I have not been posting all that much lately on this blog. Much of my time and thoughts have been with my other blog. Frankly, my thoughts on all things controversial have been put into perspective thanks to one of my regular readers and commenters.
I have been convicted more and more lately that my attention should be focused more on the proclamation of the good news of the Christian faith, and less on societal and/or political matters that, in the end, are or secondary importance at best. In other words, the world is the world, and however disastrous the direction I see it heading, the Kingdom of God is of infinitely more importance.
I still see the news, what's happening in the world and the nation, and I am still upset, and shake my head at where I see it heading, but this blog was originally about the Christian faith and it's reasonableness.
Having said that, I believe the decay of things around us is symptomatic of what happens when certain principles, those I see as exemplified by Jesus Christ, are abandoned. These are true love for all, true tolerance, true acceptance, but at the same time, the exposing of hypocrisy and the drawing attention to sin.
So, as much as I see the intolerance and hypocrisy and injustice involved in this story, I will not comment on it, other than to say I enjoy watching Ezra Levant, even if in this story he does seem to exhibit a bit of whatever the descriptive adjective based on the noun, "rant" is.
But this I cannot let go by without comment. At first glance, and going strictly by the headline of the story (and of this post)
Presbyterians OK with Killing Born Babies (no question mark).one might get the impression (as I initially did) that a major Christian denomination refuses to condemn the killing, not of unborn babies, but the actual murder of those babies when the attempt to kill them in utero has failed. The headline of the linked article would lead us to believe that the PCUSA doesn't care about these babies, but I found that to be somewhat misleading. From the comments section of the defeated motion:
and..."We affirm that the lives of viable unborn babies—those well-developed enough to survive outside the womb if delivered—ought to be preserved and cared for and not aborted. In cases where problems of life or health of the mother arise in a pregnancy, the church supports efforts to protect the life and health of both the mother and the baby. When late-term pregnancies must be terminated, we urge decisions intended to deliver the baby alive."
"Regardless of one’s support or opposition to legal abortion, the case of Dr. Gosnell is abhorrent to all."So it seems to me that they do indeed take a stand on the issue, but the motion, like some government bills, tried to tie all sorts of other pro-life wish items (and let me here declare myself, if I have not already indicated my position elsewhere on this blog, to be solidly pro-life) to it. It's what they call an omnibus bill, and governments will try to pass agenda items they want by tying their own items to a bill that the opposition will otherwise support. I find it a bit sneaky.
But back to what I think is the misleading the headline of the piece. Any of us, conservative or liberal, I believe, do our causes great disservice when we are as disingenuous as this.