One other possibility, Matt. When given a choice between helping a real-live already breathing person and helping a potential person, most of us will focus on the already-breathing person.

If a fetus dies, his or her eternal destiny rests in the mercy of God--and presumably that means heaven.

Victims of sex trafficking and starvation and poverty need both physical and spiritual salvation, or their souls are in a lot greater danger than the souls of aborted fetuses.

What's so hard to grasp about that?

If we are going to care about the preborn, we will need to care about sexual promiscuity. And today's young Christians don't want to think about sexual purity. They have been raised on TV sitcoms that equate sexual encounters on a par with a game of ping-pong. They don't want to deal with their own sin. This is why liberals want to be 'do-gooders' in areas where they can look outward rather than inward. "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Jesus)

This is ridiculous and insulting. There are simply too many issues of justice to think something underhanded is going on when one's particular issue is not given sufficient prominence. Just because people are not talking about it from the front at this particular conference does not mean that Christians generally, or progressive Evangelicals in particular, are not talking about these things.

When one initiates criticism over what was not said - at a place where time is limited, and what has been said is good - one is in dangerous territory. Are we to conclude that, because the book of Jude has not yet been quoted, that Evangelicals lack conviction that it is divinely inspired?

Jessica, I hesitate somewhat to respond because I realize that obviously this issue has more practical implications for you than for me. Nevertheless, the last question you asked ("What's so hard to grasp about that?") suggests you may be oversimplifying your position.

It's not simply a question of the eternal destinies of the souls of the unborn vs. the souls of "real-live already breathing" people. You see, a fetus is not just a "potential person." A fetus is an act of creation by God, and so the real question is, do human beings have the right to interfere with that act of creation? At the root of the issue is the root of all sin--the desire to be God. The serpent told the woman in Genesis 3 that if she ate the fruit of the tree she was prohibited to eat, she would become like God, knowing good and evil. Ever since she fell for that lie, we have all followed that example, wanting to be our own God, deciding for ourselves what is good and what is evil.

So if a fetus dies because of natural causes, that is a result of living in a world that is currently in rebellion against God, and I agree that that fetus' destiny is in the hand of a merciful God. But if a fetus dies because it was aborted, the fetus' destiny is still in the hands of a merciful God; but now there is danger to our own soul--the soul of a real-live already breathing person--for having made the decision to play God.

Furthermore, one of the main themes of the Bible is the emphasis on standing up for the weak, for the defenseless, for those who are unable to stand up for themselves. Who are weaker, more defenseless, and more unable to stand up for themselves than the unborn?

The reality is that the issue of abortion is a complex one. There are many other legitimate arguments that can be raised (e.g. what do we do if the mother's life is in danger because of the fetus?) We really do ourselves a disservice when our attitude is one of asking, "Why is it so hard for you to understand my point of view?" rather than asking "How can I understand your point of view?"

Personally, I don't know why Catalyst left out abortion from the causes that were highlighted. If it was because the organizers felt that justice for the unborn is not as important as justice for those outside the womb, then I think they are mistaken. But I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. The traditional evangelical position on abortion is well-known and well-promoted. Perhaps the decision was to emphasize equally valid concerns such as sex-trafficking, famine, and poverty, which have generally been ignored by the evangelical church. If that was the decision, I can respect that. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that one cause is more important than the other. ALL life--at every stage--comes from God and is equally sacred.

Rob:

I appreciate your comments. I certainly apologize if I implied that Catalyst did something "underhanded" because I have deep respect for the leadership and the spiritual ethos of Catalyst. As I tried to say in my post, this isn't merely about a 48-hour Catalyst Conference, which did a great job promoting so many incredible causes. It's a much larger issue.

Namely, I do think the pro-life conversation within evangelicalism has lost a lot of vision and passion--and this is NOT the fault of a single generation of leaders. I'm really not sure why, and I don't know enough to point fingers--even if I wanted to. At the very least, I would like to initiate a healthy, honest convsersation within the church about this issue.

elegance, I know many young Christians in my congregations who are taking seriously the Bible's call for sexual purity. It's not easy for them, as it wasn't for us when we were their age; and in fact it may be harder. But it is very unfair of you to make such a broad and condemning generalization.

It's also very unfair to suggest that those who are concerned with "doing good"--which from what I've read, the Bible speaks quite positively about--are doing so because they don't want to deal with their own sin or because they are looking outward, rather than inward. It may be the case for some; but again, making such a blanket accusation doesn't seem very Christlike.

I would suggest that if you want to comment on the post or any of the commentators, that you offer something more useful and edifying than indiscriminate generalizations and accusations.

Rob, I agree with you that just because the issue of abortion wasn't brought up, that doesn't necessarily imply the issue is not important to the organizers of Catalyst. As N. T. Wright once said, "Part of the difficulty of being a theologian is that if you don't say everything you believe every time you speak, people will accuse you of not believing whatever you happened to leave out!"

Nevertheless, remember that Mr. Woodley's concerns were on what he referred to as a "larger trend." And the reality is that many of us tend to gravitate to one extreme or the other. It is possible that in our attempts to compensate for not promoting other issues of justice, we may in fact overcompensate and maybe even--if even only unconsciously--begin to devalue the importance of abortion. Now, that may not be the case. But pausing regularly to examine ourselves and see whether or not that is so is not "ridiculous and insulting."

"...concerns such as sex-trafficking, famine, and poverty, which have generally been ignored by the evangelical church."

Famine and poverty have been addressed by the evangelical church ever since I can remember and I'm 58. Sex trafficking is a relatively new term made popular by Bono. One great difference in approach however, from my parents generation to the current one is that in earlier times, the church appealed to believers within their own congregations rather than unbelievers to exercise good works and as such, they didn't have the media drama that is highly sought after now. Additionally, they did not believe that Jesus taught them to demand money from other people's pockets through taxes in order to provide justice.

Bill, I accept your correction over my seemingly blanket statement about Christian young people. However, having taught at a large Christian high school for many years and being connected to a couple of Christian universities, I essentially stand by my statement.

A major difference between abortion and the other issues stated here is this. Abortion is a United States issue that we have some potential power to change based upon who we vote for for public offices (from the city council on up). Sex trafficking is something that is outlawed in this country already. Poverty in this country is largely self-imposed and would be considered wealth in most of the third world. True famine hasn't existed here in generations. My point is that the emphasis for today's church seems to be on issues that exist in other countries while ignoring the glaring one in our own.

"This is why liberals want to be 'do-gooders' in areas where they can look outward rather than inward..."

and from the other side of the aisle

"This is the problem with Conservatives...they want everyone to conform to a standard that they themselves either refuse to, or fail to conform too on a daily basis."

Or as Bono says in one of his songs, "You demand of everyone else what you don't demand of yourself." Which I think pretty much condemns both the "liberal" and the "conservative" political positions...
which,
just as a thought...might serve as a HUGE NEON WARNING,
for us in the church that POLITICAL POSTURING
isn't a good thing...it IS DIVISIVE.

"Or as Bono says in one of his songs, "You demand of everyone else what you don't demand of yourself.""

Maybe this is not a very good example to make your point. Sorry, but this is a glaring case of the pot calling the kettle black. Bono and U2 have moved most of their assets to the Netherlands this year to avoid paying high taxes at home. They have asked the Irish government (meaning their fellow Irish taxpayers) to give more financial aid to Africa while at the same time removing their 286 million in royalties to another country, thus cutting their tax bite in half. You'd have to drink an awful lot of Guinness to not choke while singing that song. Apparently the Irish people themselves have choked.

"Do you think any of the points above are valid? Are any totally off-base?"
I think they are all very powerful, real reasons that paralyze believers except #5. This one is falderal. To suggest that if one is against abortion he must also be against capital punishment is bogus. It presumes that the distinctions of innocents VS cold blooded murders means nothing in the concept of life. It also demonstrates an ignorance of Rom. 13 where God gives His authority to men to be a "terror" to those who do evil. To be an "avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrong doer" and does so "bearing a sword" or any other instrument of death. The "seamless garment" cliche sounds cute but is deceived, as many Catholics are as they pray to Mary, who is not omnipresent to even hear them, among many other things.

I think a key reason that needs to be added is that church in it's institutionalized form MUST consume 75 - 86% the "giving" in order to buy it's buildings and staff. With God's axiom that "where our treasure is, there will our heart be also" - believers hearts are locked up inside their cathedral system and cannot see outside except to a meager, mediocre amount. In the Silicon Valley, the local Real Options ministry, which has been around for 35 years helping deal with abortion in a caring, connected way, can only get 11% or so of it's budget from evangelical churches and under 25% of the evangelical churches in the area will support them financially at all. Follow the money. God say's it governs where the heart will go.

"They have asked the Irish government (meaning their fellow Irish taxpayers) to give more financial aid to Africa while at the same time removing their 286 million in royalties to another country, thus cutting their tax bite in half."

Now this...is not only interesting, this is fascinating...hmm

Oh...not the apparent, and yet ironic hypocrisy of Bono's actions vs his critiques...he's human after-all, and thus, like those he criticizes, his hyperbolic hypocrisy is expected.

No...what I find interesting is you, elegance, and your attempt to poison the well with an ad hominem that has nothing to do with the central point...the political process of the country which has infected the heart of the American Church with it's vile corruption, and anti-christ motivation.

I won't allow it.

"You demand of everyone else what you don't demand of yourself."

Stands as an indictment against the political parties and the politicians of this nation.

And one last point because of this annoying little voice in the back of my head keeps telling me that I should add this last part in because I detect something sinister in your writings here and in other posts...

Dominionism, is a sin, a transgression, a false faith that has nothing to do with G-d, and everything to do with the ego of man. Dominionism is the seed of the Anti-Christ, and it has led many astray from the path of G-d.
All because it "looks right" and provides an outlet for sanctimonious expressions of self-righteousness without ever requiring one moment of introspection.

You may not knowingly be a dominionist, elegance, but your posts are salted and peppered with that dogma.

sheerakahn, I'm laughing a bit because you are the one who brought up Bono, not me. And now that I've pointed out his silly hypocrisy, you attack me and justify him,"...he's human after-all, and thus, like those he criticizes, his hyperbolic hypocrisy is expected." Are you also justifying yourself with this phrase? Is your hyperbolic hypocrisy expected?

elegance, yours was not a "seemingly blanket statement about Christian young people." There was nothing "seemingly" about it--it was an outright blanket statement:

"[T]oday's young Christians don't want to think about sexual purity. They have been raised on TV sitcoms that equate sexual encounters on a par with a game of ping-pong. They don't want to deal with their own sin."

There was no qualification to it. You didn't say anything like, "In my experience," or "It seems to me," or "As a general rule," or anything like that. You took your (apparently negative) experiences from teaching and being associated with Christians schools, and in your cynicism, you expanded your judgement on every single young Christian. That is what a blanket statement is. It seems odd to me that you would continue to stand by your statement.

You say that you accept correction, but the context shows that in fact you don't really understand the seriousness of what you did. You see, the problem with your statement is that it depersonalizes young people, it robs them of their individuality, it treats them as a "class" or a "category" which you have judged beforehand (I think that called "prejudice") so you don't have to deal with them individually. You already know what they're like, and you already know where they are wrong; and if they don't accept whatever message you're trying to sell them, you already know why--it's because they don't care about purity, they don't want to deal with their sins, they watch too much TV, blah, blah, blah.

But they are not a class. They are not a category. They are human beings, each one wonderfully unique. Each one with their own story, a story we must be willing to listen to and understand if we are truly going to be able to minister to them. I'm truly surprised that in all the years you have spent with young people, you have not discovered what I've discovered--that no two are exactly alike. Oh sure, there are some general characteristics that many of them share, as all generations do. But that does not mean they are all the same. And when we stop treating them all the same, when we stop presuming that we know everything about them before we even meet them, when we start listening to them, really listening to them--not to judge, not to condemn, but to understand and to love--THAT is when we we really start ministering to young people.

I'm surprised you never learned to do this as a teacher.

So, you can go ahead and keep standing by your prejudiced statement. And I will keep standing up for the teenagers and young adults in my congregations who prove you wrong.

Bill, in my opinion, many of "...today's young Christians don't want to think about sexual purity." No let's move on.

I know many young Christians who are maintaining lives of purity and seek to be obedient to the Lord through their knowledge of the Bible and tender hearts. My statement was not prejudiced however, but is rather postjudiced, if there is such a word. I have taught in three public high schools and one Christian high school (min. of 5 years at each) and have always had great relationships with my students - many of whom continue to find me years later on facebook. But to deny that the culture of TV and music has not made Godly values - not the least of which is sexual purity - extremely difficult to maintain is a pretty strange position to take. There are voices all over the 'Evangelical' Christian world today that are telling them that God doesn't really care about such things and as long as they 'care for the poor' and about 'justice and mercy' they are in great shape before God. I applaud Matt Woodley for his excellent column and for pointing this out.

elegance, you wrote the following:

"But to deny that the culture of TV and music has not made Godly values - not the least of which is sexual purity - extremely difficult to maintain is a pretty strange position to take."

I agree with you. I'm not sure if that's what you understood ME to be saying; but if so, I'm afraid you didn't read me carefully enough. I wrote in an earlier post:

"I know many young Christians in my congregations who are taking seriously the Bible's call for sexual purity. It's not easy for them, as it wasn't for us when we were their age; and in fact it may be harder."

And, of course, the reason it may (and probably IS) harder is the one you stated in your latest post. So I'm not saying it's not difficult. I'm saying that there are many young Christians who, despite the difficulty, are committed to taking seriously God's call for purity. And what you wrote on your original point is unfair to them.

I still get the impression that you think all of this is some minor, semantic point. But it's not. Words matter. Especially on a forum such as this one, where words are all we have, absent things like tone of voice, body language, personal relationship, etc., that can help contextualize the words. We need to be careful about the words we use; and if we choose not to be careful, we need to accept the responsibility for the fact that people will misunderstand what we're trying to say.

I invite you to read your original post again from an objective point of view. You may discover that what you wrote on October 7 is NOT the same as what you wrote earlier today in the quote I referenced.

elegance, on the topic of the article, I don't think there has to be competition between issues like abortion on one side and what may be called "social justice" on the other side.

Of course there's people who believe and teach that it is more important to care for the poor than to worry about the unborn. Consider Jessica's position of pitting a "real-live already breathing person" vs. a "potential person." I feel that is the wrong position, and I explained as much in my response to her. Equally wrong, however, is the position that placing focus on other issues like caring for the poor, for example, is somehow inherently bad, or that it takes away from focusing on abortion. Both issues are important to God, as he is the creator of ALL of life, in all of its stages.

But we can't be equally invested in every single issue that is important to God! And we don't have to be. That is why God has given some the conviction and the passion to champion the cause of the unborn, while he has given others the conviction and the passion to champion to cause of the weak and poor and helpless. All of us are needed, and none of us should look at another in judgement because they do not have the same conviction or passion that we do.

And we can't simply dismiss things like global poverty, hunger, and sex trafficking simply because that's the problem of "other countries" and we have our own problems in this country. Not when THIS country controls a grossly disproportionate percentage of global wealth. Not when the consumption of pornography and sexual services in THIS country provides much of the demand that drives sex trafficking.

Now, Mr. Woodley is concerned about a larger trend--as he describes it--towards pushing abortion more and more towards the outer edges as we place more focus on other social issues. I think his intention is good. As I told Rob, it is good to examine our hearts regularly to make sure we are not loosing perspective; and I think Mr. Woodley's article serves this purpose well. I think some of the reasons he mentioned for why abortion may be taking a back seat are probably valid in many cases. Although not necessarily every case--sometimes it's best not too read into a situation something that's not actually there.

All I'm saying is, let's have patience and grace with those who see things differently than us, and let's give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Bill, thanks for having patience and grace with me and giving me the benefit of the doubt.