To the Point

A little while back in these same pages, my co-editor Christopher provided an able and comprehensive explanation of "Why [He Declines] to Discuss the War or Social Justice."

I'm sure that it will come as no surprise to my readers—here and elsewhere—that I lean towards the direct approach, which is why I so ardently admire my beloved Sonia Maria for being frank and teaching our children to be the same.

It is also why I find the following observations by my good friend Bill Luse on Apologia to the point:

Twas watching Chris Matthews (Hardball) grill 3 guys on those "divisive" cultural issues the other night, you know, abortion, gay marriage. I guess they were trying to figure out how to make them less so. One guy was Richard Land, president of something in the Southern Baptist Convention. Well-spoken. Never stumbled. Knew his talking points. Liked the proposed marriage amendment. Didn't care that we are divided, thinks we ought to be on certain issues. The second guy I can't remember.

The third was Jim Wallis, editor of a mag called Sojourner's, with which I am not familiar. His idea was that we need to "broaden the discussion." You know, talk to each other. Educate. Understand the need for a "consistent ethic of life" (when I hear phrases like that I feel like I'm in a time warp, like Rip Van Winkle waking up after a 20 year nap only to find that none of the euphemisms have changed), instead of focusing exclusively on these "hot button" issues like abortion and gay marriage. Let's talk about war and peace. After all, Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Let's talk about poverty, and tax fairness, and other inequities that could lead one to seek an abortion...and so on.

Another Christian who can't tell the difference between being poor and being dead. Hey Jim. Let's don't talk.