…Christian conscience requires me to ask the government not to require citizens to pay for procuring services that violate their sacred beliefs.

Is he suggesting that no taxpayer funds be used to provide services that violate some taxpayer’s sacred beliefs? If so then, does that give those with certain beliefs veto power
over government spending? If so, is he willing to allow the sacred beliefs of religious pacifists to disallow procurement of the tools of war? Should the Department of Agriculture
stop subsidizing school lunches that serve children parts of dead animals to eat because some deeply religious people view all life, not just human, as sacred?
And at what level do these beliefs have to be held to veto public spending? Must they be ’sacred beliefs’? Are ‘deeply held beliefs’ enough to veto legislative budgets? And what of the non-religious, do their beliefs not count because, de-facto, the non-religious can’t have ’sacred beliefs’?

Or is Gushee simply suggesting some kind of opt out system. One where you can check off what parts of government spending you do not wish to be a part of and you can have your taxes rebated for goods and services that ‘violate your sacred beliefs’?

And what of

…insist that religious institutions and professionals not be required as a condition of accreditation, or employment, or contact with federal dollars, to actively facilitate or perform deeds that their conscience forbids them from doing.

Should a newly converted Scientoligest pharmacist be allowed to keep his job in a federally funded community health clinic while he refuses to dispense and denies the existence of psychiatric drugs to depressed, bi-polar and schizophrenic patients because his conscience forbids it? Should federal funds flow to evangelical social ministries who’s conscience forbids them from not aggressively proselytizing everyone they interact with in every situation, even when providing federal funded social services?

It looks to me that Gushee is trying to find a way to trump representative democracy and the legislative process with his religious beliefs. And I’m not sure that he wants to support similar prerogatives for those who do not share his beliefs.

Those cultural issues continue to matter, even while the economic ones press to the fore.

Gushee is nowhere near the left of anything. He and I have been friends for years. We see eye to eye on torture and human rights and women in ministry, but his view of church-state matters is too accomadationist. His view on abortion insists on confusing life with personhood–which comes from Hellenistic philosophy and not Scripture (I trace it to his Catholic upbringing).

He is too just war for me, too and he is completely closed to any rethinking of Scripture and tradition on same sex matters.

Further, when the chips are down, opposition to abortion trumps everything else for Gushee–just as it does for most conservatives. I was hoping the move to Atlanta would move him more to the Baptist center, but I am afraid he will move McAfee to the right.

Gushee’s co-writing of Kingdom Ethics with my mentor, Glen Stassen, strained my relationship with Glen because I thought that in too many places in the book, Dave’s views trumped Glen’s because the book was being published by IVP.

Only a fundamentalist could ever think that Dave Gushee was “left” anything!

From: An unborn child

I just want to be sure I understand your stand regarding my life:

You’re “less concerned” that I be tortured and killed in the womb than that–should I be born and decide as an adult to kill infidels, innocent men, women, and children, and be caught–I be waterboarded for information to prevent the slaughter of born innocents, and my life preserved?

Wow.

The ordinary voter looking at candidate Obama’s voting record, past speeches and actions knew that he was heavily pro-abortion, with no incentive to change. Has a voting record rated one of the most liberal in Congress, rarely broke ranks with left-Democrats, 100% rating of abortion-friendly groups, subject to intense pressure from those groups, never promised pro-lifers anything but talk and exploring common ground, etc.

President Obama may be a pragmatist in some areas, but on life issues he has always been consistently and reliably abortion-protectionist.

One must always parse President Obama’s words carefully. On the campaign trail he contradicted himself from venue to venue. He spoke in broad generalities, addressing both sides of issues but never really settling on a side. He always seems to leave room to do other than what he said or implied. Even now people believe that he is against cloning. He said so! No; he only said he will not permit REPRODUCTIVE cloning. That leaves therapeutic cloning wide open (where sperm and egg are mixed and allowed to develop, but destroyed for research purposes before 14 days; so-called “clone-and-kill”).

Also, Pres. Obama did not merely open federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; at the same time, he rescinded Bush’s exec. order supporting cell research that would not harm embryos. Was that necessary??

Obama hides in plain sight. But to see his ideology requires putting aside his immense likability, political talent, civility and attractive but ambivalent rhetoric. Our discernment should be sharpened now.

Gushee has been quite consistent and he’s always been concerned about a plethora of social issues that aren’t on the radar screen of those on the Baptist right.

Gushee might lean left on some issues but on other issues, like Church-State, he undoubtedly leans right. And I’m not convinced that the Evangelical Center and the Baptist Center are the same thing…

But Gushee is definitely not on the Baptist Left. On abortion, he’s been consistent and always willing to work with others - something that conservative Baptists have never been that open to…

Read his books, he’s pretty consistent on abortion-related issues.