2 of 2
What really struck me, though, was Congdon's assessment of those Christians from his hometown. It seems remarkably ungenerous coming from a writer who has begun by complaining about an "unnecessarily harsh and unfair review." Isn't it possible that "such people" take the deaths of those "born men, women, and children" very seriously indeed? On what basis is Congdon justified in concluding that "such people" value the life of an aborted child "infinitely more" (and please note the word "infinitely" in particular)? Isn't it possible that for these Christians, the wrongness of abortion has a moral clarity that is often difficult to achieve in matters of foreign policy, say? And by the way: Are there other Christians—perhaps even in Portland—who believe that the wrongness of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has a stunning moral clarity? And if such Christians would be inclined to use that decision as a way of evaluating any candidate (where does he or she stand on Iraq?), would they too be guilty of idolatry?
These are a few of the things that occurred to me as I was reading Congdon's response. I hope the conversation will continue.
John Wilson is the editor of Books & Culture.
Copyright © 2007 Books & Culture. Click for reprint information.
share this page
RSS Feed
