More from Mohler on Terri
His most recent commentary is Terri Schaivo - Enduring Questions, Part I. In it he asks two questions stemming from the whole tragic episode.
First, Mohler asks what does this mean for the culture in the United States? The answer is that the division between two widely divergent views of life exist in America, with an impassable gulf between them. First, the social conservatives, who believe all life is intrinsically valuable and precious, and second, the social liberals who believe that quality of life is what matters. Mohler cites several writers, and I'd encourage any readers to go to his article as I won't steal his thunder, but I do appreciate the response he gives to Andrew Sullivan (a brit who I used to read in the Sunday Times before moving here, and who has gone off the rails even more in the last year or two). Sullivan was horrified at the intervention of Congress over the State powers of Florida, and vehemently defends state rights. Dr. Mohler's response:
His argument that "moral" issues should not trump federalism, if taken seriously, would have meant the continuation of slavery.
I'm sure Sullivan would back away from that, but the logical conclusions of liberal arguments often seem unclear to the proponents of those ideas.
Mohler's second question is what does this mean for the future? He begins his answer with these words:
Every significant moral precedent leads to the formation of new moral habits and the framing of new moral issues.
As he goes on to argue, the signs are ominous. Over half the population, and over half the conservatives and evangelicals, if polls are anything to go by, believe the decision to remove the feeding tube was correct, and accept the quality of life argument of the social liberals. Pointing to other related issues such as abortion and stem-cell research, Dr. Mohler concludes:
On issue after issue, the American public seems to be shifting into a worldview based in utilitarianism and a radical vision of individual autonomy.
That's scary to me, and I can be certain that it grieves that heart of God, and angers Him.
The second part of Dr. Mohler's response comes tomorrow...
First, Mohler asks what does this mean for the culture in the United States? The answer is that the division between two widely divergent views of life exist in America, with an impassable gulf between them. First, the social conservatives, who believe all life is intrinsically valuable and precious, and second, the social liberals who believe that quality of life is what matters. Mohler cites several writers, and I'd encourage any readers to go to his article as I won't steal his thunder, but I do appreciate the response he gives to Andrew Sullivan (a brit who I used to read in the Sunday Times before moving here, and who has gone off the rails even more in the last year or two). Sullivan was horrified at the intervention of Congress over the State powers of Florida, and vehemently defends state rights. Dr. Mohler's response:
His argument that "moral" issues should not trump federalism, if taken seriously, would have meant the continuation of slavery.
I'm sure Sullivan would back away from that, but the logical conclusions of liberal arguments often seem unclear to the proponents of those ideas.
Mohler's second question is what does this mean for the future? He begins his answer with these words:
Every significant moral precedent leads to the formation of new moral habits and the framing of new moral issues.
As he goes on to argue, the signs are ominous. Over half the population, and over half the conservatives and evangelicals, if polls are anything to go by, believe the decision to remove the feeding tube was correct, and accept the quality of life argument of the social liberals. Pointing to other related issues such as abortion and stem-cell research, Dr. Mohler concludes:
On issue after issue, the American public seems to be shifting into a worldview based in utilitarianism and a radical vision of individual autonomy.
That's scary to me, and I can be certain that it grieves that heart of God, and angers Him.
The second part of Dr. Mohler's response comes tomorrow...
posted by Angus at 8:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home