The Trouble with Politics - the illusion of political solutions
Don’t Look Behind the Curtain
I have come to dread politics. I have lost nearly all confidence in political solutions to anything. I am grateful to be an American citizen, I recognize that I am fortunate to have been born in America. I acknowledge that many great men and women sacrificed extraordinary things to bring about the United States of America.
But it is hard for me to imagine that the founding fathers envisioned the circus that is the process by which we elect a president. Do we really need two or three years of campaigning to get a president?
I also wonder if it is possible to get a straight answer out of any candidate. Recently we saw this demonstrated by both candidates in the last debate. Both were asked a straightforward question about what they might not be able to do (in terms of their programs) in light of the financial crisis. Now even the most unenlightened person knows that if you don’t have money in your budget to go on vacation, or get new carpeting, or whatever you just are not going to be able to do it. But not in the American political arena - no, in that arena the Wizard of Oz effect is in full operation, i.e. pay no attention to the man behind the screen (reality), the Great and Powerful Oz is able to give everybody a piece of the pie.
Just once, the truth
Wouldn’t you love to hear - ‘Sorry Americans, if I am elected I won’t be doing any new spending of any kind, in fact I will be cutting all kinds of stuff. My fellow Americans the irresponsible deficit spending of the past 50 years (or whatever) has got to stop and I am promising nothing, only sacrifice and tough times.’ We all know that is what we would have to do if we were facing this kind of financial meltdown. But could you ever get an honest answer from a candidate on a straightforward question like this? No, because it is all about being elected, not service, but acquisition of power. I’m sick of it!
I don’t believe either candidate has offered any compelling vision of the future. Only - ‘we can’t have any more of the 8 years of failed Bush policy’. That is the vision of the future being offered. I will call it ‘Not that guy’ vision. Man, wouldn’t you hate to be George Bush. I mean who really knows how much he or his ‘policies’ have to do with the economic downturn, and financial collapse? I sure don’t. But its fun to blame someone. But don’t be fooled there is no real vision of anything remotely resembling the kind of change we actually need. Most of what is being put forward is something I’d would call ‘re-arranging the furniture’, it feels like change, it looks different but at the end of the day the system is so screwed up that it isn’t really change at all. Just the couch in a different place, the easy chair in a different place but still the same old stuff. A compelling vision of the future would include a huge dose of honesty regarding the mess we are in at the moment. This honest diagnosis, with a realistic projection of how few ‘new’ things can or will be done until its straightened out would be the centerpiece, not swept under the rug.
How Do We Think Christianly About This?
Christians can disagree about whether they think free-market economics is better or worse than government interventionism. I’m not sure you can prove convincingly that the Bible teaches capitalism or socialism. Remember, that the governments of the entire Biblical era were dictatorships far more controlling than anything we have seen in the modern era with the possible exception of Communism at its tyrannical height or Nazi Germany. A king could do and make happen anything he wanted. No one voted, no one even gave their opinion (unless it was at home, in secret and very quietly). Occasionally a prophet would come along and let the higher ups have it, but often he ended up having to run for his life.
Should we have socialized health care, or should we have government control of banks, or should we have affirmative action, or should we be required to drive a smaller car and on and on? Is the free market better than the ‘controlled’ market? Christians can disagree about these things and its okay. We can live together, hopefully not bash each other and accept that there are different sensible opinions on these various subjects.
But on the issue of life isn’t there only one position for those who take the Word of God, and the history of the Christian Church seriously? I believe that we have latitude on many social issues, economic issues, and educational issues that allow Christians to have different understandings of these matters. But the issue of the right to life seems plain. Just like we draw a line around the issue of Christian Orthodoxy and say these things must be believed in order to call oneself a Christian isn’t that line also include issues like the right to life?
I realize we live in a society that is pluralistic and secular. I recognize that we have to fit together with a whole bunch of competing desires and motivations. But on this point I pray that there really is a shared conscience among disciples of Jesus - human life is precious. We live in a culture where our no may not stop the practice, but standing consistently for the principal that human life is sacred seems like a non-negotiable to me.
Can We Give Our Approval to More Abortions?
This leads me to a something that I find very troubling. We currently have as a matter of law the right to abortion. This is terrible, but it is the law. However, over the past thirty years there has been slow progress on limiting this right. Things like parental notification, and the banning of partial birth abortions are examples of limits that have been legally placed on these practices. Until there is a national change in the hearts of people regarding the acceptance of abortion we are likely to have this law remain law. Even if the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade abortion would not stop. That will only come when an overwhelming majority of people believe from their hearts that this is wrong and want it to stop. That can happen. It certainly did with slavery. There was a time when some Christians believed (as well as many non-religious people) that it was okay to own a person. But that changed, and so did the hearts of enough people to make it end (although it did cost 600,000 lives in the Civil War).
Think about that for a moment. There was a time when people were just as rigidly divided over an issue that now seems so ridiculously obvious - slavery. That is an amazing and horrible truth. We live in such a day today. A significant number of people believe that abortion should be legal and available, with few restrictions. There were many important issues in the national elections conducted in the days of legal slavery, yet for many Christians slavery was the single issue that compelled their consciences. There is something of a parallel between the dilemma Christians experienced in those elections and the one we face in this election. If I lived in the South and a candidate running for election were pro-slavery could I vote for them? What if that candidate had many other ideas that I agreed with, and in fact might do much good with the ideas? Would voting for a pro-slavery candidate be immoral for a Christian
The Troubling Planned Parenthood Video
Recently I have come across footage of Senator Obama’s speech before Planned Parenthood, given 4 months after the campaign began. In that appearance Senator Obama promised that he would sign into law the “Freedom of Choice Act.” The Freedom of Choice act will embed abortion as a ‘civil right’ like free speech as the law of the land. It will overturn all current limitations on the practice of abortion. That means parental notification will no longer be necessary (Over 30 States have parental notification). That means partial birth abortion will again be legal (Over 30 States have a ban on this practice). That means no restriction on abortion whatsoever. Advocates and opponents of FOCA all agree that the bill would nullify every legal limit on abortion, state federal or otherwise. He promised, at this event, that he would sign this bill (of which he is one of the sponsors) into law. Video footage of this promise is readily available to anyone who cares to look (This link gives you the full 24 minute speech).
May God have Mercy.
October 25th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Im voting for lon . Lets put a jew in the white house!!!
October 25th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Thanks for this blog :)
October 26th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
In response to Jeff — Heaven forfend that I should enter in any kind of political power. But that’s why McCain should have selected Joe Lieberman as his running mate.
In response to the post in general — I looked at the short video, and the text of the FOCA bill as well. I admit that it’s pretty disturbing. But I have to ask: What exactly have the Republicans accomplished for the pro-life cause over the course of their being in power for 20 out of the past 28 years? I will grant that abortion on demand is more difficult to obtain, but has the abortion rate declined proportionately? I looked at the statistics a few months ago (you can find them by searching the CDC web site — http://www.cdc.gov) and found that abortion rates have been pretty flat for the past 15 years or so. In other words, having a pro-life Republican in the White House hasn’t been much different from having a pro-choice Democrat. And I doubt that even so radical a bill as FOCA, if it were signed into law, would necessarily have the impact of increasing the net number of abortions. Keep in mind that the Democrats tend to favor social safety nets that make abortion a less likely choice. Abortion remains a major issue, but politics get really bizarre when it becomes the only issue.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:20 am
Lon, you may be right about the republicans having done little for abortion rates. However, there is evidence that these restrictions account for a decrease of about 125,000 abortions per year. If this is true then a bill like FOCA will have an impact, one that could mean increased rates of abortion.
Secondly, the leadership of Planned Parenthood have stated publicly that the next president will decide whether we still have Roe vs. Wade. Sometimes one issue is the only one that matters.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:17 am
wow!!! get me another pop tart!!! this debate is heating up !!!!
October 27th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Ah, the possibilities of a real debate arise. I think I’ll take my thoughts on this matter over to Big Al. And Jeff was just asking when my next blog posting would be…
October 28th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
You said yourself that even if Roe v Wade were overturned, it wouldn’t do anything to reduce abortion. That’s because the grounds it would be overturned on (from McCain’s “federalist” preference) would be to throw the issue back to the states, most of which would probably uphold the “right” to killing babies (let’s call a spade a spade). Roe v Wade is NOT the issue here; it is the culture, as you suggested. The Church needs to CHANGE THE CULTURE.
I am 99% pro-Obama except for the life issue; however, except for FOCA. The video at the PP dinner puzzles me, and I’m really at a crisis about it–it doesn’t seem consistent with his platform or even the changes to the Democratic platform that he spearheaded. My vote does kind of hang on FOCA, but there’s NO recent news about it; only that video from a year ago! In the most recent history, he has asserted that he would work on abortion reduction by doing what government is able to do (in his model), which is to work on the remedial problems surrounding the decision to abort. I believe that government has the responsibility to make sure all of its citizens are represented and cared for. That’s my personal belief. Someone else may have an equally strong, opposite belief about that. I believe what I believe, and worship Jesus.
Let’s look at it though–what has Bush done for life? Stem cell bill, Born Alive Act (Federal level, not the Illinois one, which contrary to popular belief, Obama voted against *once*–the other 3 times he voted present), the Partial-Birth ban (under a Democratic Congress, I might add) and 2 Justices. So, good, a handful of things. Absolutely great. But as Lon points out, the effective rate has remained unchanged. I think Bush has had 8 years in which he could have done some RADICAL things–he’s signed enough Executive Orders, for goodness sake–couldn’t he have done the same here?!
I guess it all comes down to two ways of voting: Do you vote your conscience, or do you vote for a practical solution? I haven’t heard ONE proposal from McCain/Palin about this, other than the Supreme Court issue. As Ben likes to say, it’s about principal vs. method.
Speaking of McCain, every analyst has said he preferred Lieberman as a VP, but chose Palin strictly to keep “the base”. It seems like a marriage of convenience to me.
If we REALLY believe, as I hear a lot of Christians say, that they want less governmental control because “the Church should be doing it”, then let’s go do a LIFE siege at the Planned Parenthood in Montclair or any one of the several clinics in the area. Let’s circulate petitions. Let’s pay real close attention to local politics. But hoping for pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by with a “pro-life” (pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-oil) candidate is a pipe dream.
ALL that being said, I am in a quandary about next Tuesday. I am absolutely torn. I may do a write-in, but then I really DO feel like I’m “throwing my vote away”. Let’s pray that God’s will is done. Sometimes that may be something we don’t expect. I want actions, not words.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
This is a difficult issue because it is never clear what will unfold once a person becomes president. I’m sure G Bush had no idea how 9/11 would shade his entire presidency. Bush presided over huge expansion of governent spending, completely contrary to the small governemt philosophy of the republican party. So what politicans say they will do and what they actually do are rarely the same thing.
But Planned Parenthood is ruthless in their ideological commitment to “reproductive rights”. Shortly after the election ends be sure that PP will expect Obama to deliver on his public promise to them. Remember Obama is one of the sponsors of the FOCA bill. Be sure of this - in a democratically controlled house and senate that bill will become law. Nearly everyone on either side (democrat or republican) agree that the next president will appoint 1 or 2 supreme court judges. Those decisions will impact the next twenty or thirty years. Dutch Sheets just issued a national call to prayer directly related to this issue. That weighs heavily on me.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I read the comments of Pastor Scott and Lon and am mystified how 2 obviously spiritual and insightful men could come to such opposite conclusions. I agree with Pastor Scott that the line between capitalism and social programs is open to various conclusions but that the issue of life should be definitive. Lon seems to be saying that pro-life presidents have not altered Roe v Wade so let us embrace Obama and his programs to reduce the number of abortions. I know that Lon has long fought in the Abortion Wars, and to suggest that he is soft on Roe v Wade is to question Isaiah or Jeremiah about being soft on the worshipers of Baal. To vote for Obama because a program that he supports may reduce the number of abortions, maybe or maybe not, is not a valid principle to follow because it furthers the acceptability of Abortion itself. The sacrament of the Democratic Party is the broken body and shed blood of the unborn, and Obama is the most enthusiastic celebrant of this barbaric ritual ever to occupy the office of president. Nate Hentoff, no conservative, a supporter of Obama’s social agenda, agnostic, with no bible except the Constitution, writer for The Village Voice, with no liberal vices, except for being pro-life, will not support Obama because of his extreme abortion stance. He opposed the infant born alive act, he supported partial birth abortion, he supported the death of his own grandchildren, if his daughter had an unwanted pregnancy, lest she be punished with a child. Is it too much to hope for to expect Christians to join an agnostic Jew who has not grown weary in being angry with child murderers, who will say that this unholy leaven will not influence the body politic through my participation in his election?
I guess that is my argument. Obama’s leaven is so evil that no Christian should support him. How evil he is, only God knows. The leaven of Obama will live through the judges who will be appointed by him. His judges will not be constructionists who seek only to interpret law. They will be the philosopher kings of Socratic dreams. They will see the constitution as a malleable document that can be shaped according to their moral and philosophical
bent. Esaw sold his birthright for a bowl of soup, we will sell ours for a health care plan, a social agenda that may or may not be good, but which Nate Hentoff rightly concluded sacrificed principal for hot soup. Our philosopher kings will be inspired by the Soroses, William Ayers, Move on dot orgs of the world. Their logos and their will will be the leaven in our societal yeast. Esaw’s bowl of soup may have been excellent, but it was to expensive. Obama’s social program may be worthy of messiah’s pay grade but the social consequences of his philosophical intercourse with the Soros crowd and their like could prove deadly to the soul of the American people. In embracing the party of Satanic sacrifices, in the hope that their may be a few less sacrifices, one might just as logically embrace the killing of defective children and the elderly on the grounds of a net gain in lives saved because the medical savings means better care for more people. Obama comes, as does Satan, as an angle of light, but he is an agent of death. Messiah comes to make abortion safe, legal. and rare, but above all, legal, legal, and above all, legal. He wants to turn the hearts of the children against the hearts of their fathers and mothers. Not only is Satan and Obama against the 6th commandment, they both want to legally undermine the 4th commandment, with the passage of FOCA, freedom of choice act. Godfather Obama would make abortion,not just a choice for a woman, but he would make it a fundamental right, which means any attempt to slow the abortion process down would be illegal. Obama would wave his fairygodfather pen, transform a girl into a woman, free to secure an abortion without parental notification. So many christian Esaws eager to sell out for some soup, what more could a messiah and his lord of flames want. Establish a principle, abortion, an inalienable right independent of father or mother. What other rights, independebt of father/mother could a Soros/. org inspired court create. The National Catholic Register states that 44 states have parental notification and permission laws now in place. In California there is a law on the ballot that would make California state number 45. Its named after a girl who went to the table of the abortionist and died on that hellish place. Mother/father had no clue. I forget the girl’s name, Let’s call her LORI. Pro-life Californians are fighting for Lori’s Law. A noble fight. Pro-life warriors have won significant battles that have saved many babies’ lives. FOCA will erase those victories. The devil has big ears and will be glad to be your waiter. He has a delicious looking bowl of soup.
There is a cost. You will be part of Moloch’s support, however unwilling.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:37 am
OH SNAP !!!!
October 29th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Let me make a statement regarding these issues that makes clear where I am coming from regarding the issue of the legitimacy of one’s Christianity and their voting preferences.
I am making no judgment or statement about whether one is a good Christian or not a good Christian based on their vote for president.
I am simply expressing my perspective on the issue of abortion, and the possibility that one’s vote may lead to a certain outcome (more abortions).
October 29th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I was initially going to just let this issue rest, but the discussion above (especially Mr. Greydanus’s diatribe) demands a lengthy, well-reasoned response. It will take me some time to compose one, but look for it on Big Al’s Place some time in the next couple of days.
My quickie reply in a few sentences is this: Clearly, many Christians, on careful consideration of the abortion issue, find that they must support McCain as matter of basic righteousness. I accept that, even though this is not my position. But I also say that a Christian can, without incurring the wrath of God, support Obama and vote accordingly. Such Christians are not Moloch worshipers, nor are they Esaus selling off their moral and ethical birthright for a poisoned stew. In fact, depending on how they think about about the entire spectrum of political issues being debated in this election, some Christians may incur the wrath of God by NOT supporting Obama. Visit Big Al in a day or two for the long version.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I want Bob for president. In fact, I want a Pursley/Greydanus ticket next time. In whatever order. Bob, you’ve got me shaking in my boots.
Lord, help us.
October 30th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Thank you so much Bob and Scott for expressing thoughts and ideas that I would not know how to put into words.
Thank you Scott for bringing this issue to a place of discussion. It is good to be able to express ideas in a civil, kind, and Christian manner.
These are indeed weighty issues in difficult times.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Scott, I have a serious problem voting for McCain because he isn’t prolife enough.
While he would protect the unborn, he clearly thinks it is all right to blow that child he protected in the womb to smithereens only minutes after it is born if that child has the misfortune to be born in a country he is at war with.
Find me a prolife candidate from birth to the grave!
October 31st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
maybe you wont incur God’s wrath and that is only because He does EVERYTHING in mercy BUT when Jesus asks me about it, when he asks me what i did to stand for life, what i did to speak for the ones that cant, for the BABIES; i want to at least be able to say that i sided with a candidate that chooses life. and let me tell you something, the Lord CARES about this issues. He weeps. He mourns. And He is righteously angry.
any thing that has been done for the sake of life, is good! saying only little has been done is ultimately saying that ‘oh only a FEW souls have been saved…only a few babies havent been brutally murdered…’ THESE ARE PEOPLE! CHILDREN THAT WE ARE KILLING!!! INNOCENT SOULS WHOSE BLOOD IS CRYING OUT IN OUR LAND. CRYING OUT FOR JUSTICE!
The Lord will avenge them. He will avenge the many many souls, all the ones He had plans for, He will come girding His sword. when He does, i want to be found in righteousness. i want to be found faithful and in agreement with Him.
Oh! may He have mercy on us for choosing to side with anyone who doesnt say life begins at conception.
October 31st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Katie, I suppose you will have a difficult time voting for any candidate since neither is a pacifist. Obama simply disagrees with the Iraq war and has indicated his intention to use the military aggressively in Afghanistan.
I would like to commend the website - “The Public Discourse” found at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/index.php
There are three articles I think are worth reading:
1. Anne Hendershott: A Dangerous Time to be a Black Baby (under the October 28th heading)
2. Gerard V. Bradley: When is it Acceptable for a ”Pro-Life” Voter to Vote for a ”Pro-Choice” Candidate? (Under the October 21st heading)
3. Robert George: Obama’s Abortion Extremism (under October 14th heading).
The Public Discourse is a ‘think-tank’ devoted to enhancing “the public understanding of the moral foundations of free societies by making the scholarship of the fellows and affiliated scholars of the Institute available and accessible to a general audience.”
It represents scholars from Baylor University, Princeton, University of Texas, Louisana State University, University of Virginia, University of South Carolina, Georgetown University, Saint Andrews, Fordham and Cambridge.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:02 am
Diverting from the Abortion comments:
A good resource: (at least for me)
I recently got a book off Amazon.com called “Social Justice and the Christian Church” by Ronald H. Nash. It’s not a light read, I am slowly going through. It covers capitalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism etc.
I purchased the book to better educate myself on the histories of these ideologies and because of the growing concern I have for my generation. I am no great scholar/thinker, just a past history major who took classes on Germany and Russia. I even went to Russia in 99″ and could still visibly and tangibly see the effects of what my generation is claiming to desire..government control of social issues….Where is God’s control in that?
ie: Nash cites from “The Challenge of Marxism” by Klaus Bockmuehl
“Marxism in the West today has become a potent temptation for gifted forward- thinking young Christians, evangelicals among them. They are fascinated not so much by its radical secular humanism as by it socialism. Because evangelicals have little knowledge of Marxism, they identify Marxism with social reform and regard it as an energetic attempt to realize liberty, equality, and fraternity or simply claim that Marxist are “for the poor.”
And another good citation from the book to consider by Nash:
“Evidence exists that the welfare state policies do more than injure those from whom something is taken; they also injure those to whom something is given (by the state). Liberal housing programs did not make more low-cost housing available for the poor; the result has been much less available housing, at a cost of billions of dollars. Minimum wage legislation does not really help people at the bottom of the economic ladder; it ends up harming them by making them less employable, thus increasing unemployment among the very people the legislation is supposed to help. The short-sighted and politically expedient policy of paying for social welfare through deficit government spending has flooded the economy with billions of dollars of increasingly worthless money and ravaged the poor by subjecting them (and everyone else) to an inflation that continues to raise the prices of basic necessities beyond their reach. Regardless of where one looks, welfare state programs have failed. Liberal social policies have done the most harm in basic areas like food and clothing. The people who have been hurt the most have been those least able to afford it, the very people the liberal assures us, he is trying to help…..It is not a lack of compassion that leads the conservative to oppose the welfare state. On the contrary, it is his compassion plus a decidedly clear vision of the consequences of welfare state policies that produces his opposition.”
November 1st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I am a fan of Ronald Nash and have read his work, although not this book in particular.
Thanks for your comment.
November 1st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Lon published this comment on his blog, ‘Big Al’s Place’. In the interest of keeping his thoughts on this matter in context to the ongoing discussion he agreed to move his post here. Thanks Lon!
I need to state this explicitly at the outset: Scott is my pastor. I give him the honor and respect that is his due, and I consider myself bound to follow his leadership. If he tells me to do something, then I will do it. He has stated his case before the church at large, but he has also stated explicitly that there is room for disagreement, even on so profound an issue as this. Scott has asked that we seriously consider the implications of Obama’s position on abortion as we make our voting decisions. I have done this, and the below is my attempt to articulate my views on this matter, written not just as a believer, but as a member of Lamb of God who believes in and submits himself to the pastoral authority of Scott and the rest of the Elders.
I also want to state how important it is that we be willing to confront and discuss such issues. If all we do with our Christianity is read our Bibles, pray, and attend church services; then we are living a subnormal Christian life. But if we are to have our minds renewed (Rom. 12:2), if we are to take every thought captive for Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), then we cannot simply know the truth: we have to be able to apply the truth, we have to use it to engage with the world in which we live. And perhaps of even greater importance is the need to carry out such discussions in a manner showing honor and respect to our brothers and sisters who hold opposing viewpoints. Elections come and elections go, but our relationships with each other stretch into eternity.
Is it possible to vote perfectly pro-life? Many among us have reached a degree of certainty on this matter that others have not. Informed by this certainty, some of us have determined that they cannot vote for a candidate who is avowedly pro-choice. Their reasons for coming to such a conclusion are biblically informed and carefully thought out. Some of these persons are our Elders, which adds significant weight to their views. Others among us have no such certainty. As one of the uncertain, I want to articulate the reasons for my uncertainty and why I can in good conscience vote for a pro-choice Democrat.
My intention is also to address the lengthy comment posted by Bob Greydanus on The Black Dwarf. While I appreciate his nod to my pro-life credibility, I found much of what he said, particularly in his second paragraph, to be very troubling. In speaking about those of us who will likely vote Democratic and about Obama himself, he is harsh and judgmental at best; at worst, he is bearing false witness. He has left no room for the possibility that a Christian may in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate; who indeed may compelled to do so by the demands of his or her conscience. Buried in his invective and occasional factual errors – for example, Nat Hentoff has condemned Obama’s position on abortion, but has not explicitly condemned him as a candidate, at least not in any of his columns written in the past six months – are a few comparatively reasonable arguments, which deserve to be addressed. I find these arguments to be typical of what happens when folks make abortion the only issue on which they base their political decisions. Like I said in my initial comment on the Black Dwarf, single-issue politics makes for bizarre, and in my opinion, ultimately flawed political decisions.
By way of full disclosure: I am a Democrat and the child of Democrats. I find nearly everything that McCain stands for, with the exception of his views on abortion and gay marriage, to be repugnant to my understanding of the role of government. I have never understood the attraction that political conservatism has for orthodox Christians. While many Christian conservatives can provide a reasonable argument for their views based on political and economic theory, whenever I have asked them for biblical support, I have received extraordinarily weak responses: a proof-text here and a proof-text there, with no overarching biblical framework on which to hang the viewpoint. On the other hand, the relatively few politically liberal and centrist orthodox Christians have done a far better job of coming up with such a framework. Even I, a person with no formal theological training to speak of (pretty much everything that I know I picked up on my own), can articulate a biblical basis for my views based on overarching themes of scripture.
The most cursory reading of the Old Testament reveals that in most cases, God poured forth punitive judgments upon Israel for two reasons: Idolatry (the primary reason) and failure to care for the poor (the secondary reason). Almost all other sins took a distant third place in comparison to these two. With regard to the care of the poor, the scriptures consistently address the plight of strangers (homeless persons), widows (single mothers), the fatherless (primarily orphans, but also children of single mothers), and captives (either imprisoned or enslaved). The teachings in the New Testament confirm the teachings of the Old. When I consider the governmental policies of late 20th – early 21st century American conservatives toward these groups, I fear for our nation, because I see things that nearly guarantee God’s punitive action toward us.
Whoever ends up leading this country will have to make life and death decisions. Some of these decisions will be directly life and death (like granting clemency to someone who is about to be executed), while others will be less immediate but still clearly “mortal” decisions: whether or not to go to war, support or lack thereof for abortion-on-demand. A candidate’s position on such issues is usually pretty clear and should be a major consideration when we step into the voting booth. But there is a huge set of decisions on other issues: far less obvious, less clear, but potentially having far greater impact on life and death matters. I think that among these are policy decisions on economic issues. Consider this: other than the fairly well-off, women who choose to have abortions are likely to do so as much out of economic desperation as anything else. Economic policies that favor the wealthy are supposed to result in redistribution of wealth by providing additional resources for investment and concomitant job creation. But such policies fail to account for the greed of the rich and actually encourage the hoarding of wealth. The result of these policies is that the proportion of poor people increases, fewer resources are available to them, and many poor women end up killing their babies out of economic desperation. Some, even though they desire to keep their babies are unable to do so: because of poor nutrition or prenatal care, they miscarry or deliver prematurely. Others may succeed in bearing the child to term, but again, inadequate pre- and postnatal care will likely cause the child to have a range of health problems leading to increased infant mortality. Some mothers may abuse and even kill their infants. Economic policies that favor the poor will reduce such infanticide simply by ensuring that more resources are available to the poor.
Health and other social policies will also have a profound impact on the ability of the poor woman to successfully bear and raise her children. Government-subsidized health care for the poor – including pre- and postnatal care – would significantly decrease infant mortality. Subsidized child care would result in increased the employability of the mother, leading to increased income resulting in improved quality of life. Food subsidies would also have a profound impact on the ability of the poor to keep themselves in good health. I realize that much of this looks like socialism, but so it should: it is the responsibility of a just society to care for the needy. This is one of the most clearly stated biblical mandates in both the Old and New Testaments. All of these are policies that Republicans have historically opposed and Democrats have historically supported. McCain opposes such policies, and Obama supports them. Thus, it is my view that even with his support of the Freedom of Choice Act, Obama’s proposed policies are far more likely to be pro-life in effect than those of McCain.
I need to address one other matter that is a significant part of the debate: Appointment of Supreme Court justices. It is indeed likely that the next president will appoint one or two justices to the Court, and those justices may provide the votes to overturn or retain Roe v. Wade. I would be delighted to see Roe v. Wade overturned, but other important decisions not related to the abortion issue come before the Supreme Court. I have observed over the years that the justices who oppose abortion as a constitutional right also tend to favor many other items on the conservative agenda. They have made decisions that strengthen the power and privileges of the wealthy while weakening the rights of the poor. In particular, they have weakened the rights of prisoners in such a manner as to decrease the likelihood that justice will be served. I do not trust the typical conservative Supreme Court Justice to make wise decisions across the board. In my view, too much rides on the court to justify placing the abortion issue at the center. I know that it is popular among conservatives to support the strict constructionist approach to the Constitution, but I can’t take that view. The Constitution is not a Holy Spirit-inspired document, to be interpreted as if it were scripture. (Even if it were, we do not in fact interpret the Bible with a strict constructionist viewpoint. We look for the general principles and apply them as appropriate to the times in which we live.) The Constitution was written by men working with the best knowledge they had at the time. If we were to be truly strict in our view of constitutional law, then, for example, only white male landowners would be able to vote!
The above material addresses only the abortion issue. Because it is so significant, I have made an effort to make a case for voting Democratic based solely on this issue. But there’s more to making wise political decisions than just the single issue of abortion. I am concerned about environmental issues. I am concerned about the economy in general, not just in terms of how it affects the poor. I am concerned about how the exercise of power by the federal government affects the lives of individual citizens. I am concerned about our foreign policy. I am concerned about health care, education, and many other social policies. These are not trivial matters. The past eight years have seen a consistent decline in quality in pretty much all of these areas. I do not want to experiment with another conservative Republican in the hope that he’ll be different from the current occupant of the White House. And I find McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate deeply troubling. I think she would make an OK vice president, but the real possibility that she might become president (McCain is, after all, 74 years old) frightens me. We have had a less than intelligent president for the past eight years; I don’t want risk having another one for the next four. When I look at Obama, I see an intelligent man who has made a wise selection for his running mate. I see policy proposals, the overwhelming majority of which would be of tremendous benefit to our nation. And if he happens to hold one or two positions that I loathe, I can live with that for the sake of the goodness of everything else. As I have for decades, I will continue to pray for an end to abortion, and should Obama get elected, I plan to write him letters expressing my opposition to abortion, at least monthly, probably weekly.
In closing, I want to reiterate something I said at the outset. It is extremely important that we as Christians be able to talk about these and other complex and potentially divisive issues, because the actions that we take in response to the mandates of scripture will determine how effective we are as salt and light. But we need to do so in a manner that shows honor and respect to one another. The last command that Jesus gave to his disciples before his crucifixion was that they should love one another, and the last thing that he prayed for was our unity with one another. Regardless of who wins this election, on the Sunday after, we will gather together to worship, hear God’s word, and sit at the Lord’s Table. We will need to continue to love and serve one another regardless of who voted for whom, and we will need to minister God’s life to a broken world. Applying language like “Moloch worshiper” and “Esau” to one another is absolutely out of bounds and is an offense against the unity of the Body of Christ, as bad or worse than the sin (if it is a sin!) of voting for Obama. And what do we say to the lost when we use the language of hatred against one another? Such language does not facilitate the growth of the Kingdom in our midst.
November 1st, 2008 at 3:39 pm
in addition to Lon’s post moved here there are a few extra comments I am including:
I couldn’t figure out how to insert the following tidbit into an already lengthy post, so here it is: While researching this matter, I stumbled across the extremely pro-choice web site/blog RH Reality Check. Within it I found a series of posts on why the profoundly pro-choice folks are nervous about Obama. Read some of the blog posts listed here:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/tag/obama-abortion-quandary
It seems that neither side is completely satisfied with Obama’s position on this issue. While declaring his support for FOCA on the one hand, he has on the other hand declared his support for some limitations on late-term abortions. One of the things that I’ve learned over the years (part of being a librarian and a professional researcher, I suppose) is that nearly every source of information is biased one way or the other. Some folks have cited sources that sources that lead them to conclude that Obama would be the worst thing has ever happened to the pro-life cause, but I could cite sources (like the one above) that would support a contrary view.
November 1st, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Kevin Gann made this comment to Lon’s Post and we have moved it to this discussion:
A simple response will do:
“Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill the innocent. Then all the people shall say ‘Amen!’ ” (Deuteronomy 27:25) I know of no more innocent being, and more worthy of governmental protection, than the unborn.
November 1st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Lon responded to Kevin’s comment on his post -
Kevin, what you say is true, but you’re looking at the issue from only one perspective: the absolute injustice of aborting an innocent child. And I agree — prenatal infanticide is an abomination. But my contention is that it is possible to put into place a series of government policies that make such infanticide unnecessary, such that not only will women want to carry their babies to term, but they will actually be able to to do so. In my view, Obama’s policies are far more likely to do that. McCain’s policies may limit access to abortion, but I think that they will simultaneously increase its likelihood by the absence of a viable alternative.
November 1st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
This is the last comment made on Lon’s original post, moved here to be part of this conversation: (made by Kieran)
Thank you, Lon, for taking the time to write this blog on such an important, and controversial issue among Christians and our congregation. Respectful discussion of such issues is something that can potentially strengthen our unity as a body, and failure to do so can weaken it. And sadly, in my opinion, it already has weakened it.
The manner in which you speak on this issue is completely respectful of those who might see things differently. Personally, I couldn’t agree with your stance more. Abortion is a serious problem, as is our economy. Before we strike abortion, let’s make sure that we’re helping to feed the mothers.
Just as medicine prescribed from a doctor promises to make everything better, McCain’s stance on abortion taken at face value seems promising. But medicine only treats the symptoms of an illness, not the root cause. If we take our medicine but fail to change the way we nurture our bodies, our illness will surely continue to worsen. McCain is like the doctor who is trained well in medicine, but was never trained in nutrition and the like. Just as folk remedies prescribed from a naturopath seem like they’ll take a long time to make any difference, Obama’s pro-choice stance seems troubling while his economic policies favor the poor- the very people Christ calls us to serve.
Let’s treat the illness at its root here. Economic policies absolutely affect the rates of abortion. So I think that’s where we should start.
And lastly, just as you said, Lon, “single-issue politics makes for bizarre, and in my opinion, ultimately flawed political decisions.” One should not base their decision on one issue, even if it is as big of an issue as abortion.
November 1st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I’m afraid I’m one of those undecided voters the media keeps harping about.
I’m also a product of the early 70s. I’ve been remembering the election of Richard Nixon in 1972. He won by a landslide; his opponent won only in 2 areas: Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Later as scandal of Watergate unfolded,three bumper stickers began to appear: “Don’t blame me. I’m from Massachusetts.” “Don’t blame me. I’m from D.C.” and “Don’t blame me. I voted for McGovern.”
Remembering this, I began thinking yesterday of how I would respond if the next president and Congress enacted legislation and policies I found repugnant. In a worst case scenario, what would I think if the economy was driven further into recession by policies which favored the wealthy, or if the environment was further damaged by rampant drilling. We are called by the Lord to care for the poor and be good stewards of the earth He gave us. Could I say I had done what I could to prevent it by not voting for him? (Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote for him.)
What would be my response if the next president and Congress enacted FOCA? We are called by the Lord to protect and care for the fatherless and the defenseless. Could I say I had done what I could to prevent it by not voting for him? (Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote for him.)
I still don’t know how I’ll end up voting, but this line of thinking is leading me into interesting territory. I recommend considering the question of how you would respond if the next president and Congress enacted legislation and policies you found repugnant, knowing you had voted for him.
November 1st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I was thinking about how in the era of slavery that many Christians supported the right to ‘own’ other people, and yet did not appear to be particularly troubled by what seems to modern people to be absolutely clear.
Is is that in our time we become de-sensitized to moral dilemmas that in other eras seem clear?
If we substitute ‘pro-slavery’ for ‘pro-choice’ does it change the argument? If we were to say that a candidate was ‘pro-slavery’ but also had policies that would decrease the number of slaves would that change the way we think about it? I recognize that as soon as I change the words in this way the argument immediately because more inflammatory, but is it a valid way to check my own callousness? When I substitute the words ‘pro-slavery’ for ‘pro-choice’ have I actually clouded the issue or sharpened it?
I wonder about the things that I have become desensitized to because of how language is used to alter the way we think about various moral dilemmas.
The control of what words are used to describe a issue have a great deal to do with how the matter is perceived by those considering it. Christians, at the moment stand outside that ‘power’ looking in wondering how to even get a fair hearing on the concerns which bind their consciences. All of this, of course, makes political discourse difficult, if not impossible.
In my view we also have an increasingly more biblically illiterate church constituency who cannot effectively think from a consistently Christian world and life view. Some of that ignorance has led Christians to become chummy with right wing political agendas as well as the reverse. It is an age old temptation - the political solution.
We as voters have very little voice on the national scene. If we live in a state with a majority of one party or another we may be completely drowned out. The political process in the U.S. is fraught with corruption because the campaign season is way too long, and special interest money has way to much influence over who even makes it through the ‘vetting’ process.
I’ve heard it said that all real political power is local. I think that might be true. In my neighborhood, in my community, in my township I actually can have influence. I used to be the block president of my neighborhood group. It was amazing to me how easily it was possible to actually effect the politics of my town. Perhaps we as brothers and sisters seeking godly influence in our world ought to direct our energies here.
All this being said - We are required to return this debate, in so far as Lamb of God is concerned back to Scripture. Clear and careful exegesis of the Word of God is necessary to be able to think properly about these things. Our reasoning on matters so important must be rooted in not just a verse here or there, but in a fully Biblical world and life view.
May God direct us in sincere humility to a willingness to surrender every thought until it is obedient to Jesus.
November 1st, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Wow. This has been some debate. I would like to weigh in on something Kieran said.
“Respectful discussion of such issues is something that can potentially strengthen our unity as a body, and failure to do so can weaken it. And sadly, in my opinion, it already has weakened it.”
I am not a Elder , I not part of the LOG In crowd ( not sure if I ever was) but I have been with LOG for a long time. We were founded from a group of Christians looking for a church centered on Christ and respectful that there are certain issues we can differ on and still respect each other as brothers and sisters. I don’t know what has happened to our body lately but we seem to be dangerously drifting away from that core value.
I think there is one issue we all can agree upon no matter what side politically you stand on we all agree, abortion is wrong. Far more it is one of the greatest sins in our country today. However do we not have the right to disagree on how best to end this blight on our country? Since when does the word Republican and Christian mean the same thing?
A blog site is a very appropriate site to dialog and express your opinion. I am deeply respectful of both Scott and Lon and find there arguments extremely well thought out. I find myself well served in what I read in helping to make a very critical decision that I an all American must make this Tuesday.
My daughter Amanda is voting in her first election this year. She wrote me quite confused as to how she should vote. She found many of the arguments Obama makes to be consistent to her feels but found herself unable to reconcile or get past his stance on abortion. My advise to her was not one of pushing my opinion but rather one of stating with prayer, then reading though not the spin but the words of each candidate on the issues. Above all I told her to embrace the freedom she has as a American citizen to vote for whoever she wishes without fear of retaliation or condemnation.
Some may feel I was wrong in my advise. Some may not see me as a not being the good Christian father and advising her to vote for McCain because of his pro life stance. I disagree.
Many of you forget that our predecessors came to this country to find the freedoms they were denied. It is the right of every American to worship and to vote the way they want.. We don’t have to agree with each other politically but for the sake of the one we all call Lord and Savior can we stop attacking each other and go back to loving each other as brother and sisters in Christ ?
November 1st, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I don’t expect to change opinions on a blog, but I can’t remain silent.
The premise that it’s merely an economic issue is fallacious - it is an issue of the blindness of the human heart. It is selfishness on the mothers/fathers and greed on the practitioners. Mother Theresa (who worked with the poorest of the poor, more than our country even knows) said at the National Prayer Breakfast with Bill Clinton in 1994, “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.”
Government will never put policies in place to make all women want to carry to term when a mothers or fathers view their children as an inconvenience. These are issues of the heart. Where in any form of justice is it acceptable to inflict punishment on another for one’s own choices? When will people take responsibility for their own choices?
We found out when Gayle gave birth at 46 that the age group that leads in giving birth to Down’s babies are 35 and younger, since older women screen more extensively, and when positive, abort. Is this merely economic or convenience? They don’t want to be saddled with a special needs person.
An unbelieving doctor virtually prophesied to us when we found out we were pregnant with Katie at our age, when he said, “I have never in 20 years seen a woman regret carrying a baby to term; I have seen many women abort the pregnancy and regret it.”
Let’s face it - abortion is used as birth control virtually all of the time. I understand how the world would like this issues to go away, and how it suppresses the truth despite clear evidence to the contrary. But with the technology to see so clearly in to the womb these days, and even the greater clarity of God’s word, I can’t believe Christians can even debate this issue.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Scott,
Let me add some historical background to your suggestion that we consider the issue of slavery.
It is easy for us to gloss over the difficulties of deciding how to act correctly now as we look back on our brothers and sisters over a hundred years ago wrestling with the issue. I’m very familiar with the Quaker position on the issue; I used to teach classes on Quaker history.
The Friends (Quakers) have as one of their core beliefs the equality of all people. That is why they addressed people as thee and thou in a time when using the pronoun “you” meant that they were a higher class. The Quakers were addressing everyone as their brothers and sisters in the Lord, and thus they used the pronouns that meant they were speaking to them as members of their family. Today we know them as people who wore hats, but that was because they did not doff them to those of a higher class–again, because they were treating everyone as being of equal and immense honor. They were also among the first to found schools for girls, offering them the chance to have an education equivalent to what boys got. All this is to say that their stand on slavery came out of a tradition, and it was one that they had suffered for and been jailed already for taking.
In the New World, the Friends started their own colony of Pennsylvania to live out their ideals. They also settled in southern New Jersey. They quickly found themselves faced with dilemmas raised by the heinous practice of slavery in other colonies. In fact, they led the first demonstration against slavery (n Germantown in 1688).
Some Quakers found themselves in the odd position of owning slaves (in one case I know of the slaves were a wedding gift), and they struggled to know what the right thing was to do. If they freed their slaves and let them go, those former slaves would be grabbed by someone else and made slaves again so the Quakers didn’t feel like that was a good solution. The Quakers also couldn’t return those slaves to Africa because the slaves’ former homes had been destroyed in wars (that was how they had been caught initially). Some Quakers decided it was better to keep the slaves and treat them humanely rather than free them.
The Friends also worked to end the practice. A New Jersey tailor named John Woolman travelled widely in the South staying on plantations and trying to convince the slaveholders that they were doing damage to their own souls by owning other human beings. (His journal makes interesting reading.)
What this history should tell us is the issue of slavery was not something that was easy to see what the right thing to do–even for people who were clearly committed to fighting the practice. It took almost 200 years for the rest of the country to come to the same conclusion the Quakers had come to from the very beginning. They were active in abolitionist work all along even though they differed on even among themselves on the details of how to achieve abolition.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:57 pm
in crowd bob ???
November 1st, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Kevin you are right on. Lon I love you my brother but I disagree. Obama’s refusal to support the born alive bill is very disturbing. There are really three groups. Pro life, pro choice and pro death. If you can’t vote for a born alive bill can you really call yourself pro choice? I think pro death is a more accurate title. Also a few people seem to equate capitalism with greed. Don’t blame the capitalism. It is capitalism with out morals and values that creates greed. That is why we must evangelize if we are to change anything. Greed is a basic sin that knows no political boundaries.
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 am
I appreciate the concerns voiced by Kevin and Vinny. They see the issue as something that is so black and white, is of such overarching importance, that it outweighs everything else. I suspect that many others in Lamb have the same understanding. I accept this and acknowledge the validity of their view of the matter.
I think that I need to state that I’m not trying to convince anyone that my view is right and other views are wrong. All that I am trying to do is articulate another view of the matter. It is not in any way an authoritative statement on the subject. So far as I know, most, possibly all of the Elders take the straight black and white view of the matter, and their views should loom larger than mine in the minds of anyone struggling with this issue. I am not an Elder and have no desire to be one, since my pastoral gifts are minimal. If my gifts lie anywhere, it is the area of teaching. But I would never teach anything that would in any way diminish the authority of the Elders. If I become aware that anything that I have said is doing so, I will retract it and walk away from this conversation.
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:39 am
Some thoughts on mothers and babies…
“I realize that much of this looks like socialism, but so it should: it is the responsibility of a just society to care for the needy.”
True, Lon, true. Socialism is NOT Marxism or Communism (both atheistic). MOST of the industrialized world provides, for example, mandatory paid maternity leave for ALL women. As a birth advocate and paraprofessional, it would behoove us to know that the US ranks below 25th (and every year we fall!) in maternal and infant mortality. We are behind eastern europe on this one. So if it’s the lives of infants you care about, the issue IS complex. I find our healthcare system (as one who has worked within it in this field and studied it for the last 5 years) to be abusive to women. Yes, that’s right. Abusive. Women lose their children for economic and other conveniences.
It’s also been my experience through working in the field that women are put in a complete bind by their prenatal tests–we know for a fact that many of these tests produce false positive results, especially early screenings. I personally refused *all* diagnostic tests when I was pregnant because I did not want to give my doctor or midwife the currency to even initiate the conversation with me (thank God my midwife is staunchly pro-life). I agree with Kevin that it’s not only economic factors that cause women to abort. Fertility treatments, “genetic counseling” (i.e. eugenics) and other “engineering” experiments in our parenting cause us to set up a dualism between mother and baby–that one is the enemy of the other. It’s not just with abortion–it infects our entire maternity culture in the US. To say that abortion occurs for one or another reason belies the very tangled web of sin, ignorance, manipulation and deceitful-heartedness of the human race. I do think all we can do is make the best, most educated decision on the matter that we can, and say, “Lord, you KNOW that my desire is to please you with my vote, and I trust you will cover whatever wrong I may commit unknowingly.”
By the by, we DO need to keep in mind, as Lon said, that the Constitution is NOT a holy document–as I understand, it does not mention God at all and was unique at its time for that reason. It is a flawed, human document and we would do well to remember that fact. We need to keep the lines straight. We are to be orthodox Christians first. I have a fundamental disagreement with the way we even do representative government! I can NOT believe that this is honoring to God. I would support a complete restructuring of our government. I do not believe it is a true democracy (in fact, I know it’s not–I learned that in school, but I can’t remember the term for what our country is).
We also need to remember that our country was founded with blood on her hands–that of the Native Americans we brutally displaced and all but wiped out; and the slaves we held and killed in African wars, the trade passage, beatings, lynchings, etc. And that’s just when the country was new.
Kevin, the debate is not at all on whether abortion is right or wrong; we all agree it is an abomination–it’s about this: how do we effect REAL change? And on that we either agree, disagree, or find ourselves in the boat with people like me and Katie who have no IDEA what we are going to do Tuesday (that is, if my darn registration card ever shows up!!!)
When we see Lon, or Todd, or others up at the altar on Sunday praying for an end to abortion, let’s trust each other that we really mean it. I believe God has a righteous judgment against America and we need to pray he holds back his hand. We just need REAL solutions to a REAL problem.
LORD, HELP US.
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 am
PS–I do not have a problem with the principle of representative government per se, but with the practice of it in our model. I’m sure it worked fine when Philadelphia was a 2-week journey for folks. But I live in the 21st century–why should I be penalized for living in a “blue state” or a “red state”, and why do we vote on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of the month? The whole foundation has a flaw. What do you do when your foundation has a weak point? You jack up the house and rebuild it. No government is perfect, but we should seek to perfect our governments.
November 2nd, 2008 at 7:04 am
I agree with Vesper’s observation that the dilemma here is not a debate about whether abortion is wrong or not (although there may in fact be some Christians who actually are ‘pro-choice’), I don’t think that is the debate here.
I think that the struggle here is with the question of whether the sanctity of life trumps every other consideration. And this is a very difficult razors edge. Does the Republican Party have something more than an ideological commitment to the sanctity of life? I think that there is a pretty broad continuum of support for this among republicans (Giuliani is staunchly pro-choice for example).
I have always admired Catholics on the consistency of their positions on moral issues. They have tended to be on the side of the working man (typically pro-labor), consistently oriented toward peace, anti death penalty and strongly pro-life. They seem to be more nuanced in the way that they approach these matters than Evangelicals.
If you look at the political activism of Christians (which in its modern form is very tied to Roe v. Wade), we have about a 35 year history. It has tended to be oriented toward only a few issues - abortion, school choice, and traditional marriage between a man and a woman. What we don’t have is a more completely conceptualized political world view informed by Scripture. How should Christians think about things like taxes, government regulations, jurisprudence, business, health care, education, and so on. Now I realize that it isn’t likely that we can agree on every single one of these issues - but, if we begin with the agreement that we want to the Word of God to be our compass then at least we have a starting point to work together.
November 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Hello, all -
First, I want to express my gratitude that I am part of a community who is even willing to have this conversation. Many of the churches (and secular groups, for that matter) that I’ve been a part of over the years simply have no willingness to engage each other on this level - because it’s HARD.
That said, it’s worth bringing up the topic of unity. What does that look like, given a topic as difficult as this? I’ve long heard Lamb of God say as a matter of course that we are willing to break bread together despite our ideological differences on non-central matters - but this is a doozy.
In my time at Lamb, I’ve never seen an issue come up that was so passionately- and broadly-felt among the entire congregation. (And with good reason - there are innocent human lives at stake, and as Christians it is our duty to uphold life.)
In fact, I overheard two telling comments at the community dinner tonight that have been echoed directly or indirectly in this blog conversation: 1) “I don’t understand how this debate can even be *happening* among believers,” and 2) “I’m concerned because the church is really divided over this.” Both questions are important to us in this season, and both deserve a response.
I have lots of deeply-felt personal things to say about the issues surrounding abortion and politics, which I may reserve for another post. Particularly, I’m concerned with the issue of the role that single-issue voting plays in a Christian’s life (I agree with Lon that absolute single-issue voting leads to bizarre politics), and I may have more to say about that later. But right now I would like to make a few practical observations about the conversation so far that may help us to understand each other, to be unified in love (if not in ideology) amidst this difficult discussion - and, ultimately, to come to a place of confidence before the throne of God when we each enter the voting booth on Tuesday.
DEFINING THE BATTLEGROUND CLEARLY
Before we continue, I think it’s important to frame this debate, to clarify what the centrepiece of our disagreement IS, and what it IS NOT. Because this issue is so emotionally heated, some of the arguments written here are blurring those lines at times, creating assumptions that are not true, and making it harder for us to hear each other’s perspective.
• This is NOT a debate (ultimately) about Obama vs. McCain, Republican vs. Democrat, liberal vs. conservative…
We all have many opinions on the broad strokes of politics, and we at Lamb are at this point in our history pretty comfortable agreeing-to-disagree on such. While political/economic/etc. arguments for one candidate over the other are certainly appropriate to this conversation and this season, they are largely incidental to this question about abortion that has inspired so much heartfelt emotion and soul-searching.
Put another way, no one who is still ‘undecided’ is at this point going to change their minds because of a fresh perspective on health care reform or immigration or gun control - and anyhow, these aren’t the issues that are stirring talk of ‘division in the church’.
Much more tricky, but much more important…
• This is NOT a debate pitting “pro-life” vs. “pro-choice”.
Bob K touched on this: In all the comments I have read, I hear a common heart among us, which is grief at the terrible loss of life and (worse?) the deadening of conscience in our society regarding abortion. Every writer here agrees with the anonymous comment above that “the Lord CARES about [these] issues. He weeps. He mourns. And He is righteously angry.”
Is this question (about whether abortion is a grievous wrong) a matter for discussion among believers? Of course not! On this, the Bible is clear. If any among our membership are struggling with the issue of whether or not abortion is wrong, or struggling with whether or not to have an abortion, I would expect the church leadership to offer absolute (though loving) guidance on the issue. As a Christian, turning a blind eye to the travesty of abortion is simply not tenable - at least, not without a searing of conscience in that area.
We must be cautious, though, not to confuse a “pro-choice” position with the position of our brothers and sisters (including myself, although I would defend this position even if I fully supported McCain) who are in a quandary about next Tuesday’s vote. The Obama-leaning Lamb-folks I’ve spoken to are in genuine, heart-felt turmoil about this issue, because they are weighing the perceived good of an Obama presidency (in other areas) against the perceived good of a McCain presidency (in this area). That internal struggle is not the mark of a seared conscience or an apathetic heart — it’s the mark of a thinking person who desires to see Christ glorified in this election, and for whom there is no easy answer at hand.
(As a side note, I would be much more critical if this was merely a tension of political ideology vs. morality (”I always vote Blue, and I value my Democrat roots over the lives of the unborn”) - but for Lon, myself, and others, our position arises from the weighing of two sides of a moral scale: All things considered, which candidate do I believe will bring more of Christ’s Kingdom to bear in the world? It’s easy to paint in stark blacks and whites, but neither candidate will bring about ‘only good’ or ‘only evil’. Depending on the issue at hand, Bob Greydanis’ “his leaven is so evil that no Christian should support him” could be leveled at either candidate. )
It is one thing to speak passionately against the abomination that is abortion, or to firmly-but-lovingly caution your brother that you fear he is being taken captive by worldly thinking in these matters. The former is essential; the latter appropriate. But to assume outright that a person is misled if they should factor *any* issue but abortion into their vote is a misdirection of appropriate passion. The extreme case of this shows up in arguments like Bob Greydanis’ - which reduces all those who are thoughtfully, prayerfully wrestling with this question to (literal!) servants of the devil who are unwittingly playing directly into the Enemy’s plan. Now - because I know and love Bob, and because I’ve debated with Bob, I know that he’s actually very respectful of those he disagrees with, and has absolutely zero intention of causing strife or personal division.
BUT - I bring this up because of a comment (made by someone I deeply respect) at the dinner last night. This person referred to Bob’s essay as “Bar-none, the best argument I’ve read YET” on this topic. This troubles me, because Bob’s post reads directly like a script from partisan talk radio - which exults more in stirring up controversy and mocking the opponent than it does in reason or working toward a mutual resolve of any issue. Amidst all the rhetoric, there were two commendable aspects to Bob’s post: 1) a few good, logical points worth considering - about Hentoff’s take on Obama, and about the weight of consequence if FOCA is enacted, and 2) fiery, well-placed passion for the defense of the innocent and hatred of the evil that is embodied in abortion. I can only assume that my “Bar-none!” friend wasn’t actually singing the praises of Bob’s logic, but instead his boldness and his passion. And in this perhaps he is right - we NEED more fiery voices that speak in unequivocal terms about the evils of abortion and where our nation is headed on this issue…
…but arguments that use the force of that passion to flatten the Christian’s political landscape to simple black and white lose their power to move us forward as a body.
• This IS a debate that should lead us toward greater sensitivity to the Spirit of the Lord regarding abortion, and should lead us toward greater respect and love for one another, even in the face of our disagreement about how to vote.
Come January 20th, we will all be bound together under the leadership of the President we’ve chosen. Some of us will be thrilled; some will have reservations; some will disapprove entirely. BUT at that point we will still be dealing with the same questions we are today regarding abortion. Barring some strange miracle, Roe v. Wade will still be in effect, the hearts of our broader nation’s populace will still be dull to this issue, we as believers will still be called by the Holy Lord of All Creation to be salt and light and stand up in defense of the defenseless - and we will need to work toward those goals together in perfect unity, such that the world around looks at us and sees loving service to each other as the hallmark of our relationships.
In the meantime, THERE IS A DIRE NEED for the passionate pleas exhibited by the prophets among us, by those whose hearts have been quickened by the Lord in recent months to this issue. WE ALSO NEED continued dialogue (and leadership) about how we as a church can actively stand together on this issue - Tuesday’s vote is very significant in the abortion-rights landscape, but there need to be other ways we carry the issue past the voting booths next week. More than all of that, however - WE NEED TO CRY OUT TO THE LORD. Obviously, the hearts of the President and our Justices and the people of this land will not change unless God moves to transform them.
Okay, I’m tired.
Peace of Christ to you all,
Jason
November 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
i wrote this really long thing and then realized i dont really know what im talking about.
just two quick thoughts.
if the Bible was written for believers, for the church, then why are we putting the responsibility of helping the poor on a mostly God-less, corrupt government? shouldnt the church be doing this? i think so.
and
3700 babies are aborted a day. voiceless, faceless, nameless PEOPLE that God had plans for.
its all such a mess. Jesus help us.
November 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
oh by the way- when i said 3700 abortions a day, thats just america.
November 2nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Katie reminded me that our government is a Republic, and that Switzerland is the only real Democracy in which the public votes on issues, not just candidates. Thanks. :^)
A very interesting op-ed in the Times about voting: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/opinion/02cowan.html
BTW Ben’s voter registration card came yesterday. Still waiting for mine…:^)
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
So, I’ve been following this debate over the weekend, and, like Jason, I really appreciate the passion involved and what is clearly the wish of all involved to vote in a way that brings honour to God. I am concerned, however, by what I see as a sort of dualism to the discussion.
This is perhaps an unfair accusation, as many of you remain solidly undecided, and some have voiced frustration with the flaws of the American system. But even so, there remains a definate feeling of a divide between two options.
Some of you may have heard me joking that I was going to sell my vote to some of my Irish friends, because I certainly had no idea who to vote for. My indecision is a reflection of both sides of this argument. I found that I couldn’t support McCain in good conscience for the reasons set forth by my father, but similarly, I couldn’t support Obama in good conscience for the reasons set forth by Scott, Kevin and Vinny, among others.
Because I had to send in my absentee ballot last week, I had to come to a decision before those of you still struggling over the issue. After a great deal of prayer and discussion, I remained unable to reconcile myself to either candidate. Rest assured, I didn’t sell my vote, but I’m pretty sure I still managed to commit a federal crime. Understand, however, that I’d prefer to commit a federal crime than to sin against God by my vote.
To explain some of my thinking on the matter: Pastor Scott, just before the start of his sabbatical, mentioned a desire for a genuine third party in American politics that would approach issues from a truly Christian perspective. I had been thinking along the same lines for much of the summer. I truly believe that America’s two-party system is currently doing more harm than good, and should be disrupted.
At the moment, though, I don’t view a vote for the alternate parties to be worth much. If I’m going to make a statement of no confidence in our government, a throw-away vote doesn’t seem to be much of a statement. This is why I joked that I was going to sell my vote. I repeat, I didn’t sell my vote. Instead, I gave it away. Now, in retrospect, I realise that a much more obvious way to register my discontent would have been, say, to send in my ballot completely blank. Perhaps next time (that is, if I don’t get arrested and fined - 6years and 30 grand).
I know I speak with the brashness of youth and that I’m in no position to advise my elders on how to think about things, especially after having rambled on about how I decided to break the law. Even so, I can only hope and pray that my elders will see in each others’ decisions the desire to serve God.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
The election is over and America believes its savior has arrived. America, the world and Obama have begun their honeymoon. But by definition, believers are counter-cultural, so it makes me think if the entire world embraces you, something must be fishy. As Thomas Watson, my favorite Puritan said, “The world is like Judas; it never kisses you except to betray you.” You all have your opinions, and you know I have mine. You all are eloquent, thoughtful and reflective. I’m a bit of a pithy blogger (as you know I’m usually stretched for time). I still see the matter very simply - mankind by nature suppresses the truth in unrighteousness as Romans says. Take this answer of Obama to when life begins: Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception? A: “This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.” Good political answer - a lot of words with no commitment. The next leader of the free world, a trained lawyer and savvy politician, does not presume to know the answer when life begins. Is the answer so esoteric? Does anyone at Lamb know? I would dare say I presume to know. What is obvious (baby in womb is alive) is obfuscated (I’m not sure exactly when life begins, etc.) What is evil is defended as a fundamental right invisibly somewhere embedded in the Constitution. How can you lead when you don’t know such a simple answer? I know many of us are troubled by this and other issues that affect us. In closing, brothers and sisters, we all just yearn for a better kingdom with Jesus’ perfect, loving and truthful rule: Heb 11:16: Instead, they were longing for a better country, that is, a heavenly one. That is why God is not ashamed to be called their God, because he has prepared a city for them. Someday we’ll be there and we’ll see how God will right all these wrongs. Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us. No doubt He knows when life begins - I can follow that kind of leader.
November 6th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
From one Amy (B) to another Amy (P) you make a superb point and do know what you are talking about…..
“just two quick thoughts.
if the Bible was written for believers, for the church, then why are we putting the responsibility of helping the poor on a mostly God-less, corrupt government?”
On the abortion issue, just wait until one of the old Supreme Court judges, such as Ruth Bader-Ginsberg decides to retire….I hope our new leader is wise in his appointment.