July 13, 2023
Very often, conservatives and Christians lose the debate before it is even begun. The left is adept at framing questions and issues in a way that excludes all considerations that don’t revolve around their predetermined narrative or agenda. This phenomenon occurs not only in political matters but also in theological ones. The brief article will hopefully clarify what I am discussing.
When it comes to the matter of abortion, conservatives and Christians have already capitulated to the left by agreeing to call it abortion or a fetus and not what it actually is. It is the murder of a pre-born human baby, and nothing less than that. I refuse to use the term abortion or fetus and play into the hands of the progressives.
Moreover, the left has framed this issue of killing the unborn around the subject of choice. A person either believes in choice or they don’t. It is “either-or”, according to them. You are either pro-choice or you are anti-choice. There are only two options (either-or), so they imply. When in reality, a person can be pro-choice in most matters but not pro-choice when it comes to the murder of innocent babies. Our laws are pro-choice generally speaking, giving citizens the maximum amount of personal freedom. But our laws also punish those who make choices our legal systems deem to be wrong. We have no other law, other than abortion, on the books that says the killing of an innocent person is a legally acceptable choice, one with no legal penalties. Every other law against killing someone is subject to criminal prosecution, even capital punishment. But when it comes to those who do not want to be inconvenienced by having a baby, we grant them the choice to kill the only innocent person in the matter, the baby.
Conservatives and Christians want to give people the maximum amount of choice possible, as long as that freedom does not hurt the innocent and defenseless. Most thinking people would find that reasonable. From that perspective, the issue is “both-and” and not “either-or”. We aim to ensure the safety of the defenseless and the innocent, while punishing the guilty, and at the same time, provide people with the maximum amount of freedom and choice. We conservatives and Christians are pro-choice, but strongly opposed to the killing of innocent babies. No one should have the right to kill any innocent person for selfish reasons, especially a defenseless baby. We are the “both-and” crowd. We want to see both the maximum amount of freedom and the protection of the innocent at the same time. The left is the “either-or” crowd.
Another example is the hysteria over climate change. These radicals pretend to believe (and some of them may actually believe) that climate change is an existential threat to mankind. That requires immediate and draconian measures to combat it. We either do what they recommend or we risk losing the planet and most of human life. Again, it is “either-or”. Either we do precisely as their “scientists” determine, or the end of human life is right around the corner. If anyone denies their “science” or their solutions, they are labeled a climate denier and canceled. The left doesn’t want them to be able to share their point of view.
Every thinking person knows that there are a multitude of options, not just one, to address real climate challenges. These thinkers also realize we have much more time to solve any problems than the climate radicals admit to. But they must have an immediate life-ending threat of the highest magnitude, or they can’t take complete totalitarian control of us and the nations. Conservatives and Christians agree with climate activists about caring for our planet. However, we believe that planet care must be balanced with reason and a workable economic transition over many years. No rational person wants to become a third-world nation to solve a problem that is blown all out of proportion to the real threat. But that is not good enough for the “either-or” crowd. It never is.
You will note that the left is “either-or” when it comes to every other stance; they take on serious social issues. If you disagree with them, they demand that your voice be taken away from you (you must be censored and punished because your speech is hateful). They are no longer pro-choice, unless you and I keep silent about it. Christians and conservatives are for giving, even our opponents, the freedom to speak their minds. But that left is not, and they will vilify and prohibit any speech they think is destructive. It is their way or no way, an “either-or” approach. Conversely, Christians and conservatives are “both-and”. In the marketplace of ideas, everyone’s ideas can be voiced and debated without fear of threats or violence. I am sure you can think of many more instances, in addition to these few.
The framing of theological issues presents the same problem. For instance, some Christians believe that God’s love is unconditional. In their mind, God’s love is either unconditional or it is conditional, “either-or.” It is one or the other; there is no middle ground. But what if the love of God is “both-and”?
How is it possible that the love of God can be conditional and unconditional at the same time? The love of God is addressed in scripture, reflecting a multifaceted love. God causes the rain to fall and the shine to shine on all of humanity, both good and bad. There are no conditions to this benevolent love of God. Jesus Christ made atonement for all of mankind, including those who will never accept His Lordship in their lives and His gift of salvation. He unconditionally loved them enough to die for their sins. But that love alone will not take them to heaven. The love of God, that pertains to actual salvation, is conditional. There are requirements we must meet before we can claim salvation, such as repentance and faith. The proper way to view the love and salvation of God is “both-and” and not “either-or”.
Let me give you another example. I listened to a recording by Leonard Ravenhill. He said that, “God did not come into the world to make bad men good, but to make dead men alive”. Taking his words at face value, it is “either-or”. I understand his point, but I don’t really believe he means what he says. The truth, I think, is that God came to do both. He came to bring life to the dead and to bring good out of evil. It is “both-and” not “either-or”. The reason this is so important is that we must be straightforward about the truth and not leave open what the truth disallows. God did not come into the world to make dead men live, but not to make those evil men good men. He came to do both. And you can not have one without the other. Do not assume that God makes you alive, and then you can live like the devil. But that is what most evangelicals actually believe.
I have no problem seeing how some Christians could take Ravenhill’s word about making dead men live to mean that the new birth may indeed be actual, but not actually change our behavior. We can become alive but not good men, which is false. It is actually destructive. God came to do “both-and”. 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 tells us that the unrighteous “Christian” will not inherit the kingdom of God. It further states that some of them were once unrighteous, but now they no longer practice the sins listed in this passage. The passage says, “such were some of you,” not “such are some of you”. Clearly this is “both-and”.
In the future, when someone attempts to frame the question or issue around an “either-or” statement or scenario, take some time to think about it before you accept that conclusion. It may actually be a “both-and” answer. They may be attempting to deceive and mislead you.
