"Palin Derangement Syndrome" illustrates the Left's poor comprehension of Christian ethics

(This post has been bumped and updated.  Make sure you read it all.)

A couple of days ago, I wrote about "the slime has already begun to ooze from the fever swamps of the left," with respect to Vice Presidential pick Gov. Sarah Palin.  It got worse over the weekend, with left-wing kooks deliriously celebrating the extraordinary "truth" they discovered -- Sarah Palin's baby boy Trig was actually the illegitimate son of her oldest daughter Bristol, and Palin wore a "pregnant suit" in public in order to pull off the ruse.

In response, the Anchoress pointedly asked,  "How much do you have to love your hate in order to surrender your reason, and your humanity, to it?"

(Added: This much.  God help us.)

Today Sarah Palin publicly announced that Bristol is, in fact, unmarried and pregnant.  But she plans to marry the father, a young man who has been her high school sweetheart for over a year now, and the couple will keep their baby.  This is simply yet another example of the rugged ordinariness of the Palin family, and why they resonate so deeply with middle America.

Desperately looking for anything hypocritical that could drive a wedge between Sarah Palin and likely voters, liberal bloggers and MSM reporters were quick to note that Palin supports the teaching of abstinence in schools.  Unfortunately, the much-anticipated reaction from Dr. James Dobson was not the outburst of righteous indignation and disapproval that they certainly were expecting; nor was the reaction of the Evangelical community at large, and the left is currently going crazy.  Read the comments here.

Observing the continuous, glittering string of failures suffered by the Left as they attempt to attack Sarah Palin's character, one might ask, how can the Left be so mistaken about the core values of Sarah Palin's supporters?

Let me reintroduce you to this propitious quote from Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism:

[Margaret] Sanger's genius was to ... [argue] that motherhood itself was a socially imposed constraint on the liberty of women. It was a form of what Marxists called false consciousness to want a large family.

Sanger believed -- prophetically enough -- that if women conceived of sex as first and foremost a pleasurable experience rather than a procreative act, they would embrace birth control as a necessary tool for their own personal gratification. She brilliantly used the language of liberation to convince women they weren't going along with a collectivist scheme but were in fact "speaking truth to power" ... Sanger's analysis was surely correct, and led directly to the widespread feminist association of sex with political rebellion.

Margaret Sanger's anti-morality (further expanded by contemporary radical feminists) resulted in hard-core progressives completely losing touch with traditional teachings about sexuality, marriage, and child rearing. This is the reason for all of the incredibly crude and ignorant comments from hard-core Leftists.  They are totally out of touch with normalcy as the rest of us would define it and, as is typical for human beings, they react with fear and hatred toward things that they do not understand.

Here's the deal -- we traditionalists teach abstinence to our children primarily so that our sons and daughters won't end up being gigolos, whores and tramps. There, I said it. We understand that abstinence will not result in a 100% cessation of pregnancy. After all, God designed human beings with the desire to procreate. But it will teach our children to respect their bodies -- girls should not use sex as a tool to subordinate men, and men should not use sex as a tool to dominate women.

On the other hand, pills, condoms, and the like may prevent pregnancy if used correctly and consistently, but they cannot help a teen learn about self esteem, self control, and the sanctity of their own body. Ditto for abortion on demand. The loneliness, emptiness, and utter despair that plague sexually promiscuous men and women is well-documented (e.g. Looking for Mr. Goodbar).  And then there are the problems with STD's, particularly hepatitis and HIV.

None of the support for Sarah Palin and her daughter has anything to do with Evangelicals suddenly "approving of" or "ignoring" the promiscuity of a seventeen year old simply because her mother is a Republican.  Rather, it has everything to do with what the family has chosen to do next.

As human beings we all have the ability to make choices.  Sometimes we make choices -- bad ones --  without clearly thinking about the consequences.  But it is in dealing with those consequences (and more importantly, the consequences resulting from events that we cannot control) that we undergo true spiritual growth. The mark of Christianity is not the rabid observance of puritanical legalism, nor is it the brutal humiliation of transgressors; rather it is the ability to overcome difficult circumstances through love, hope, and grace.

Traditional Christian ethics teaches that even if the conditions surrounding its arrival are less than absolutely ideal -- even if they may be traced directly to an act of evil -- new life is always a holy event, a cause for thanksgiving, even if that life is not "perfect" in our eyes.  The imperfect arrival of life, or the arrival of imperfect life, both give ample opportunities for the Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ to impart love, hope, and grace, each upon the other.  We do not seek out sin or imperfection so that God's grace may be celebrated; rather, we seek to better understand how to celebrate grace when we are faced with adverse circumstances.

Abstinence goes hand and hand with responsibility.  If two people make the decision to enter into a sexual relationship and then they make a baby, they are expected to be responsible for their actions. Initially, the grandparents-to-be may be shocked, angered, and disappointed. But through the work of the Holy Spirit, love and grace will eventually triumph over these emotions, and then the new life will be celebrated.  This seems to be the situation with Bristol Palin.

Unfortunately, too many teenage mothers come from broken homes or families void of any kind of real spiritual guidance. It is always a shame to see runaway sexuality in those situations -- those girls seem to have latched on to the "pleasurable experience" aspect of feminist sexuality, without bothering to trouble themselves with the birth control part. Understood in those terms, progressive sex education is certainly as much -- probably more -- of a failure than abstinence education.

Progressives claim to have the perfect solutions to the problem of teenage pregnancy  -- designating children and families as punishments or obstacles in the pursuit of an enriched life, then promoting guilt-free promiscuity balanced by medical birth control (including abortion).  Yet these are really nothing more than shallow appeals simply designed to satiate our most youthful desires for immediacy and personal satisfaction.  They are not designed to promote responsibility.  They are not designed to freely allow the propagation of grace from one individual to another, nor are they designed to allow the propagation of grace freely from the Holy Spirit to each of us.

We believe that depriving our children of such responsibilities and experiences will severely impede their spiritual growth.  This is why we teach our children abstinence, rather than promiscuity and birth control.

...

Added 9-3-08:  Here's a lovely gem from feminist icon Sally Quinn (via RushLimbaugh.com):

I've been a working mother for 26 years and practically every friend I have is a working mother and works full time. So, uh, I think we are so far beyond that issue of whether women should work or not, in -- uh, certainly in your world and my world.  But in the world of evangelicals, that's not the case.  Women are supposed to be subservient to their husbands and they are meant to be stay-at-home moms.  And women, in fact, are not allowed to be pastors in the Southern Baptist church. (emphasis added)

Well goll-dang - we's all just a buncha redneck chauvinist pigs, us Eeeeeevangelicals, that is.  Here's a news flash -- the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches both disallow women from entering the priesthood too.  Sheesh.  Another glittering leftist/secularist jewel of colossal ignorance.

__________________________________

Welcome Anchoress readers!  And thanks for the link, Elizabeth.
And welcome WizBang readers.  Thanks for the link, Lori.
Aw, what the heck - a hat tip to Mr. D Aristophanes from SadlyNo.com.  Welcome aboard.

__________________________________

Post script:

I want to make two brief additional points.  First off, blaming only the Left for the misunderstandings of the Church that exist today would not be telling the whole truth.  Certainly, through political pressure, excommunication, inquisition, witch hunts, and other means of coercion, the Body of Christ has damaged itself by failing to deal gracefully with those who depart from its teachings.  We have only ourselves to blame for that, and we are still struggling with spiritual shortcomings.  Today, we seem to have no problem being gracious toward those who commit sexual sins -- unless those transgressions involve same-sex relationships.  Homosexuality is still a serious stumbling block for Christian grace.

Second, Christianity teaches that God's standard of perfection is not the same as ours.  We screw up this message as well, choosing to skip over the process of perfection (sanctification) that develops as the result of our spiritual formation through the work of the Holy Spirit, in favor of simply pillorying those who fail to live up to our human ideal of absolute sinlessness. 

No one is responsible for these distortions of the Gospel except Christians themselves.  This should give us pause whenever we see ourselves portrayed as rabid puritans who humiliate the imperfect.

The lineage of Jesus Christ himself shows us that God can use anyone, regardless of how "impure" we may think they are, as a vessel for His divine will.  Matthew's lineage of Jesus specifically includes four women -- Tamar (who disguised herself as a prostitute in order to become pregnant by Judah, thus ensuring the continuation of his lineage), Rahab (a prostitute and an ethnic Gentile), Ruth (an ethnic Gentile), and "Uriah's wife," Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon and the object of King David's greatest moral failing.  The commonality that links these women, besides their lack of moral and ethnic purity, is that each of them were involved in an open confession of sin and a public repentance, and afterward, they remained close to the LORD.  This is what He truly desires of us as well. (Updated at 12:35PM
9-2-08)

Comments

[LissaKay]

Amen, brother ... AMEN!

[Fred Jones]

you realize, of course, that your whole thesis is hypocritical. christianists teach no sex outside of marriage, no abortions, etc., but now that you have a republican veep candidate and her daughter is pregers, all of a sudden it is ok that she is in said condition. nice. i think you need to read this analysis to see the error of your ways.

[The Third Policeman]

You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting this bogus sense of morality about Palin - you call yourself a moral person and a Christian? You are lying straight to the face of your reading public.

It's not good enough that Palin is anti-choice and anti-contraception. The physical fact of her daughter being pregnant is proof that she is also anti-abstinence! How can you possibly overlook that or apologize for it? This is situational ethics and moral relativism at it's clearest and worst. You and anyone who approves of this shameful, immoral behavior on the part of Sarah Palin, and her attempt to keep it hidden, are nothing more than left-wing stooges.

[Sir Craig]

You know, Dante's Inferno described the 8th circle of hell as being one occupied by hypocrites, forced for eternity to wear gold-gilded cloaks of lead.

Let me know how that works for you and any of the others who would have otherwise spit in the face of this girl for being a "whore" and a "slut" if she weren't the daughter of the presumptive Republican VP, because it is the least any of you self-righteous (expletive deleted) deserve.

[JB]

Damn that the libs have mad sex pleasurable!! Thoses damn libs did it, not God when he gave us all those nasty parts!
Sheesh!!!
Bottom line...she would not be pregnant id she used bith control. It really is that simple. But not to wingnut right wingers.
Also, I think the law and order family values bunch ought to look into the age of consent in Alaska...the 18 year old man should not get away with rape right?
Thanks for your time.

[Scourge]

Y'know, Freddy me lad, if you actually read the thing before judging it, you might not come off as such a bombastic ass. Though not quite so much as Craig does. Neither of you have the faintest idea of Christianity, and skipping over every single point Mike made is not going to help. Of course, you don't really want to disturb your prejudices, do you? Pathetic cretins. Or maybe Mike just didn't break through? Try this, then.

Pretty sure 3rd P is making parody. No one is really that deranged.

Along the way, Fred, do have a go at the shift key. Similar benefit to the above.

[Sir Craig]

Yo, Scourge buddy...

I actually have a great idea what Christianity is all about: Like politics, it's pick-and-chose. Those parts of the Bible you agree with, use those to justify your prejudices and bigotries. Oh, but if an uncomfortable truth should pop up, pretend it either doesn't exist or modify your position so that what you just said in earnest 5 minutes ago has become something completely different, all for the sake of convenience.

I read Mike's idiocy, and it is more of the same: He seeks justification for not treating Bristol as he would any other unwed teenage mother (and spare me the "Oh, but they are getting married" nonsense - even in the press releases Bristol and her boyfriend have known each other less than a year. What kind of stable marriage is THAT going to produce?). Instead of addressing Bristol's pregnancy and the abject failure that is abstinence-only sex education, he goes on a diversionary diatribe against liberals and progressives by quoting that imbecile Jonah Goldberg and then introducing an idealized version of Christianity that has yet to be publicly shown by ANY conservative.

And finally, in order to boost your own lame comment, you link to a conservative editorial that treats each question thrown at the Palin's situation as a personal attack against Sarah and Bristol. There is nothing personal about this - the questions are meant to shed light on ALL the failed policies of the conservative agenda. If the Palins embrace these failed policies and ideologies, then so be it upon them: They can live with the consequences. But I'll be DAMNED if I use them as an example of how to live, and the hypocrites that boost them up upon their shoulders and attempt to use them as the newest poster children for conservative family values are just as useless.

Pathetic cretin, indeed...

[JB]

Hey Scrounge I speeled God right...shoot fire. I'm a good kristian!
Thnaks again for your time

[Mike]

Seriously everyone, thanks for taking the time to read this late-night rambling of mine and leave comments. And I mean everyone, even the "dumb bunnies," as my dear Mom would call them.

I've noticed a curious trend in the hundreds of comments that I have read in relation to Sarah and Bristol Palin. If the far Left ever has anything to say about Christians, usually it's something like this -- "Damn those Christians! All they do is hate, hate, hate. Everything is 'no, no, no,' and 'sin, sin, sin' and 'blame, blame, blame.' Try loving people for a change. Jesus was all about love. And STFU already."

But what are they saying now? "Damn those Christians! Why aren't they blaming the Palins? Why aren't they hating the Palins? Why aren't then condemning the Palins as sinners and degenerates? All they keep talking about is 'life' and 'forgiveness.' STFU already. GIVE US THE HATE!!!"

And they call us hypocrites? Hmph. Hate is an awful thing if you are the one squirming under its boot, but apparently it is a sorely missed commodity if you need to spread some around yourself.

[D. Aristophanes]

For the record, I don't think anyone should be hating on Bristol Palin, whether Obama supporters or McCain supporters or those disinterested. Her decision, made by all reports with the advice and support of her parents, is to be respected and applauded.

Also for the record, I appreciate your civility and calmness in discussing this matter, Mike.

But I do think that the introduction of a teenage pregnancy into this very heated election season has, quite naturally, brought the subject of teenage pregnancy to the forefront of many people's minds. And since we on the left and you on the right (and we on the secular side of things and you on the Xtian side of things) have some solid differences of opinions as to how this subject ought to be discussed with the young 'uns, it's also natual that some overheated words on said subject have been flung.

This too shall pass, as they say. And when the righteousness wanes, I think we will all value any dialogue we can accomplish on the issue of teen pregnancy and its broad, chartable outcomes. We may all even learn something.

[Marcel]

"Here's the deal -- we traditionalists teach abstinence to our children primarily so that our sons and daughters won't end up being gigolos, whores and tramps. There, I said it. We understand that abstinence will not result in a 100% cessation of pregnancy."

Independent of Sarah Palin and this election, the implications of this might be worth exploring.