On this side of the Atlantic, Rev. Schultz would be an obscure United Church of Christ pastor of a tiny congregation in rural Wisconsin if it were not for the power of the Internet and his own passion for new-media publicity. Under his pen name, pastordan, he has become perhaps one of the premier liberal Christian voices in the public arena (how liberal? Consider that he is just as likely to verbally trash Sojourners president Jim Wallis as he is more doctrinally correct Christian leaders like former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and American Values president Gary Bauer).
Just how “out there” is pastordan? Consider this: when a Beliefnet columnist posed some questions Rev. Rick Warren could ask presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain on the question of abortion when they meet Aug. 16 at Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum, Schultz exploded at the suggestion that Warren seek “common ground, moving the conversation beyond the question of the legality of abortion and move towards (sic) actually reducing the need for abortion by investing in programs that will reduce both unintended pregnancies and abortions.”
Here is pastordan’s reply, quoted at some length to preserve the context:
“This all sounds very nice, and I’m sure it’s well-intentioned. But it uses right-wing frames to build the discussion, then appeals to a center ground that’s actually skewed pretty badly.
“The only reason to refer to abortion ‘on demand’ is to depict it as unnecessary, an elective procedure like plastic surgery. We don’t speak of ‘heart catheterizations on demand,’ after all. Children demand things, and that sort of infantilization is what this language is about. Because God knows that women are never faced with moral and existential crises like men. They’re not capable of them.
“And why, precisely, do we ‘have a moral obligation to find common ground’? I suppose to help women and families ‘make other choices.’
“But think this through with me. On the one hand, there are people who want to preserve the right to bodily self-determination given to them by the law. On the other hand, there are people who are determined to take that right away. . .They are philosophically and doctrinally and politically and every other way imaginable opposed to abortion. Along with preservation of the ‘traditional family’ (read: patriarchal authority), opposition to abortion forms the center of their moral and political self.
“They are, in short, extremists.
“And we have to split the difference with them why?
“ . . .(T)he only way to make sense of the argument as he’s framed it is to assume that abortion is a moral bad, and that women need to be guided away from them (sic). . .
“The strategic mistake here is to assume that the conservative interest is in reducing abortion. It’s not: that’s only a positive result of the real interest, which is in regulating women’s sexuality.”
We see overheated, knee-jerk, amoral “reasoning” like this all the time from the rabid abortion lobby and other enemies of faith and freedom. What’s especially discouraging to us is that this drivel comes from an ordained Christian minister – a man who is supposedly committed to the truth of the Word of God. Instead, he’s become a tool of the most hysterical fringe of the death industry. Disgusting.
If you wonder will happen when the Body of Christ fully abandons a biblical worldview and embraces postmodern thought, consider pastordan Exhibit A.
I'm actually in Ohio as I write this, but since I'd rather enjoy my vacation time with my family than drive down to Columbus to tell Parsley what a fathead he is in person, I'll issue only the briefest of responses.
Or is it too "out there" to suggest that Christians live faithfully and with a realistic, applied ethics? Apparently that's too frightening a prospect for some folks to tolerate.