Jesus Once Said Something About Specks and Logs…
Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt opened his show with an interview with this blog’s old “friend” Al Mohler on the anniversary of Roe v Wade. This was the opening exchange:
HH: I wanted to try and prompt pastors this weekend, even if they haven’t already thought about it, to step back and talk to their congregation about it. What was the significance of those numbers and this anniversary Dr. Mohler?
AM: Well, when you consider the fact that you’re talking about 55 million unborn people have been aborted in American since Roe v Wade, and you are talking about single judicial decision that quite literally changed the entire landscape of America. And lead to a revolution in terms of our moral life that goes far beyond what most people can imagine. It’s not only about abortion, but about an entire set of issues that flow from it. But the bottom line is that abortion on demand is still the law of the land forty years after Roe v Wade.
I can think of little that better encapsulate where the church has gone wrong in terms of what its influence is and how to use it. Simply put, no court decision can lead to a “moral revolution.” That is just sophistry. Making something legal does not make it moral. If the church did its job very well and all Americans were practicing Christians, abortions would not happen, even if Roe v Wade were still the law of the land. Roe v Wade does not make people make decisions to have abortions.
In this statement, Mohler is saying it is the government’s job to establish morality. It is not. The government reflects the morality of the nation. The church is the institution that should be establishing the morality of the nation. The fact that this much abortion happens speaks as badly about the church as it does about the courts.
Now, there are lots of reasons why Roe v Wade is really bad law. It should be opposed and it should be overturned. But the moral issue is something different.
If Christianity is to regain is cultural place and influence it must admit its mistakes and failings in order to learn from them and not to repeat them. This is a big one, and a good place to start. While herightfully decries the decision, Mohler must also make plain the failings of Christianity in American that lead to the decision. How did we come to a point where so many people wanted abortion legalized? How did we come to the point that something so shameful could be legitimized? Something broke down in the American people, something it was the church’s job to build and maintain, not government’s.
Posted in Religious Freedom, Social/Religious Trends, Understanding Religion | 6 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
CarlH on 17 Jan 2013 at 9:59 am #
I fully agree that it is not–and should not be–”the government’s job to establish morality,” but I think your criticism of Al Mohler’s comments reaches a little to far. In my opinion, your position fails to acknowledge that there is–like it or not–a very real connection between law and morality, and particularly people’s perceptions of what is “moral.” At a fundamental level, a society’s laws are an implicit declaration (and implementation) of the principles that the society values the most–those that it is willing to protect and enforce. Moreover, in an increasingly secular culture, the law provides the only statement, apart from individual preferences, of “moral” principles for many people. For many such people (particularly those lacking a coherent system of personal morality), the “reasoning” is as simple as “if it’s legal, it must be OK.” (In some respects, the elevation of individual autonomy to the highest “value” for many in society–and, in the views of some such as Laurence Tribe, as an over-arching constitutional principle–suggests that our system may well be in danger of veering toward a condition in which even “the law” no longer provides meaningful boundaries to individual decision-making–a situation that already is evidenced in some areas, such as recreational drug use or even immigration. For people in this position, the only political value is summed up in the simplistic, “It’s a free country, isn’t it?” accompanied by outrage over ANY criticism–even those lacking the force of law–suggesting any illegitimacy or inappropriateness to their individual choices.) The situation is even more dire when, as has often been the case in recent “progressive” victories on “social issues,” the campaign is laced with invective against religion generally and organized religion in particular–a situation which, I believe, has weakened the role of religion and religious thought in the political sphere, even to the point of arguments by some that people who take their religion seriously are not fit to give voice to their views in the political realm.
As such, I think Al Mohler was making important points about the real-world consequences of Roe v. Wade (and its even more egregious progency), rather than suggesting that it is the government’s job to establish morality.
John Schroeder on 17 Jan 2013 at 10:13 am #
Carl:
I more or less agree with you on the state of our society and the role that law plays – but the only reason law plays that role is because the church fails to lead culturally and morally. That’s my point and if the church relies on law to do what it should be doing by other means, it’s lost.
There is deep theology in that Old, versus New Testament stuff.
CarlH on 17 Jan 2013 at 10:21 am #
Sorry for a follow-up post, but I failed to note that in my opinion the Roe v. Wade decision had particularly pernicious consequences, because it pre-empted the then ongoing democratic debate on the issue of legalized abortion, imposing the views of certain “elites” on the nation when the electorate would not have gone, at least in 1972, but for which the U.S. Supreme Court found a “fundamental right.” When something receives a governmental stamp of “approval” as a “fundamental right,” even if as the result of what has been called an “imperial judiciary,” the distinction between fundamental rights and moral imperatives become lost on a society that shuns careful thinking in favor of “feelings.” I have more confidence in the “gut reaction” of common people than I do in the ruminations of “elites” and personally believe that the voice of the people people is more likely, but not necessarily, to make laws reflecting correct “moral” principles.
John Schroeder on 17 Jan 2013 at 11:06 am #
Legally, you are right – it shut down debate. I will even go so far as to concede that it aided the confusion of legality and morality. However, the church does itself no favors by conceding the confusion between the two.
CarlH on 17 Jan 2013 at 11:50 am #
I certainly hope churches are not conceding the confusion between legality and morality (and I as I said initially, I don’t think Al Mohler was going that far in his quoted comments), although I think the beginning of a solution is acknowledging the existence of such confusion on the part of some people and making sure that those who are confused learn that a crucial distinction exists–and that it matters in more fundamental ways than politics and government ever can.
GottaZoom on 17 Jan 2013 at 11:04 pm #
Many, many people continue to accept abortion is morally wrong. The question has always been and remains one of temporal consequences by law.
A related but totally separate matter is consequences rendered by the Church . . and how the Church relates to all affected by those consequences. This ultimately returns us to the matter of unified authority . . .