This post, I think, is certainly well-intentioned, especially there at the end. And Mr Sizemore is certainly correct that the PCUSA is not the "Church"--it is quite obviously not the fullness of the Body of Christ. But the PCUSA doesn't have to be the Church Universal in order for leaving it to be the wrong tack to take. Mr Sizemore makes this point himself, although he certainly doesn't mean to. He is referencing a prior article which used the example of Jeremiah in its argument to stay in the PCUSA, and he replies, "While [the] reference to Jeremiah has standing, I would suggest that for this discussion a more modern and relevant example be considered. A better example might be the story of Jesus throwing the moneychangers out of the temple. Wrong and bad things were happening in his Father's house, and Jesus took action! Could the same sort of things be going on now, both by the denomination and its members?"

Now, the first problem is to think that the example of Christ is more relevant than the example of Jeremiah. One of Calvin's significant contributions was to re-elevate the Old Testament to the standing of the New Testament. We do not ascribe to a deuterocanon; Jeremiah is not less relevant than Christ. But the second error is in the use of the story, which is quite telling. Jesus doesn't leave! He runs the other guys out! In fact, Christ is quite persistent in his ministry to the Jews, reaching out to them time and time and time again, even as some of them attack him, even as he challenges some of them, and even as some of them abandon him. IN FACT, Jesus dies for those very same folks, imploring his Father to forgive them their murder. So, if Mr Sizemore feels that this text is the relevant one, we are left with two options: 1) Run them out of our denomination. Take action! Or, 2) keep ministering to them again and again until the point of dying for them.

Yet another issue is the flippant use of the word 'apostate'. Mr Sizemore says we need to be careful calling folks 'schismatics', but he is rather quick to label the PCUSA 'apostate'. I wonder: How would the writer feel about the Corinthian church? Would they be apostate? They certainly believed in boundless love, especially as it concerned guys and their mothers-in-law. Should Paul have washed his hands of them? After all, they were not "the Church"--they were only a part of it. In labeling the denomination apostate and permitted some to leave from it, do we run the risk of, as Augustine put it, separating the wheat from the chaff, when that is rightly Christ's job? (Note that translated Augustine doesn't say we are separated from the Body of Christ, but instead separated from the unity of Christ.)

And that is the fundamental problem with all this talk of leaving: It is so very egocentric. We decide when the denomination has become apostate. We decide who is Christian and who is not. We decide which straw breaks the camel's back. We decide what to do with properties and assets. Perhaps we would be better off laboring and worshipping and loving in precisely the place our Father has put us. Jesus did.

Women's Rights Are For All Women

This is an interesting article. Two comments are noteworthy: In one, a pre-law woman says that she wants something bigger for herself and she isn't going to let anything stop her. Her comment is an accurate portrayal of the way the abortion dialogue (!) is framed: Mother against child (or woman against biological matter, if that is how you prefer to see it). The assumption is that a conflict exists between the goals and rights of the mother on the one hand and the goals and rights of the fetus. This issue is incredibly complicated--including what we expect from our men and how we define life and how we treat women--but suffice it to say that this conflict is created, not inherent. It is created by the territorial and agenda-driven tactics of the two opposing sides: The liberals, in order to gain ground, have staked their claim to the care of women. Women have rights (autonomy, for instance) and goals (a career, perhaps), and abortion reaffirms those rights and enables those goals. To deny a woman an abortion is to deny her rights and obtrude her goals. The conservatives have staked their ground in like manner: The fetus has rights (the right to life, followed by liberty, followed by the pursuit of happiness) and, presumably, goals (being born comes to mind). To abort the fetus is to deny its rights and obtrude (with finality) its goals. Both arguments have a level of merit to them, but the politicizing of the two major players in an abortion (mother and fetus) has created the conflict noted above, and to the benefit of neither player, as far as I can tell.

Which is why a second comment in the article is noteworthy. A mother of a five-year-old had an abortion because the fetus was diagnosed with Down's syndrome. The mother reports that it was the most difficult decision she's ever made, and I doubt she is hyperbolizing. She also reports that pro-abortion groups do not acknowledge the emotional angst that goes along with an abortion. Here's where the created conflict falls apart: The left demonizes the right for wanting to subjugate women, while the right demonizes the left for wanting to kill babies. Neither side is affirming the crisis that the woman herself is in. My wife and I used to support Bethany Christian Services (and we probably still should), and at one point I remember looking over some intriguing information as to what happens to the woman post-abortion. I don't recall the numbers exactly, but I want to say that something like 70% of women post-abortion have dreams of their child calling out to them for help, and something like 40% of them buy stuffed animals or dolls and give them a baby's name and attempt to care for them. These are not signs of a healthy procedure or process. Bumper stickers may pithily state "Abortions Kill Babies", but the nasty little secret is that abortions deal quite an emotional and mental blow to the woman in question.

So, make abortions illegal? If that's how you want to spend your time and energy; however, I will say that most people who want to argue over doctrine and law do so because they don't want to interact with the individuals who stand in the center of the issue. Homosexuals are argued about, for instance, instead of being held responsible for their behavior and welcomed regardless in grace. If the church was doing her job--if the church was showing the grace of Christ to these women before they engaged in extramarital sex, or even after they got pregnant--perhaps the women at the center of this issue would feel empowered by that gracious community to abstain from sex before the issue ever arose, or to raise the baby supported by that community, or at least to carry the child to term and let someone else adopt the little tike. In other words, if the church were really doing her job, you wouldn't need to make abortion illegal. If women experienced that kind of grace, love, acceptance, and support, you wouldn't be able to force them to have abortions.

UPDATE: Here is a thoughtful piece on the subject. I like Ms Parker's nod to feminism. I have always found it curious--as a person who loves women but is not one myself--the feminist stance toward abortion so very curious. If the guesstimates are close, that somewhere around four millions abortions occur in America every year--then how can feminists support that? How is removing two million women a year from the population advancing the cause of women?