My appreciation for Karl Barth’s (and Thomas Torrance’s) theology has placed me into contact, ironically, with a host of folks who are quite distinct from my own disposition; i.e. socio-politically, and even ecclesially. For some reason many followers of Barth are very progressive, even radically leftist and democratic socialist (the ideology of Antifa). I have an anonymous reader/commenter, who chimes in every now and then; typically only when it has to do with politics—his comments are always passively contrarian when it comes to that. He just left another one on my last post. Instead of keeping it buried in the comment meta I thought I would highlight it, and make it an actual post. All it really is is an extension of the same demonic-logic I took issue with, of a natural theological hue, in my last post. Here is what “Don” wrote:
Mussolini was against abortion. So was Hitler if the baby was Aryan. Should Christians have supported them? I am against abortion but I am not a single issue voter. Karl Barth was a life long supporter of the Democratic Socialists .In Safenwil has was called the Red Pastor by the mine owners in his congregation. Everyone knows Trump is a serial adulterer but is that the single issue for Christians.?And I would argue that he has been a lifelong racist(and a lifelong Democrat until he saw an opportunity to take over the Republican party). There are a lot of single issue voters who support the Democrats or Republicans because a single issue. If only it was that simple!
Mussolini was against abortion. Great! Hitler was against abortion (for Aryan babies). Great! Karl Barth was a Democratic Socialist and called the Red Pastor. Yeah, I know. So! Barth was wrong on lots of things. Everyone knows Trump is a serial adulterer. No, everyone knew he WAS a serial adulterer. There is no evidence of that for at least the last fourteen years. Christians believe in this concept of forgiveness, repentance, and the capacity to change; i.e. you know, ‘new creation’ stuff and all that. And of course we all know that Barth lived in adultery almost his whole married life without any sort of repentance. Eh (crickets). Trump has been a lifelong racist. Is he a racist now? How do you define racism, Don? You don’t. If only it was that simple! Oh it is that simple. Have you ever studied how abortions are done? How about how many abortions have been done in our land alone? It is quite simple, it’s called principle; get some.
And your attempt to draw a parallel between Trump and Hitler/Mussolini is fallacious. Build a case for that rather than simply making rhetorical assertion. That might work on mainstream media, and with the masses, but it doesn’t work here or under any critical scrutiny. If that parallel fits anyone it is the leftists on mainstream media; the democrat/socialist party in America; the globalists attempting global rule (yeah, just replace the theory of Mussolini’s nationalist fascism with globalist fascism and you’ll start to get it). You have been confused by your learning, Don. Repent.
PS. I’m not actually a single-issue voter. But this issue is singularly important, to the level that it could and should represent that sort of gravitas for those who say they will vote for Biden/Harris. You cannot do that and have the Holy Spirit in my view (or you are seriously quenching the Spirit; this goes beyond just, Don). Ultimately, I see this election as a matter of life in death in regard to the survival of America and her freedoms. I personally don’t want to be a socialist nanny country ruled over people like Biden/Harris et al. I’ll be part of the resistance if that ever happens.
Resistance to such demonically inspired broad scale negation of the ‘Imago Dei’ begins “with a true heart in the full assurance of faith in Christ Jesus, our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” and with the commitment to do His will. Christ’s resistance to such negation is our example. By His example I must resist by first taking up my execution stake… then I follow Him, acting to do that I am given to do and must do, “even unto death.”
Is it such a difficult thing to be informed and exercise the privilege to vote, making the best possible effective choice for the freedom of liberty and life in the face of any possibility of oppressive domination and negation?
Hi Bobby,
With regard to your last two posts, I have a question I’d like to ask or pose related to the issue of abortion. Supposing most babies that are aborted are from the poor and blacks and other people of color, and supposing a direct link could be made between wealth and the number of abortions, and supposing over the last 3 decades the number of abortions has not been affected by which party is in the White House, and supposing 10 years from now there would be less abortions if the underlying causes were addressed with serious and sacrificial intention…would it be reasonable for a Christian to put the weight of their efforts toward advocating against the underlying social causes of abortion rather than placing all their hopes on stacking the courts to overturn a law?
Yeah, it is hard to fathom how people get to this point, as Christians, really. Sad.
Geordie,
You can’t be serious? This isn’t an either/or scenario. The sort of social change you’re referring to will take decades of time—and will not ever be totally eradicated till Christ comes. In principle, abortion needs to be stopped, TODAY. One more baby should not be allowed to be legally cut to pieces in its mother’s womb.
And I really don’t know what you’re referring to in regard to the social change you’re seeking as the answer. You’re not suggesting that the democratic party, the party of social welfare, and social services is the answer for these communities, are you?? What gets people out of the vicious circle of poverty is the opportunity for work. The sort of work that pays well, and provides for families of all demographics. That’s what was happening pre-covid in this country.
All your reasoning leads to is the very sort of in-action, in regard to keeping abortion legal that I have been referring to as demonic-logic. It’s out of touch with the sort of urgency needed. If you think overturning Roe V Wade isn’t an urgent viable thing, then we have nothing to talk about on this.
As far as the “party” in the WH. Exactly. The RINOs and then the Demonicrats are the same establishment abyss. Haven’t you seen who is endorsing Biden for POTUS? Haven’t you noticed that Trump isn’t any of that? Haven’t you noticed that THEY are fighting Trump tooth and nail precisely because Trump isn’t one of them, and is actually taking down the abortion and other demonic industries these elitists have facilitated for decades? That’s what is happening, Geordie.
I believe I am trying to suggest two points:
1. That over the last 30 years the number of abortions has not been impacted by who was in the white house. I don’t see either party as being our “savior” here.
2. That the issue of the terrible practice of abortion in this country requires a much more complex response than “just say no” (by way of the law), and that fixating on the overturning of Roe vs. Wade as the one and only solution to this sad and terrible practice is myopic and may actually be counter productive.
Yes, and my response is that because prior to Trump there was only One party in power, who went under the dual name—Republican or Democrat. Same difference.
It isn’t “just say no,” that’s silly! It’s just make its practice and its funding ILLEGAL. Who said that’s the only focus? There is nothing counter-productive to overturning Roe. The approach you advocate for, ie social change as the solution, is decades in the making, and one that most likely will never happen.
The point is that Roe in principle is satanic, and anyone who sees it as a myopic to overturn such a filthy law is highly suspect to me.
Bobby, please don’t make this personal by “suspecting” me. That aggressive approach does not facilitate conversation and just comes off as an attack. It also makes it easy and convenient to misrepresent people.
I did not and am not saying that overturning the current law is not worth pursuing. What I am saying is that the issue of abortion is not totally going to be fixed by changing a law. Abortion is part of a much larger system.
Geordie, I haven’t made this “personal,” per se. Your passive aggressive approach doesn’t facilitate discussion either. But here’s the thing, and you would know this if you read my Facebook: I will not have an “intellectual” or dispassionate discussion about abortion with anyone. I don’t see abortion as impersonal; I don’t see it as an “issue”; and your approach to this is immediately off-putting to me, and turns me off straightaway. In other words, I don’t want to discuss this with you as if its an abstract, dispassionate, impersonal ethical issue that can be discussed in that way. I’m way way beyond that. And I haven’t made it easy for anyone to misrepresent you. I am simply responding to what you have written. Here’s what you wrote:
On analogy: abortion might be like a toddler playing in the middle of the 5 freeway. Any sane and ethically bound adult would risk their very life, and even the lives of the other drivers on the freeway (by chancing a pile-up chain reaction) to run out, immediately, and put an instant end to the risk that child is facing by being in a place that threatens its very life and breath. That toddler doesn’t have a “sane” intellectually and socially expedient moment for others not to act. If people who are in a place to act for that child’s life don’t act, THAT child will most certainly die a gruesome and untimely death. On balance that is abortion. That is what overturning Roe is. Your 10 year approach merely mitigating the amount of abortions is not sane, and does nothing for the child who is scheduled, as I type this, to be cut into pieces and sucked out of its mothers womb tomorrow morning. Which makes your ethical logic (which is purely consequentialist) non-starting, and thus not worth entertaining with any amount of seriousness.
Standing against abortion is not based on a de facto oriented consequentialism (in regard to sysetmic structures), but on a de jure deontologicalism, a principled position, that a nation that has the slaughter of innocent life as the law of the land, cannot stand before God and survive. Beyond that, and I’ve already made this point in my first post on abortion: the approach you’re referring to (the social approach as an emphasis) does not have the sort of logic available to it in order to cultivate, particularly among a secular society, the sort of long-term social transformative mode your theory thinks from. In other words, when a culture has a ‘covenant with death’ (to refer to an Isianic motif) as its moral superstructure, what you are proposing will only lead to another 60M babies slaughtered, unabated, over the next 50 years.
Ultimately, Geordie, I’m afraid we have a serious misunderstanding between us. We are on different socio-cultural planes when it comes to such topics (inclusive of homosexuality and other issues). If you want to dialogue with me about TFT or Barth, then we have some things in common. Other than that we are as far apart as the mainline is from the low-church conservative evangelical. The Princeton guys realized this with me many years ago, maybe you haven’t yet. But that is the case.
Fair enough Bobby. You are right of course that you have been clear on your blog about how you desire to approach socio-cultural themes, and I will respect that. I’ll stick to TFT, and hope we can keep learning from and listening to one another in that realm.