Why Akathleptos?

Why Akathleptos? Because it means Uncontainable. God is infinite. Hence, the whole universe cannot contain Him. The term also refers to the incomprehensibility of God. No man can know everything about God. We can know Him personally but not exhaustively, not even in Heaven.

Why Patmos? Because the church is increasingly marginalized and exiled from the culture.

Why Pen-Names? So the focus is on the words and not who wrote them. We prefer to let what we say stand on its own merit. There is precedent in church history for this - i.e., the elusive identity of Ambrosiaster who wrote in the 4th century A.D.

“Truth is so obscured nowadays, and lies so well established, that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it." Blaise Pascal

Sunday, August 7, 2016

A Tragic Example Of A Christian Falling Into Cultural Quicksand

Jay Hobbs properly confronts Christian blogger Rachel Evans here for her diatribe that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for pro-life. He hits the nail on the head by pointing out her argument has absolutely no basis in Scripture. She is a tragic example of many Christians today that have fallen into the quicksand of cultural "wisdom". She foolishly surrenders her most potent weapon - absolute truth. The consequence is a disastrous watering down of her light and witness.

Unlike Evans, Hobbs uses Scripture to support his view. His article is recommended reading in entirety.

If you were to sit down and read a 3,300-word argument from a professing Christian, urging you to think through your vote from a Christian perspective, how many biblical references would you expect to see? How about zero? That’s the amount of scripture blogger Rachel Held Evans chose to employ in her opus, “So you’re thinking of voting for a pro-choice candidate…”

Posted Tuesday, the blog post is Held Evans’ stab at making what she considers the Christian pro-life case for pulling the lever for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming presidential elections ....

.... Perhaps the most striking is Held Evans’ muddying of the waters on what pro-lifers mean when we call ourselves “pro-life.”

Held Evans fancies her definition of “pro-life” as more enlightened and expansive than most. A “pro-life” approach must take into account affordable health care, poverty alleviation, racial reconciliation, etc., she asserts. To be sure, these are laudable, even “pro-life” goals, even if we disagree on the extent to which the government is capable of achieving them.

But a pro-life conviction comes from recognizing the inherent value and dignity of every human life. That is why we oppose abortion in all cases. We can argue a bigger tent, but never at the expense of that central conviction. Here’s where Held Evans gets in the weeds, and it’s where she stays. In trying to expand the definition of “pro-life,” she’s doing the very opposite, redefining the term to exclude the one issue on which we “pro-lifers” unanimously agree.

The issue I’m concerned with is the truth. If we’re going to have a discussion on religion and politics, then let’s have it. Let’s break out the Bible and talk about these things. (emphasis is mine) Let’s look at the party platforms and compare them.

Let’s lament, if necessary, two nominees who fall woefully short of any reasonable expectations for civility, honesty, and serious policy. But let’s not muddy the waters on what it means to be “pro-life.” And let’s not muddy the waters on what it means to think as a Christian.

No comments:

Post a Comment