Monday, May 28, 2007

Venom is produced by the Snake

Even if you are hard-hearted enough to think partial-birth abortion is not a crime against humanity, you still should have been appalled at the editorial cartoon produced by Tony Auth of the Philadelphia Inquirer to criticize the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the federal law that bans the procedure. Coming from an artist who would consider himself open-minded, tolerant, and enlightened, it was a grotesque example of bigotry against people of faith.

In fact, "grotesque anti-Catholic bigotry" is precisely what Chuck Colson and a raft of other prominent Christian leaders called Mr. Auth's work when they released a statement condemning the cartoon this past week.

In addition to Mr. Colson, the list of leaders signing the statement included prominent conservatives whose doctrine is beyond reproach: Gary Bauer of American Values, Frank Page of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, and Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America.

But if you think Mr. Auth's doodle represented bigotry, you should consider the venom spewing from Ken Silva at apprising.org. Legalists never miss an opportunity to miss the point, and Mr. Silva is the master. Rather than raise his voice in support of the ban on partial-birth abortion, instead of taking a stand against gross prejudice on the basis of religion, Mr. Silva chose to rant about how the statement supposedly endorsed "apostate Roman Catholicism." Somehow Mr. Silva thinks these leaders (including Mr. Silva's favorite whipping boy, Rick Warren) are endorsing the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church when they protest the prejudice of Mr. Auth's cartoon.

The "Not Grace" Party can always be counted on to change the subject and distort the truth if it serves to draw attention to their "look at me! look at me!" blog sites.

Nothing in the statement remotely endorses Roman Catholic doctrine. There are many points at which people like Mr. Colson and Mr. Warren would seriously disagree with RC teaching. But if you have to agree with everything one group believes and does before you defend them, Mr. Silva better hope a lynch mob doesn't show up on his doorstep. His neighbors will pull their blinds. One wonders what injustices he would allow, what courageous stands he would criticize, simply because it suits the self-serving agenda of his messiah complex.

It took me half a lifetime to realize this basic fact of nature: Venom is produced by the Snake, not the Lamb.

2 comments:

Ken Silva said...

Eileen,

Since you were kind enough to inform me via email of this post I think you'd best rethink this strawman:

Nothing in the statement remotely endorses Roman Catholic doctrine.

I'm not saying this doctrine is about Roman Catholic doctrine. What I said was this document and the organization acknowledges the Roman Catholic Church as a Christian denomination.

Look closer: "I endorse and commend the “Statement of Protestant Leaders against Anti-Catholic Bigotry” as one more step toward the “new ecumenism” that the IRD seeks... [That] we are seeing Protestants and Catholics pray and work together is something to celebrate and encourage. And attacks on part of the Church are always attacks on the entire Church. While we may be divided by theology and polity, Christ’s Body is not divided."

And from the Purpose Statement: "The Institute on Religion and Democracy is an ecumenical alliance of U.S. Christians"

"We reflect genuine biblical ecumenism, that is, unity across denominational boundaries based on a shared belief in the truth of Christian orthodoxy."

"This includes mainline and other evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics,, and Eastern Orthodox Christians working together in common cause."

http://www.ird-renew.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=356299

In the future please do your homework before being critical of things you don't appear to really understand.

Eileen said...

Yes, girls just aren't equipped to comprehend such things.

Is not Rome apostate because of heretical doctrine? Is not acknowledging the RC as a Christian denomination to agree that doctrinal differences do not disqualify it as a legitimate expression of the Body of Christ? I thought everything boiled down to pure doctrine.

There is a genuine biblical brotherhood that crosses all denominational lines. It is forged in agreement on the salvation essentials of Romans 10:9-10: confessing Jesus as Lord and believing God raised him from the dead. Differ on whatever other points of doctrine, the Bible says this is enough to be saved.

What is sad is that you see the statement as an opportunity to rant about heresy and apostasy, rather than taking a stand against infanticide and religious bigotry. Even if they are apostate, you ought to agree that bigotry is evil and should be resisted.