A Roman Rebuke and Other Interesting Stuff from Around the Web
Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 02:54PM 
You gotta love it when Madame Speaker Pelosi pontificates to Tom Brokaw about the Roman Church's teaching on the beginning of life, only to be busted by a bishop for completely misrepresenting the church's views. The arrogance of Ms. Pelosi is simply astounding. So is her favorability rating (between 9-18%). You have to go a long way to be half as popular as George Bush! About time Rome starts reigning in some of their politicians. Pelosi is certainly free to argue her pro-choice case on political grounds, but she has no business claiming to speak for the church on dogmatic matters. Click here: Denver
archbishop slams Pelosi on Church teachings and abortion
One of the authors of the book, "100 Things to Do Before You Die" has died unexpectedly at age 47. There are so many possible puns here, but I'll just let it go. Click here: FOXNews.com - '100 Things to Do Before You Die' Co-Author Dies at 47 - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Art
Yankee fans are growing a bit sentimental these days. Not only does it look like we'll miss the playoffs for the first time since 1993 (yeah, I know that doesn't sadden many of you), but the days of Yankee Stadium --arguably the greatest sports cathedral since the Coliseum--are quickly drawing to a close. The Red Sox are in town and play in Yankee Stadium for the final time. Lots of memories of these two slugging it out--my favorite being Aaron Boone's home run in game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. But even BoSox fans can recount some great memories of the epic Yankee-Red Sox games over the years. Here's a great piece from my favorite sports blogger, Peter Abraham. Click here: The LoHud Yankees Blog
Accountants don't get the credit they deserve. Here's one who took on the IRS all by himself and won. Now this guy is a brave man, and a true American hero! Click here:
FOXNews.com - Lone Accountant Takes On IRS in Tax Dispute and Wins - Local News
| News Articles | National News |
Reader Comments (17)
The democrats, it should be duly noted, are the party that appoints judges that like to legislate from the bench -- against the will of the people. Example: Doing gay marriages, when the people of California have made it known that they don't want gay marriage.
"The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, 'To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.'"
So her knowledge of Scripture appears to be on a par with her knowledge of dogma.
Why is it bad for Rick Warren to meddle in the world’s affairs but good for Bonhoeffer to criticize the Nazi regime? Why is it bad for James Dobson to issue encyclicals from his sound booth but OK for Rome to reign in a legislator? Where is Stuart Robinson when you need him?
I agree that things get very grey (and problematic) when a church condemns a lawmaker for fulfilling their vocation. But that is not the issue here. The issue is a lawmaker (Pelosi) stopped speaking as a lawmaker, but as an expert on Catholic dogma. That is why she got slapped down as she did by the bishop--especially when she was so absolutely clueless about Roman dogma!
Is there a difference between telling the world how to behave and telling your church members what participation they may have in the congregation if they actively press views inconsistent with church teaching? Is one an issue of meddling in a different kingdom and the other an issue of church discipline? See 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.
But are there some evils so profound that a believer must voice his opposition openly to the world and refuse to be complicit if even by silence? For example Bonhoffer.
Tough issues.
Right, I do see the immediate issue here, which is what I meant to imply by one being both ignorant of and inconsistent with one's church. I just wonder where the public and official rebukes are for other lawmakers when they misrepresent their church as it relates to their statecraft. (I mean, there have to be some who have done that, Catholic and Protestant alike. I certainly hear plenty of theonomic/transformational rhetoric here in Little Geneva, but nobody gives public two-kingdoms rebukes.)
My sense is that this is really about the abortion issue, not getting one's church dogma wrong. If it were the latter I guess I'd expect a more varied example of public rebukes.
Great question. Yes, I think we must make a distinction between violating our jurisdiction (read: meddling) and discipline (read: taking care of whom we are commissioned to).
Moreover, I am fairly persuaded that when it comes to how we discipline our own we must also distinguish between what one does in his/her own mind/body and in one's own varied vocations, to draw lines to show where our jurisdiction is limited. That is to say, it is one thing to tell Jane what she may/mayn't believe or do with her body, another to tell her how she may vote or go about her lawful vocation. I realize that can be complicated, but that seems precisely why we need to be so vigilant about it.
Re Bonheoffer/Third Reich, I don't accept the idea that silence is implicit acceptance of a thing. I think that is more western/American than Christian. Jesus was silent in the face of the most heinous crime of all. I think it very hard for us to accept as westerners this idea that his kingdom was not of this world, to be silent and obedient, to not grasp for godliness, etc. I'd have an easier time with harboring those persecuted than with "standing up against" those persecuting. I guess that sounds weakling-ish, but that seems like the counter-intution of the gospel itself.
While I agree with the general consensus that she has overstepped her bounds as a legislator by giving her own views about what the church teaches, there is an even greater danger underneath all of this. And that is the fact that she simply doesn't care!! She is going to say - and therefore act accordingly in her role as a legislator - whatever SHE thinks about things, never mind what either the church OR her constituency thinks. Those who are duped into blindly going along with her are getting what they deserve. But what about everyone else?
The Kennedy clan has acted very much the same way over the past 30-40 years, imposing their liberal views upon their naive constituents, and then self-righteously acting any way that pleased them, publicly or otherwise, including philandering of the worst kind and covering their tracks in the process (or trying to) through "accidental" deaths.
But, as noted in a previous thread, historically the RC church has never had a high regard for scripture, but has preferred instead to follow tradition, the decision of church counsels, and non-canonical writings. Doing so can only open the door for people to make their own decisions about how they view the church's teaching - thus Pelsoi. What else can we expect?