Friday, October 31, 2008 by Dr. Burk.....

Dr. Burk references Dr. Piper's comments on issues of the day and voting.

Gary Thomas wrote a really good article that just continues to strike at the heart.

As Piper stated: “vote as though not voting”. Dr. Piper correctly points out that getting too worked up about voting or someone not winning that you think should (“the united states is not my allegiance, God…is…always pursuing His kingdom.”) should cause you to question your motives (God- versus man-centered). That’s a great point that I (personally) have to keep in mind.

That said, I’m just understanding a vote for Obama less and less (from a Christian trying to justify it). I definitely believe (to the disbelief of some) that God ordains kings and leaders (see Piper’s quotes!). And I won’t cease working for the kingdom. Oh, well.

New Comment

Normally you offer a great perspective and good argumentation. I am perhaps the commenter that is least versed in argumentation on this site, but your comments on a couple of threads now (the “women are evil” stunts) are surprising and, honestly, appear troll-like (simply intended to draw someone “offsides” intended solely to inflame or incense). It also seems very uncharacteristic of you. Just to address the “woman is evil” thing, then, the statement is the same as saying that the Israelites committed evil in the Lord’s eyes. Thus being an Israelite is evil. Perhaps someone has actually said “being a woman is evil”. I could possibly have missed it. But I don’t think so and that is such a straw-man (and perhaps I should have not even bothered commenting about it?) that I am utterly flabbergasted.

While we don’t agree with you on issues related to 2Tim2, Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Peter 3, Titus 2, etc., you traditionally stick to the issues. If you believe that Palin is not being unbiblical here (I’ll go out on a limb and say that is the case), then make the argument (you’ve never shied away before on similars (sic)).

New Comment
BTW, While we don’t agree with you… was meant to be “while we don’t agree”, meaning Sue and I don’t. I wrote the rest of it with the intention of saying “I don’t agree with you” (again, indicating Sue and I don’t agree). I do not cast my thoughts or opinions upon anyone here (in particular Dr. Burk!). Sorry for my oversight and mis-type. I should have been more careful. D’oh!

New Comment

You rightly make a heartfelt and emotional cry for women who are dominated. Men take a biblical complementarian position and apply it in a sinful manner. And that is atrocious. They are no better than the false teachers demanding payment for their religion, ensuring salvation. My personal feeling is that it is worse as it too often involves physical atrocities and a multiple of other sins. I cannot say I feel your pain nor will I say that I can even fathom it. I also must say that you are far wiser than I. I am not even beginning to approach understanding classical/Hellenistic Greek, much less expert enough to conduct my own studies of it. However, I have read a great deal on this topic. And while I am in no place to be writing think pieces on why a translation should be taken one way or another, I feel confident in the complementarian position. Often the argumentation I’ve heard against comp is one of special knowledge, individualizing texts to deconstruct them or construct arguments based on assumptions of how a complementarian view should go based on the arguers position (in essence a stronger version of straw man).

Now, concerning the woman is evil, you replaced your straw man argument for reasons why you wanted to set up a straw man argument and then simply emphasized it. The crux is that the view by Dr. Piper is that his complementarian view extends to the commander-in-chief. He views that to be sinful not the attribute of being a woman (that’s akin to saying that if I sleep with this other woman, I’m committing the sin of adultery because I’m married. Therefore being married must be sinful.).

Again, I have always appreciated your thoughts (even if we do disagree). The question came across (still continues to, actually, but oh, well) as simply acerbic.

Read actual comments.

Candice Watters on What Matters Most at the Ballot Box

What matters most at the Ballot Box


You are correct. That is a staggering issue. But foreign policy is not as polarizing an issue as is abortion. Meaning one is not for a unilateral withdrawal while the other is for expanding the war and waging war in additional countries. One is not for extending aid to foreign countries while the other desires to retract foreign aid policies and use government funding to purchase additional food from those same countries. But that same scenario appears when the abortion issue comes about.

Read actual comments.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Dr. Burk goes Hip-Hop....

Dr. Burk on Flame.

This cracked me up, thanks, Dr. Burk. I would concur with D.J. (as I am a fan of LaCrae and Tedashii (I know, I’m behind the times myself)). I appreciate the point. Plus I’m happy that Dr. Burk is moving beyond Hannah Montana (I knew that gem from Dr. Moore would come back up!).

Read actual comments.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Dr. Burk refers to George Weigel's piece on abortion

Pro-Life and Pro-Obama? Hardly.

I was amused at “Obamapologetics”.

I think Weigel codifies the disucssion:

Questions of war and peace, social-welfare policy, environmental policy and economic policy, on the other hand, are matters of prudential judgment on which people who affirm the same principles of Catholic social doctrine can reasonably differ. The pro-life, pro-Obama Catholics are thus putting the full weigh of their moral argument on contingent prudential judgments that, by definition, cannot bear that weight.

New Comment
podman (or anyone else, don’t mean to exclude ;-):

I think if we’re going to say that:
I might be more compelled by McCain’s prolife designation if i actually believed he was going to act on this in some meaningful way…

Shouldn’t we also comment on the fact that Obama isn’t merely a “do nothing”, but is going to actively seek justices to uphold RvW (he and McCain don’t say “litmus test”, but point to it), he will actively seek to enact a bill that will eradicate any pro-life bills on the books, that he will actively seek to reduce/eliminate funding for crisis pregnancy centers (federal funding of pro life crisis pregnancy centers)?

I understand if we don’t agree that McCain will appoint appropriate SC nominations for an overturn of RvW, but I cannot see logic in saying that federal medical funding of abortions (part of FOCA), elimination of funding of pro-life clinics in addition to SC nominations being based, not solely, but in a large part on RvW and the Illinois bill* is somehow a support of pro-life. Is an aggressive social welfare policy really supposed to combat the lack of recognition of a fetus being a human?

* - I only mention this since I’ve seen so much about McCain’s stance on Ginsburg, etc.

New Comment

Amen about the much to do. And, like you, I'm sure, regardless of the presidency, I'll pray just as fervently during an Obama presidency as a McCain presidency.

Read actual comments.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Seth McBee on trickle down economics and beer...

This is a reason I see as the oddity of social justice taking center stage in the discussion of issues during politics. And, to be honest, I am likely fairly close to the sixth or seventh man on our tax scale. Thanks for the post.

Read actual comments.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Dr. Burk's post about J. Budziszewski on election importance of abortion

I would say that there are two reasons. First is the denial of dignity of a class of individuals. In essence, all issues are contained in that denial. Meaning that there are no issues about which I can care if there isn’t a life there. A denial of a life is a denial of any care or love to extend.

But, more often than not, it’s a matter of a difference in policy. It’s not that Obama cares for the poor but McCain is championing slave labor. It’s not that McCain believes in every man paid for his earnings while Obama steals from one group to give to another. In abortion, however, Obama does believe in the legal sanctioning and even (given FOCA) the funding of (and, in a slightly more far-flung manner, coercion of Dr.’s to perform) what is specifically unbiblical. J.Bud gives a good account of how to then fine tune, given comparable issues such as war (and you can even apply to the issue that disputatio rallied earlier).

And in a smaller manner, just hearing the rhetoric about the issue is upsetting to me. When Obama refers to a child in the womb as the equivalent of an STD, it breaks my heart. I think that we all harden our hearts to different sins. This is an easy one since the victims are silent and we don’t get pictures and broadcasts, etc. Actually, if I remember, that is something the article chimes in about as well. This is one that I would say Obama has hardened himself against. He only sees children we want to raise as gifts from God. Otherwise, they’re an inconvenience that we should be able to eliminate. And, as he has said about his own daughter (in the event that she were to get pregnant as a teen), he would condone as well.

New Comment:

Yea, Paul, with the exception of the big jerk part, I have to go with Darius. And hey, if we were to sit and have dinner with one another, that may change, too (oh, wait......;-). RvW is the security blanket that lets (most) people keep telling themselves that this is simply a matter of personal choice (not saying you tell yourself that, mind you…but if you do, you’re a jerk.).

Additionally, while you or I couldn't give a sure prognostication on what would happen to the abortion numbers in the event of RvW being repealed, my hedge would be solidly in the camp that it would significantly reduce the numbers. Which would begin to return the idea that children are a gift, not a disease.

And, though I know that you will vainly not cast your vote for Obama, this isn’t a pro-choice supporter. This is a rabid pro-abortion candidate. At least that’s what his rhetoric would indicate.

New Comment:


I think Dr. Burk posted a response in general to your question. Additionally, though, taking the argument you pose about SC nominations, I think you point out a specific “great divide” between the two candidates. Taking Obama at his word, he will actively seek to expand RvW. His “first order of business” would be to sign FOCA. This is an aggressively pro-abortion candidate. And, Sen. McCain also stated that he wouldn’t nominate someone who agreed with the RvW decision.

Further, Obama stated “Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided. I think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.” Both candidates would agree that the next presidency will have a great impact on that (judicial nominations and RvW).

You are right about actively pursuing ways to help single mothers. Again, though, Obama wants to cut funding from crisis pregnancy centers. FOCA would force pro-llife organizations to “support”* abortion (if federal funding involved). So yes, we should actively seek to help, nurture and care for those mothers. But until the presidency is decided, we should also resist the urge to “back burner” an infant’s right to life because we find it unpalatable to vote for somebody who doesn’t socially reform the way we see fit.

* - at least they would have to present it to those they are counseling, if I understand it correctly.

New comment

Thank you for the response. I have to apologize. I read the quote:

I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications.

And I was thinking that (though the quote written is a bit confusing) his indication was not to submit an RvW supporter (but I did not get the opportunity to watch that debate). I truly apologize for getting that quote wrong.

Of course, given his disagreement with RvW based on his federalist stance, if a potential nominee agreed with RvW, then that would not meet his qualiications (simply from the fact that he not only disagrees with the abortion aspect, but the decision itself that took the decision out of the hands of the state). Again, I apologize for anything I wrote that was wrong or misleading (sigh).

My question still stands: what is your next course of action to fight Roe v. Wade if Sen. Obama is elected?
I didn’t realize that you had a question about that, wasn’t trying to avoid it, if so. Some things would be to continue our support of crisis pregnancy centers (this one especially since Obama seeks to cut federal funding unless support for abortion is included), single mother outreach, outreach to those around us (I live in a college-centered city). But all of that continues whether McCain or Obama (well, sans the parenthetical statement). Especially the last part. One of the fantastically detrimental aspects of secular thought is the teaching of how best to ignore repercussions. Meaning, teach kids how to have sex and pretend that you can prevent repercussions (or act as though they aren’t there). Even outside of a biblical framework, this seems obvious. I think, in the end, what happens is that the center of the issue is human life. We see this in terms of human life and it undoes the idea of sex without consequences.

The thing about what we do is very important. How we impact our community is important. How we speak to our neighbors (well, actually, just that we should speak to our neighbors ;-) ) is vital. Demonstrating (and speaking) the gospel to those with whom we interact is not just important, it is our defining action (of being a Christian). That’s local. What we have an opportunity to do now is to affect a national level. The vast majority of us are not called to stir a national organization such as Focus on the Family, NRL, etc. But our vote has a national affect. And every aspect that Obama touts is denied of the most unprotected of us all.

New comment
I meant to comment on two other things, but I feel very long winded (sorry, all).

In either case, I never disputed that Sen. Obama seems to be adamantly pro-choice. I merely brought up the point that Sen. McCain does not appear to be adamantly pro-life.

That was my point as well. It’s not that Obama is pro-choice, he is aggressively pro-abortion. You (correctly, perhaps?) frame McCain as a passive pro-life guy. Obama is an aggressive pro-abortion guy. This isn’t Clinton, for instance, who at the bare minimum opposed late-term abortions (if my memory serves me correctly). Obama is a candidate who seeks to eradicate what little movement has been made in the law (again, see FOCA). McCain continues to seek faith-based initiatives, which would include efforts such as crisis pregnancy centers, of course, it could be that nothing gets promoted. Obama’s camp has already said no to supporting continued funding for crisis pregnancy centers. So, yes, it could be that McCain would nominate a center SC. At worst, he simply continues the court as we see it today (I disagree, however). But Obama is aggressively seeking to solidify and expand abortion. He’s a rabid pro-abortion fellow.

And, BTW, …while at the same time petitioning the current Supreme Court with intellectual, well-reasoned arguments for life, petitioning state lawmakers to present a law challenging Roe v. Wade…

With FOCA, the state law would not be allowed. With a left leaning (at best, ultra-liberal at worst) SC, the arguments never make it.

Did you read Weigel’s piece (and the corresponding rejoinder and surrejoinder)?

Read actual comments.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

BoundlessLine on the end of all restrictions on abortion

Texas Craig:

Seed=egg!=plant!=life, germinated seed=plant(=)embryo=life (baby). As you say, He knew us before He knit us in our mothers' wombs. Why is that not enough? It is up to Him to decide that, not for us. To turn the question around, at what point does God call the soul back? Is it when someone's a vegetable? Is it when someone is in advanced stages of dimentia? Human life is dignity imparted by God. Abortion is the denial of that dignity.

Comparing to war, I'll stick with this site’s synopsis.

Also, you are correct about fertilized eggs as well. There are policies that are coming up that involve the purposeful creation and destruction of fertilized eggs to consider as well.

Read actual comments.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Monday, October 20, 2008

Friday, October 17, 2008


Dr. Burk spoke on Dr. Russell Moore's sermon titled Joseph of Nazareth Is a Single-Issue Evangelical: The Father of Jesus, the Cries of the Helpless, and Change You Can Believe In (Matt. 2:13-23) - by Russell Moore.

Since it's here, I must have commented.
Read actual comments.

Thursday, October 16, 2008


Challies wrote an allegory about a church being overly concerned with its image. I giggled. And commented.

The Good Ol' Hockey Game
Read actual comments.

Burk post 2631

Commented on Dr. Burk's site on the topic of abortion and Obama's statements in the debates.
Read actual comments.


The intention of this blog is merely to provide more accountability for me on the world wide-web. Anyone can feel free to comment if you run across this. The information I provide here is not falsified, but I do ask for a modicum of privacy. What I mean is if you want to dialog or ask me a question, great, I'm all for it. I ask that you not flame here or, in essence, alert a mob intended to attack. I will not post thoughts (barring the occasional comment if necessary), but I will try to keep a record of where I comment (again, to maintain accountability). If you have questions, please feel free to ask. If you would like to contact me, my e-mail is Have a superb day!

UPDATE: I decided to include the actual posts to make accountability a little easier.
Read actual comments.