9Marks Ministry Criticized for Comparing the Evils of Abortion to Climate Change
Days ago, William Wolfe took aim at a 9Marks article titled Culture Warriors: The Good and the Bad, where author Michael Horton presupposes that “Even members of the same local church might hold widely varying political views, even on the same pro-life basis” and that “Persuaded that global climate change is a threat to life, one might rank the environment as highly as abortion on the list of concerns.”
Amid pushback that climate change is nowhere near a “pro-life” issue in the same vein as 70 million abortions is, the article was edited to take out the troubling comparison, now reading:
The Dissenter was particularily critical of the article, writing:
To clarify, Horton’s argument is not that he personally believes this is true, as he probably doesn’t. However, what he is attempting to do is obscure an act of idolatry in order to accommodate left-wing activists and integrate them into Christian circles. Similar to David Platt’s recent sermon placing far-left activist issues in what he referred to as a “third bucket” that Christians shouldn’t divide over, Horton is justifying the act of voting for Democrats, unjustifiable for a genuine believer, by trying to validate specific issues and elevate them to matters of biblical justice, such as abortion.
By categorizing all these leftist pet causes, such as racism, financial disparities, and now climate change, as “gospel issues” and equating them with pro-life causes, they hope to provide a rationale for left-leaning people who identify as Christians but vote for politicians who support abortion rights and the LGBTQ community
Following further provocation by Wolfe, 9Marks Editorial Director Jonathan Leeman responded and explained that while he affirmed Horton’s original statements, which wasn’t intended to be read as many were taking it, he removed them to prevent unnecessary confusion or quarrels.
About Author
I can’t help but be honest here. It’s one of the stupidest false dillemma arguments I’ve ever heard.
There’s no either/or. IF they’re convinced that climate change is real and is a pro-life issue, that has nothing whatsoever to do with murdering babies. IF that’s what they believe, and IF they’re pro life, then they will still be against murdering babies in the womb.
I’m continually amazed at the lengths people will go to to try to manufacture compromise, believing good will result. You cannot create peace any better than God can. Alright. Quit leaning on your own understanding. Quit being stupid. Just stick to His word. He’s a lot smarter than you.
I understand he’s trying to argue that it is a choice of choosing the lesser of evils in terms of which party to vote for, but that is also untrue. There’s no law that says we have to vote in every race, or even vote at all.
If that’s what they believe, then they will vote for candidates that are pro-life on both issues, and will abstain from voting in any races where such an option doesn’t exist. If that’s what they believe, then they will not vote for any party across the board, and will not vote in races where such a candidate.
The advocacy and endorsement argument always fails. If voting is an endorsement, and it certainly is, then the only conclusion you can reasonably draw is that Christians should be extremely careful and selective in which candidates we vote for, if any at all.
I’ll take heat for it, as usual, but it’s true.
It may mean the worse of evils win some races. It could mean we’re blamed. All sorts of mess. But we would know and God would know that we were not complicit. Jesus name would not have been dragged through the mud.
And if parties want our vote, then they’re going to have to field candidates that deserve it and earn it. Which is how it’s supposed to work. And now is the time that we should be compelling them to do so, but instead we’re bickering.
Not long ago it was much easier. But since the republican party has now embraced abominable sin, the argument over which is the lesser of evils is a waste of time, as far as I’m concerned. I’m not going to be coerced or shamed into voting for one abomination over another.
We get carried away with the back-and-forth completion, as if it’s a basketball game or something, and it makes us hypocrites, dragged down into the muck with the world.
Whichever “side” you’re on, if you’re going to rightly tell the other guy “your vote is an endorsement” then live and vote by that same standard yourself.
* competition
And if they’re the sort of “science” worshiper who argues, from the false and unbiblical over-population narrative, that the genocide of babies is somehow pro-life overall, then they need to be called to repentance, and if they refuse to repent, they need to be shown the door.
I’m glad that he was able to include a few sentences condemning “Christian nationalism” right after telling everyone how the reformed tradition promotes “liberty” and as such it’s OK for people in the congregation to “hold widely varying political views” on topics like abortion.
Logically, one cannot say something is “not clear” while simultaneously arguing for or against a specific position.
For example, if someone is unclear about abortion after listening to the arguments from an abolitionist, someone who believes it’s bad except for rape and/or incest, and a pro-choice person, they don’t say “I’m going to favor one of these positions because it’s not clear.” If they truly believe it’s not clear, then they would say any of the positions could be just as valid as the other or if they thing it’s partially clear, then they could qualify their position.
If someone is arguing about something, that means the thing they are arguing about is clear enough for them to argue about. The only time people care about clarity, is when they don’t have the facts on their side so they have to disqualify the facts of their opponent.