Recently a prominent medical doctor wrote an article entitled "Why Clinton Got The Catholic Vote" which caught my attention during the daily perusal of publications coming across my desk. It stated that the Roman Catholic constituency in America voted 42% for Dole, 48% for Clinton, and 9% for Perot. This somewhat surprising statistic causes one to question why there was such a high percentage for Clinton when his record was nationally known FOR the partial birth abortion bill, his pro-homosexual agenda, and the full knowledge of "his multiple, pervasive moral problems."

The article gave a rather revealing observation of the principal hierarchy of the Romanist Church. It is true that John Paul II has been very definitive in his pro-life messages wherever he travels; he believes that abortion is THE defining moral issue of our time. He calls it the "unspeakable crime." Even the United States Roman Catholic bishops, just a few years ago, unanimously voted condemning abortion "unequivocally." A portion of the news media did cover, at the time of the voting, the Roman Catholic Cardinals standing on the steps of the U.S. Capitol praying that the veto of Clinton would be overridden. To strengthen this action, the words of the late "progressive" Cardinal Joseph Bernardin publicly proclaimed, "there is no justification—medically, legally or morally—for allowing such an abhorrent procedure as partial birth abortion to be performed on any member of our human family. By your (Clinton's) veto, however, I fear that you will send a very disturbing message to the people of this nation, one to which persons of goodwill must give serious consideration as they cast their ballots in November." If this is the voice of the top leadership of the Romanist Church, why, then, have Catholic voters no followed it?

Various commentators have speculated a number of reasons why the Catholics voted for Clinton, among them being economics. But the economic situation of both Catholics and "Evangelicals" are not all that different. The article drew the reader into another direction of motive: the positions taken by the high leadership and what is being preached "to the faithful is another story." "It is unusual to hear of a Catholic pastor preaching about the evil of abortion or, for that matter, of adultery, fornication or homosexual acts. This de-emphasis, and oftentimes actual watering-down of the teaching of personal morals, has unquestionably produced a great deal of confusion in prioritization of these issues among Catholics." The weight of neutralization or passivity is "found among those who run the Catholic diocese in its day-to-day operations." When bulletins are sent out by those in daily contact with their Catholic parishoners many social issues are dealt with such as housing, human rights, immigration, the UN, food and agriculture, health aids, substance abuse, refugees, the Middle East, Latin America, Caribbean, etc. The article concluded by stating, "the one thing all of these had in common was a leveling. These evaluations sent, to the Catholic in the pew, a definite message, that abortion is no more important than any of the other issues listed. Perhaps, then, it is not surprising, when a loyal Catholic evaluated presidential candidates, senators, etc., that abortion had no priority over the other social issues, and there was no compulsion to see abortion as a disqualifying issue at the ballot box."

It is evident that the writer of the above mentioned article was deeply concerned for the absence of "definite" preaching or teaching on the subject of abortion within the local Catholic parishes. But it brings to the forefront an alarming, pastoral deficit which plagues the pulpits of America, not only in Romanist churches but also conservative, evangelical churches. There is truly a dearth of "definitive" preaching from the sacred desk to the pew. It is apparent that many Evangelical and Fundamental churches have been hearing from their pulpits on the social issues (for the statistic was 60% evangelical Christians voted for Dole and 35% for Clinton). But it is becoming more and more evident in these conservative churches that the pulpits are NOT "defining" those matters which affect daily living. It is one thing to preach "Christ and His Glory," and the objective fundamentals of the Christian faith; but it is another thing to "spell-out" for the pew how these fundamentals are to work out in their daily life. When my father and I left the Pentecostal denomination in 1974 the last words of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to me was, "you and your father tend to give the details of the error of our times by naming personalities and naming sins. But you need to do what I do: simply use the term 'worldliness' and let it go at that." My response to this General Superintendent was "when you use the term 'worldliness' the people in the pew are thinking of the drunkard in the gutter or the drug addict; they do not know that worldliness is found in the pew as well, and with a good heart it must be defined clearly." How often I have heard laymen in my travels comment "our pastor does not deal with the Christian life in his preaching; his preaching is basically evangelism." This is a prominent reason why Christians are ignorant in living for God: there is no deliberate, defining of principles or exhortation of application from the pulpit. The sheep of the local flock are basically left to "shift for themselves." But this should not be. For Malachi 2:7 states, "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts." Ministers have been so caught up in "building" churches and pursuing doctoral programs filled with practical training and methodology that they have not given full time to the study of the Word of God. Quick, catchy sermons have been their pulpit repertoire; the knowledge of the Lord upon their "lips," ready to define the matter at hand is far from them. If the pulpits do not return to a clear definition of daily, Christian living, the people will not know "the standard" to be lived when the enemy comes in like a flood, especially in these last days. Abortion is basically a "safe" subject to preach upon in Fundamental churches. But there is a need, a desperate need to deal with the issues of lifestyle, contemporary clothing, music, video movies, video games that are becoming more permeated with the occult, the Disney enterprises, the increase influence of the "Goosebumps" book series and their TV adaptation, an individual's thought-life, the onslaught of fads coming down the pipeline of our age. Will the Christian Youth be warned in choosing honorable places of higher education rather than choosing a college or university simply for its prestige and its accolades by the worldly crowd? Many pulpits tend to water-down personal living for fear of losing families. And it stands to reason that a person who is saved has no trouble with a sermon on salvation. Yet, it is now imperative, more than ever, to teach our Youth the Christian "life" as presented in God's Word. Truly, the man of God is called upon in his generation to make a "difference between the unclean and the clean" before the people. And beyond the defining of the age, who will define how to walk with God, maintain communion with God, and how to live a godly life in this present world?

May God revive the prophetic art of "definitive" preaching in the Fundamental churches across the land. For unless it returns there will be a generation from its own ranks to rise up in its prime having no understanding of how to discern its age, overcome temptation and sin, clearly define sin and error for its children, and how to simply live for God.