10 December 2009

The you-don't-care-about-babies dodge (NEXT! #20)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: We must sign The Manhattan Declaration, or we don't care about the lives of babies.

Response A: When did caring about physical life and the non-negotiable priority of caring about the purity of the Gospel through which God brings eternal life become an either/or? Please show the math.



Response B: How is endangering people's souls through muddying Gospel clarity essential for saving babies' lives? Please show the math.

(Proverbs 21:22)

Dan Phillips's signature

20 comments:

DJP said...

If you're new to the "Next!" series, be sure to click on the link associated with NEXT! in the post and read the explanation.

SandMan said...

DJP,

After all of the clamoring about the MD, the abortion document you wrote (linked in post) puts a giant exclamtion point on your argument.

(Readers note the copyright was 1997).

So now the pieces fall together nicely. You have opposed publicly the practice of abortion for over a decade (at least), and have very poignantly exposed its evils (frankly, I nearly cried as I read it).
And yet, you will not give a "free pass" to the signers of the MD because opposing abortion (a practice you clearly hate)is still NOT, more important than maintaining the clarity and purity of the Gospel.

Well done.

David Rudd said...

Dan,
are people really making the kind of statements you're addressing in these "next"s?

if so, it seems like they certainly would be representative of a severe minority of MD signers.

if not, are you implying that this is an argument from things you are reading or hearing?

DJP said...

Yes, David, all over; get out a bit more, you'll see it. In fact, it's about all they have, unless they just are in fact corrupted on the Gospel.

Thanks, SandMan. Yes, I've written letters, called, preached, attended demonstrations, voted; about all I can think to do.

David Rudd said...

thanks, dan. since i don't "get out" enough, can you point me to some links?

and please remember, you and i are on the same team!

DJP said...

Don't have time to do people's research for them, David. On your own; if I can find it, you can.

David Rudd said...

again, thanks Dan. i just figured you had seen it somewhere and could point out at least a website, person, etc.

ironically, i googled your statement as it appears here. it produced 9 hits, all of them linking to this post.

David said...

What do you mean, I can't divide by zero?

That's how my truth works!

John said...

Yep, y'all sure are getting some mileage out of the MD. And I'm glad. It is about time that true believers started making clear statements about the gospel. I think of Paul and his attituded toward the Galatians. Its not allos, but heteros. And i'd just as soon they emasculate themselves as circumsize you. Well the MD isn't heteros, its allos! What should our attitude be?

DJP said...

Unfortunately, it's still needed.

Take a trip to Challies or Justin Taylor metas on this topic, for instance, and you'll see too many still wanting to focus on anything other than THE issue. Dodge after dodge is thrown up, hiding behind irrelevancies.

Someone's got to do the Cartago delenda est on this.

Say, wasn't there a T-shirt like that?

Frank Turk said...

Not yet.

Todd said...

David,

I think you ask very legitimate questions. I don't think you'll find this particular objection on the web (or anywhere else for that matter) to the extent which Dan insinuates.

At any rate, you certainly don't deserve to have the guy treat you like a punk. Par for the course over here.

DJP said...

Say, that's terrific! So far, everyone's agreed that the widespread argument that it was imperative to sign this awful thing to "do something for the babies" is ridiculous!

That's progress.

Now, when you run into those trying to take shelter behind this dodge, just be sure to point out how absurd it is!

Because with it gone, there is no excuse for the MD.

Chris Cookston said...

Actually, if one really cared about the babies they would not sign.

Only the Gospel of Christ can fix the abortion problem. By signing, the waters are muddied, the message watered down and less hear the truth.

Amen?

CR said...

David: are people really making the kind of statements you're addressing in these "next"s?

Yes, David, people are saying it. Not the some of the evangelical noteable signers like Justin Taylor, Al Mohler, or Ligon Duncan. But if you read some of the comments from Justin Taylor's B2W (or I think even here on Pyro), yes. One comment that comes to mind is someone who said words to the effect that babies are going to die because we don't want to work with Catholics.

The issue of course is not that we don't want to work with Catholics. I'll work with them in the political process, but not through the MD.

David Rudd said...

CR,

Thanks for the reasoned response. I don't doubt that there are some out there who are taking that stance. I have friends who use that kind of silly logic as well.

Since i haven't spent a lot of time trolling the comments of those blogs, maybe you can answer my question. Is that kind of statement representative of the majority of signers? Or would you say it's a minority?

aztroy said...

http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/11/23/why-i-signed-the-manhattan-declaration/

aztroy said...

Following some of the logic here; most Christian music isn't really Christian, so could you provide which artists and what specific songs (I'm certain many artists will need to be parsed to this degree) explain the gospel thoroughly enough to warrant your attention/approval? I expect it shouldn't take long, as short as the list will be.

DJP said...

Aztroy - I'm not tracking you. First you link to a post by a good man whose attempted defense, however, comes uncomfortably close to that refuted in this post. I figured you were meaning to give an example of the dodge.

But then your second comment simply seems unconnected from anything — at least from anything ever posted on this blog. Could you give a clue as to what you're talking about? Was this meant for another blog?

David Rudd said...

Dan,

I think I see the problem. If you think that Mohler's article is "close" to the dodge you present here, it's no wonder we don't see it the same way!

my bad. I see where you're coming from now.