundary regarding the plain dictate of God's will as setting up a Buddah on the communion table and bowing to it, praying to it, and kissing it would be. Neither one of these thoughts are Christian.

Anyway, for furthering the discussion... my (hey, admin, where's my .gif ?!?)

 

[SRoper]

My first response would have been similar to Rev. Buchanan, but now that I think about it I guess I need more clarification on abortion as a litmus test. There are plenty of people who believe abortion is wrong but don't think it should necessarily be criminalized. Would such a person be classified as having a "pro-abortion" stand?

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

My first response would have been similar to Rev. Buchanan, but now that I think about it I guess I need more clarification on abortion as a litmus test. There are plenty of people who believe abortion is wrong but don't think it should necessarily be criminalized. Would such a person be classified as having a "pro-abortion" stand?

you are absolutely right. This distinction between criminalizing early abortion and being morally opposed to abortion is important and it is possible to believe that abortion is morally wrong but that it is worse to criminalize it. Thanks. it confirms the idea that in many heads is much wisdom....

 

[ChristianTrader]

My first response would have been similar to Rev. Buchanan, but now that I think about it I guess I need more clarification on abortion as a litmus test. There are plenty of people who believe abortion is wrong but don't think it should necessarily be criminalized. Would such a person be classified as having a "pro-abortion" stand?

I think the morally wrong argument but not criminal stance does not work (or at least I have yet to see it work). The issue is "WHY" does one see it to be morally wrong. I have yet to see a person give a reason that it is morally wrong beyond "I just do not like it" and still come down on the side of non criminalization.

 

[rmdmphilosopher]

I mean, what's the standard whereby something that is morally wrong should also be criminalized within a state? The state doesn't have the duty (or the ability) of keeping its citizens from hurling themselves to hell by their own immorality: but it does have the duty, surely, of protecting those innocent of a particular immorality from the temporal consequences of it... So, for instance, Adultery isn't criminalized, but Rape is.

So what it comes down to, I guess, is WHY you believe abortion is morally wrong. If it involves in any shape the idea that abortion is MURDER, then it should most definately be criminalized... Is there an argument for the moral wrongness of abortion that doesn't involve its devastating effect on the innocent?