AUL's short list for justice, with two notes to readers...

Error message

(Tim, w/thanks to James) Americans United for Life has long served as the principal legal arm of the antiabortion witness. Here's their short list of likely candidates as President Obama's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A couple comments...

First, let the record show that Emergent and so-called progressive Christians in this nation who voted for this man of blood while hypocritically claiming to be "pro-life" have placed him in the position of making this nomination and will be responsible themselves for the blood of the babies their candidate's appointment to the Supreme Court will help to continue to shroud in our Constitution. They voted for him. They explicitly stated they were voting for him because he was "pro-life" and would lead our nation and the world in a pro-life direction. They were liars then and now must bear the moral weight of their action. From the moment he took office, President Obama has been true to his past record of intense partisanship in favor of the slaughter of babies, both here and around the world. The time for accountability--not his own, but those who supported him while claiming the Name of Christ--has come. (And if you're going to speak to someone you know guilty of this sin, here's a summary of President Obama's first hundred days in office you will find useful. NARAL agrees.)

Second, note that almost all those on President Obama's short list are women. Predicatable, for sure. What is tragic is that you could talk to almost any person at your Christian college--particularly the profs--or on the pastoral staff of your church; you could talk with your elders or deacons, and surely your deaconesses; you could put the question to many of the men who've garnered royalties and speakers fees off the appellation "complementarianism," asking them what they think about this short list? Just an open-ended question with no hint of the question of the nominee's sex, and most or all of them would never bring it up.

But if you went back fifty years, every Christian in the world--Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox--would tell you the sex of the nominees boggled their mind, then ask you what happened that this came about?

Go back another fifty years, then backwards to the Reformers, and they'd tell you this was a sign of God's curse on our nation.

So what, we've evolved? We're wiser? Women have finally come into their own?

And remember, they wouldn't say a woman was incapable of this responsibility. They'd say her sex disqualified her for it. Like Calvin said to Knox about the Queen of England.

Where did they get this strange notion? Try the Fatherhood of God and the sexual order of creation it decreed, combined with the direct and explicit command applying that order: Woman is not to teach or exercise authority over man because Adam was created first, then Eve; and also because it was not Adam, but Eve who was deceived.

A refusal to stand on this glorious truth anywhere but in the privacy of the home and church is the principal sign of faithlessness among complementarians today.

Yes, there are other consideration than the sex of the nominee. Yes, I would support an anti-abortion woman as a nominee long before I'd support a pro-abortion man. Yes, I know our daughters would likely do a better job on the court than many male graduates of law schools today.

And yet, why do we hide this truth?