I find myself in a quandary about politics. I have strong views about politics, but I am also committed to not letting politics become the focus of the church. Our job is to proclaim the gospel, not to achieve political power. And I try not to make political views a requirement of fellowship in the church.
But I don’t understand how Christians can vote for candidates who support abortion. I just don’t get it. I am hoping that some of you Democrats (or liberal Republicans or whatever) out there will help me understand your political thought-process.
I made a commitment over 30 years ago, after studying Schaeffer and Koop’s series, “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” I decided that if someone thought that it was okay to kill a baby in its mother’s womb, he or she would not get my vote. For many years in Iowa I left the slot for Congress blank or wasted my vote on a candidate who did not have a ghost of a chance at election. Our congressman, Jim Leach, was a liberal, pro-abortion Republican and I couldn’t, by my conviction, vote for him.
I’m not saying you have to share my conviction, but that is mine. There are many issues of importance, but the pool of candidates I will support is limited to those who oppose the killing of a baby in its mother’s womb.
I understand:
- Many politicians SAY they are pro-life but do nothing about the subject. There is a lot of pro-life hypocrisy out there.
- There are other issues that matter. Abortion is not the only issue on the ballot. I understand that.
- Someone can be pro-life and still be a disastrous politician. I’m not saying all pro-lifers are good.
Having said that, I would like to ask a question of those left-leaners who lurk around here.
How can you vote for people who support abortion?
I would like to hear a reasoned explanation of the thought-process that goes into voting for someone who supports abortion.
This question has the potential to be incendiary. So, here are the ground rules:
I’m not interested in anyone “piling on”, detailing the horrors of abortion, questioning the salvation of those who vote Democrat, or in any other way excoriating those on the other political side. I will, when I get the chance, delete any of that. If you are antiabortion, good for you. But I am asking for a genuine explanation of the process of thought that allows a Bible-believing Christian to support abortion. If you feel the need for anonymity, I will understand.
I would genuinely like to understand the process of thought here. It is something I don’t understand but I’d like a chance to hear the other side.
- Do you think abortion is not a biblical issue?
- That we have made it a bigger deal than it should be?
- Do you think that it is one issue among many?
Help me understand.
Again, no piling on or derogatory comments. And if this gets out of hand, I will just delete this and pretend I never even asked the question.
Well, the answer’s simple really….oh wait
Again, no piling on or derogatory comments. And if this gets out of hand, I will just delete this and pretend I never even asked the question.
Well, since I didn’t and don’t plan on showing an ounce of respect to someone who can claim to be a Christian but vote for a pro-abortion candidate, I’ll abstain, out of respect for your mental health sabatical.
“Can Someone Explain Pro-Abortion, Christian Voting?”
It can be “explained”. The reality is that it cannot be “justified” within the parameters of basic orthodox Christianity.
I’m a Christian who votes as close to the Biblical view as possible so I may not be able to be for sure why “Christians” vote for abortion advocates.
But I have wondered if it isn’t because of pride in their political party & to change sides in a vote would be too much for them.
Is it because they haven’t been transformed by the Word? Do they read God’s Word & do it?
Maybe they separate their walk with God fro
reality.
It has not seemed to help the pro lifers like myself to have only been involved in one party. Our votes are taken advantage of.
thank you!
Something concerning this thinking…look at presidential Exec orders concerning the funding of abortion in other countries. You can track it historically that conservative presidents revoke them but liberal presidents put them in play.
Dave,
I can’t think of an issue more important than life, therefore I vote for the person or party that I believe will best protect innocent, unborn lives.
However, I know genuine, authentic, Kingdom-Citizens(followers of Christ), who do not believe in abortion, but will vote for the candidate that they believe will best protect Social Security, meet the needs of the poor, defend and promote social justice including equal rights for women, direct federal dollars toward their profession, or advance any number of other issues that they believe are also moral issues.
I choose not to judge these people for their priorities or voting patterns. I simply choose a different path. My friend, C. B. Scott is totally wrong when he says, “it cannot be ‘justified’ within the parameters of basic orthodox Christianity.”
No Dwight, I am not wrong.
It is never biblically justifiable to condone the murder of children. It is never biblically justifiable to support those who condone the murder of children.
Let me also say it is never biblically justifiable to condone the murder of an abortionist.
To condone or to support those who do condone the murder of that which is created in the image of God is never within the parameters of basic orthodox Christianity.
C.B.
You’re answering questions and addressing issues that I never raised.
I never argued that it is “biblically justifiable to condone the murder of children” or “to support those who condone the murder of children.”
You missed the point. When a voter vote for the candidate protect their that they believe will best protect their social security check, they see themselves voting for what’s in the best interest of their life. They don’t see themselves as voting in favor of a pro-choice agenda.
Is it your position CB that a believer should only vote for the candidate that is pro-life no matter what?
Dwight,
I addressed your one comment in reference to my statement.
You stated, “My friend, C. B. Scott is totally wrong when he says, “it cannot be ‘justified’ within the parameters of basic orthodox Christianity.”
It was to that statement I responded and to that statement alone. I did not miss the point. I only addressed “one” point of your comment.
But, in fairness, I will address your whole comment.
You stated, “I know genuine, authentic, Kingdom-Citizens(followers of Christ), who do not believe in abortion, but will vote for the candidate that they believe will best protect Social Security, meet the needs of the poor, defend and promote social justice including equal rights for women, direct federal dollars toward their profession, or advance any number of other issues that they believe are also moral issues.”
Dwight, I also know true followers of Christ who do the same. Yet, it is my contention that they are outside the parameters of basic orthodox Christianity when they do so.
Dwight, it is my position that we, who follow Christ should vote only for those who stand in diametric opposition to abortion. My brother, how can we trust a man or woman who would condone the murder of a baby?
CB,
You and I are on the same page to a great degree. Here’s where we differ: I don’t believe that believers are “outside the parameters of basic orthodox Christianity” when they vote their moral convictions because they prioritized issues of morality different from mine, which led them to a different voting decision.
Dwight,
I understand that and I know your position on abortion is basically like mine.
Yet, it is my hard conviction that able men should always stand against the murder of babies in the womb and against the abuse or murder of men, women and children beyond the womb.
Jesus said for me to love the Lord with all my being and to love my neighbor as myself. For me, Dwight, those unborn babies are my neighbors just as are you. Therefore, their safety and well being, as is yours, is of a primary moral issue to me.
Thusly, I must, by conviction, based upon the reading of Scripture contend it is outside the parameters of basic orthodox Christianity to condone abortion directly or indirectly by voting for those who approve of it as a way of life.
CB,
I am going to have to attend to other responsibilities after this comment.
In response to your comment #10-last paragraph: That same argument could be made-at least in their judgement-for one who holds the position that it’s the government’s responsibility to feed the poor or protect equal rights for women with respect to equal pay etc.
To paraphrase you they would simply say, it is outside the parameters of basic orthodox Christianity to condone “not feeding the poor, or assisting the homeless, or protecting social security, or opposing affirmative action etc.” They would echo your argument to the “t”, just only change the topic to a subject matter that they also believe is biblically defensible and they feel just as strongly about.
Dwight,
Let me amplify this a little more if you will?
When I say that to support abortion is “beyond the parameters of basic orthodox Christianity”, I mean to support abortion on demand is not “biblically defensible.” (I am going to use the word you used -“defensible” to argue my position, in hopes of my position becoming more understandable.
You stated,“I know genuine, authentic, Kingdom-Citizens(followers of Christ), who do not believe in abortion, but will vote for the candidate that they believe will best protect Social Security, meet the needs of the poor, defend and promote social justice including equal rights for women, direct federal dollars toward their profession, or advance any number of other issues that they believe are also moral issues.”
Dwight, in that comment you reference (1) Protect Social Security. (2) Meet the needs of the poor (3) Defend and promote social justice (4) Recognize equal rights for women.
Dwight, it is my contention that each of those issues you referenced, can be defended within the “parameters of basic orthodox Christianity.” There is biblical foundation for each of those concerns. The debate would most probably be in the nature of how, who, when , why, etc. in relation to defending those issues.
The issue of abortion on demand is a different issue entirely. it is the apples and oranges argument, so to speak.
Dwight, I know you would agree that it is never biblical defensible to support abortion directly or indirectly by the political support of those who would advocate abortion on demand as being justifiable in human society.
Abortion on demand is simply outside the parameters of basic orthodox Christianity, because abortion on demand equates to the murder of children in the womb for the sake of convenience.
It is within the parameters of basic orthodox Christianity to debate the issues of priority such as those you named: (1) Protect Social Security. (2) Meet the needs of the poor (3) Defend and promote social justice (4) Recognize equal rights for women. There is a defensible, biblical foundation for those arguments.
Yet, it is never within the parameters of basic orthodox Christianity to attempt to promote a defensible, biblical foundation to argue for abortion on demand, for there is not one to be found in Scripture. Murder of children is not defensible among or for the children of God.
“However, I know genuine, authentic, Kingdom-Citizens(followers of Christ), who do not believe in abortion, but will vote for the candidate that they believe will best protect Social Security, meet the needs of the poor, defend and promote social justice including equal rights for women, direct federal dollars toward their profession, or advance any number of other issues that they believe are also moral issues.”
It concerns me that some of these are considered “moral issues” when I have all the equal rights I need except for within Christendom (smile) and thinking of these as moral issues can actually result in “immoral or unethical practices”. Do they really want their grandchildren hamstrung with huge debt of paying out social security that is untenable? How is it “moral” to leave them with such a huge burden? Do they not think of this when they vote?
What are we teaching people? That is the real concern? Are our churches preaching social justice? Do we really want to appeal to Caesar to take care of people for us? To be our middleman so our own hands do not grow weary or tired? We look to Caesar, we bow to Caesar. Are churches teaching in Thess where it says if one does not work they cannot eat? Obviously there are exceptions and we as the Body of Christ are to take care of our widows and orphans. Why do we think it is so important to appeal to Caesar? Why aren’t churches teaching truth?
Are these things so important as to ignore the fact that certain candidates will actually PROMOTE abortion? Even barbarism? This president was the point man for withholding medical care to born alive aborted babies when he was in the Ill legislature. Is a welfare check more important? Do “Christians” not care?
It is one thing to not address this topic as the supremes will never overturn Roe. But, It is quite another thing to actively seek to protect barbarism.
I wish some woman like Lydia would run for president. I would vote for her. 🙂
Lydia
I believe that you have put your finger on perhaps the major difference between those who would wear the label Southern Baptist, and those who would wear the label, National Baptist. Life experiences and interpreting or prioritizing Scriptures differently has led to different voting patterns on these issues. However, Herman Cain has the potential to change this forever. Because,I believe the real issue is trust. Historically, those who have worn the “L” label have treated minorities, women, and the disadvantaged–at least in their judgement–better than those who wear the “C” label.
“Historically, those who have worn the “L” label have treated minorities, women, and the disadvantaged–at least in their judgement–better than those who wear the “C” label”
How? By keeping them in bondage to a government bureaucrat? We now have laws protecting people with equal opportunity such as women and minorities. In some cases giving them special consideration over others. Especially in government jobs. I should know this…women were given more opportunity in the 80’s and 90’s big time. I would rather compete on merit because I cannot change hearts but I might be able to be so good at what I do that I actually influence the decision.
However, there will never be a law that will ever change people’s hearts or guarantee an outcome. Wait! the latter is called socialism. :o)
Here is a perfect example of the myth you mention: A friend of mine works for a Federal Government program. One of her requirements from the motor voter bill is to sign up mentally disabled youth to vote when they are 18. Her files are audited every year to make sure those voter registrations are in there. She explains to them the difference between a democrat and republican when she signs them up. She says: Democrats care more about people and want to help them. Republicans want you to make it on your own. They almost always choose Democrat. She is very proud of this.
Yes, I have liberal friends. :o)
And Republicans were doing the same thing with the mentally disabled vote. I should know I did it when taking them to vote from the facility I worked at.
Yeah it was wrong, I was in my twenties at the time. But it was done by both parties.
As for women getting preferential treatment in the 80’s and 90’s because although it was true that women were hired for male dominated jobs, sexual harrassment was alive and well and in the late 70’s and early 80’s no law to protect . I am Republican, but it wasn’t the Republicans that change it. It was the Democrats and women’s movement that change the laws slowly. Not to mention rape laws. Democrats aren’t always the bad guys. Republicans can be too. But I am committed right now to the Republican party because of the supposed anti-abortion stance which I’m not sure is real. We still have abortion although I believe through Christian influence outside of both parties, independently have changed the numbers to much lower due to education and getting to the heart of the issue.
“And Republicans were doing the same thing with the mentally disabled vote. I should know I did it when taking them to vote from the facility I worked at.”
shame on you.
(Too bad more bureaucrats are not republicans. :o)
Ha ha. I think the voting personel had a clue when they all registered Republican. All fifteen of them.
Pro-life adherents will not likely overcome pro-choice adherents in determining abortion policy; Roe will remain law. Thus, the efforts to do such are wasteful in terms of time and resources and the experiences of all that face what is at least defined as an unfortunate situation. Instead, the resources of both (i.e., PL and PC) given to develop and sustain programs and lobbying efforts to alter conditions that give rise to most of these pregnancy is a wiser course of action. While it is unrealistic to expect that problem situations will never occur in light of such, it is not unrealistic to expect a significant reduction in abortion if we insist on smarter and sustained social policy that is comprehensive in nature. Once the landscape has been changed, it might positively surprise us to what would then be considered acceptable going forward on said landscape.
“As for women getting preferential treatment in the 80?s and 90?s because although it was true that women were hired for male dominated jobs, sexual harrassment was alive and well and in the late 70?s and early 80?s no law to protect . I am Republican, but it wasn’t the Republicans that change it. It was the Democrats and women’s movement that change the laws slowly. Not to mention rape laws. Democrats aren’t always the bad guys.”
Debbie, gotta disagree with you here. You might want to check your facts but it won’t be easy. Gotta read early court cases and work backward.
Since I was actively writing and delivering Sexual Harrassment training to companies in the late 80’s through the 90’s, I did my homework on the progression of the legal side to this issue.
I have found people immediately give credit to democrats for anything they see as “compassionate” without checking facts.
The truth is conservative judges (Usually state…the Feds much later) were handing down HUGE rewards to victims of harrassment in companies. And companies were forced to pay!
The businesses responded by hiring people like me to do training on the subject.
You can first thank those conservative judges for making companies take action. In fact, a few of those judges, retired by then, were my guest speakers.
Don’t always assume because you saw some women burning bras on the courthouse steps that they are the real hero’s behind the changes in laws for women. They just got the media.
Check my facts Lydia? I was living it I believe you were too. By the way, was there anything you didn’t do? It seems that with every point, you wrote something, worked something. You even trained on sexual harrassment? Funny I was being sexually harrassed in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s with no legal recourse in the 70’s and early 80’s. I think you missed Kansas. It wasn’t a top concern of a Republican one in those days. I was a very active Republican, but a woman who had it tough in the job force. I was one of many thousands. Believe me I got no settlement. I did get fired for turning in my boss who just about raped me.
Dwight, I thank you for that explanation.
To engage those of a differing view, it helps to use the proper terminology; that is, the argument is between pro-life and pro-choice proponents, not pro-life and pro-abortion proponents. That abortion is sometimes chosen is not disputed, but such does not speak to the central concern of the position.
BH,
The murder of the children is always the “central concern of the position” when one speaks of abortion.
Pro-life and pro-choice are political terms.
“Thou shall not murder” is a biblical mandate. I think we should rather be desirous to obey the biblical mandate that to split hairs over using politically correct terms. Do you not agree?
I would consider myself pro-life. I would protect the lives of the unborn, but I am also against the death penalty. I have never found a candidate who is against both. When some people call themselves pro-life, what they really mean is anti-abortion. As far as politics go, we have had plenty of anti-abortion folks in office since abortion was legalized, and yet it is still legal. I think they play the voters like fiddles over this issue.
John,
I believe you are right in stating, “I think they play the voters like fiddles over this issue.”
I think candidates in the past have used the abortion debate toward their personal political ambitions.
Therefore, I am praying for a man or woman to come along who actually takes the Scripture as his or her final manual to national leadership and takes a true stand for children in this nation.
BTW, I do not use terms like pro-life or pro-choice for it would be hypocrisy on my part to do so. For it is my contention that the Bible plainly teaches that capital punishment is a necessity in human society.
CB, I have an athiest colleague who thinks abortion is heinous. With the advent of 3D ultra sound, some are rethinking their positions. But another reason why people should be concerned is because how we view the innocents we will eventually view those who are no longer viable citizens but burdens on society. And with socialism that is a big concern because the government will make those decisions by withholding certain care or treatments as too expensive and not worth the cost benefit ratio. And pretty soon, that will be us!
I don’t support candidates who “support abortion.”
I have supported candidates who support “abortion rights” to some extent. Many of the Democrats that I’ve supported at the state level in Georgia and now in Texas support abortion rights only in very limited circumstances. That’s where I am personally.
Even the Southern Baptist Convention does not oppose abortion in ALL circumstances which means, using the language here, that the Southern Baptist Convention – per its messengers – “[think] that it is okay to kill a baby in its mother’s womb.”
Rare is the person whose opposition to abortion rights is absolute. And slightly less rare is the person whose support of abortion rights is absolute. Many surveys of Christians and non-Christians alike have demonstrated that. 69% of Evangelicals support abortion in some situations (ranging from legal in all situations to illegal in most situations) (Source: http://pewforum.org/Abortion/Abortion-Views-by-Religious-Affiliation.aspx)
Just to add, I’d like to see laws changed and a Supreme Court ruling that greatly limits abortion rights. However, I am not one who views oral contraceptives as “abortion drugs.”
PL and PC are the terms for which the debate is formally known, and such were chosen for their representation of the central concern. There are, however, first-order issues that cause concern about adherents of both, but it appears that it is Catholic PL adherents that are the most consistent at this level. That is, many PL allow capital punishment but not abortion, and many in PC allow an aborted fetus, but not capital punishment. A good many Catholics oppose abortion and capital punishment.
Absent the Catholic voice, PL and PC, thus, nuance their arguments to maintain an internal consistency, but in doing so, language differences, at both manifest and latent levels are introduced into the debate, not to mention how the relationship between science and religion is to be appropriated.
If all others factors were equal, I would never vote for any candidate who was supportive of abortion upon demand, i.e., abortion as a matter of retroactive birth control. Unfortunantly, it is rare that all other factors are equal. There are other moral issues to which I am sensitive, and in political decisions, one must, unfortunantly often either not vote at all or vote for the candidate who is the lessor of two (or more) evils. I choose to do the later rather than the former. And as John points out and C.B. agrees with, one party in particular (need I name it?) has played the Christian community like a cheap fiddle with that tune, while delivering little to nothing–unless you count unjustified wars, lies, pandering to the super-rich, and gridlock in government as progress. (Note: not that the other party is much, if any, better.)
John
John,
I should have defined my position all the way through this comment as you have – “abortion on demand.”
I wish there had been gridlock during Obamacare. Gridlock was inherent in our structure by the Framers for a reason. It should be very very hard…almost impossible… to make such sweeping changes to our freedoms
Dwight, I see the point about voting for a candidate who does the most for the voter. Just watch any citizen interviews at election time, of students, businessmen, the unemployed, any of the GLBT folks, or any other way you want to classify people. The usual response is “I’ll vote for the one who (helps my group most).
At my age, I’m keenly interested in candidates’ attitudes toward retired folks, Social Security and Medicare. I can hardly expect others to be different from that.
CB, I could never vote for anybody who is pro-abortion, no matter what lipstick it’s wearing. I’ve always said abortion is murdering a baby, and if it’s not self-defense, I think it’s murder. Period.
I remember World War II. People seem to have had a vastly different attitude then. If the folks I see and hear today had been alive, in sufficient numbers back then, we’d all be speaking Japanese or German or Russian.
Not English.
I do not believe that Roe Vs Wade is beyond being changed. Two things are necessary. First there must be a consensus in the country that allows of for limits on abortion and that allows for local regulation. Second there must be a majority on the court willing to nibble away at the Abortion on Demand as a positive good that is the positon of many.
Roe is bad law and can be modified and ultimately overturned. Importantly, this is not first of all a political issue. It is a change in hearts and minds that must be won patiently.
I feel we should support the candidate we feel is best overall. Hopefully that will include a pro-life stance. But that’s admittedly hard. Should we vote for someone who is pro-life and anti-everything else we believe in? I’ve always felt politics to be strange. It’s not for the purists.
I can think of a hypothetical situation where I might possibly vote for a pro-choice candidate. Suppose both main candidates were both pro-choice, but candidate A had a proven record for supporting restrictions on abortion such as parental notification, mandatory counseling, and eliminating late term abortions. Candidate B is pro-choice in the typical, no-restrictions, liberal vein. Candidate C is a pro-life non-starter who has no chance to win.
Voting for Candidate C lets me make a statement, and serves no other useful purpose.
Voting for Candidate A, is something that will not sit well, but may contribute towards actually saving some babies.
In that case, I think the potential for saving babies trumps standing on principal.
This is no doubt an unlikely scenario, but I could see myself voting for a pro-choice candidate under these circumstances.
Not that unlikely. I faced that in my Cedar Rapids congressional district. Jim Leach was a pro-abortion Republican. It probably would have been better to vote for him, but I couldn’t do it.
There is the eternal pull between political idealism and political realism. Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson got into this a couple of political cycles ago. Rush said we should vote for the the person closest to our beliefs. Dobson said if we compromise and accept the “lesser of two evils” that is all we’ll ever get.
I thought both sides had a pretty good point.
With reference to voting for the lesser to two evils (so to speak) as opposed to a candidate who obviously can’t win, for some reason I’m reminded of the old adage that “No rain drop thinks it’s responsible for the flood”.
good point.
Well, to be honest I’ve often felt paralyzed into not voting. This has happened when I thought both candidates stood for a mixture of good and evil, and it seemed a complete toss-up. I almost felt like I would be doing harm by voting either way.
Several of you didn’t seem to see my instructions.
1) I wasn’t interested in angry screeds from conservatives who wanted to heap abuse on others. Those comments (one former regular left about 5 of them) got deleted. I asked nicely.
2) I am not interested in self-righteous and off-topic condemnations of conservatives either. Several of those were deleted.
Both of these types of comments will continue to be deleted.
But overall, I’ve enjoyed reading the comments and thought the discussion thus far has been interesting and informative.
I am interested in hearing the thought-process of a person who is a committed and Bible-believing Christian who supports pro-abortion candidates.
I appreciate Dwight McKissic’s attempt to explain that. He has come the closest to presenting a rationale that some use. Thank you.
Dave, I agree that something is amiss. When we become so interested in truth that we lose our ability to love our opponents, then our attempts are in vain. I recall something Francis Schaeffer wrote in one of his books: “We must declare the truth lovingly.” If love becomes divorced from truth or vice versa, we’ve got a problem. Many people care deeply about truth. So deeply that they lose touch with humanity. But truth is honestly never divorced from God and humanity. I can’t agree with some of the things I read. But if I can’t interact with that person civilly and lovingly, I had better not interact with them at all. Theology must lead us to a deeper love of God and our neighbor. If it fails in this, it fails utterly.
We live in a time when we don’t believe in forcing religious beliefs on people through law. After all, one has to come to Christianity on their own, authentically and individually. This has to be a process of heart and mind and of the HOly Spirit. With abortion, however, I see it as one of those basic moral things that law should deal with to protect people. I’m guessing, and someone can correct me if I’m wrong, that abortion is one of those sort of universal taboos that C. S. Lewis would have included in his concept of the Tao. You see, we can and should legislate morality–after all, that’s all we ever really do legislate, fundamentally. But we have to draw the line soemwhere. We’re not dominionists (at least not myself). And the idea that O.T. civil laws hsould be reinstated seems highly absurd to me. As absurd as the idea that the temple will be rebuilt and the sacrifical system reinstated. Incidentally, here’s where Dispensationalism and Dominionism meet: they both transplant stuff from anotehr ‘act’ within the story. But I digress. I feel abortion is murder and should be illegal. Yes, we do legislate morality. What I don’t think we should do is legislate specific morality. I believe abortion is general. If one were to ask how you know where something falls, I’d say, look at law across time and space. What falls within Lewis’ Tao? There’s been a recent breakdown in that sense of Tao and that’s probably the case in states of barbarism, as well as exceptions that I think Lewis acknwoledged.
I can only theorize why some “Christians” vote Pro-Abortion.
1. Sometimes they might perceive the pro-abortion candidate as the lesser of two evils.
2. They might believe that since an “age of accountability” exists that the aborted babies are better off than having to live with a “free will” uncertainty. I once had a scientist ask me why Southern Baptists were so adamantly opposed to abortion since our goal was to get as many people to heaven as possible. I asked him to explain and he said, “the aborted babies automatically go to heaven.”
3. They might seriously believe that the choice a woman exercises trumps any rights of the unborn.
As I said I can only imagine why some “Christians” vote Pro-Abortion.
Dave,
I agree with you that pro-abortion Christian voting is indefensible. Your question asks “someone” to explain it. If I were to suggest the name of one person who could best articulate the recent leftward trend of evangelicals generally and Southern Baptists particularly on other issues such as the environment and homosexuality, it would be none other than Jonathan Merritt.
In April, his book “Beyond the Culture Wars” will be published. My personal hope is that it will spark a reaction, a wake up call, and be met with a newfound commitment on the part of the SBC Resolutions Committee and the convention as a whole to stop retreating in the Culture Wars and to start fighting for what we believe in once again. Enough is enough.
The strategy of “gospel accommodationism” is a weak one that has failed us. We have not won any more cultural liberals to Christ, but we have remained largely silent as “gay marriage” has become commonplace.
I don’t want to stop being a “Southern Baptist.” I want to start being one once again.
We cannot declare the culture wars to be over simply because we’ve stopped fighting. The other side continues to fight. This is not a truce. We are being defeated because we have surrendered.
I’m not sure that we see Jonathan Merritt the same way. I do not agree with some of his environmental positions, but from what I’ve read of his position on homosexuality, it is biblical, just with a different emphasis.
He affirms that it is sin, but he emphasizes the need to minister to homosexuals. I think most of us emphasize the sinfulness of homosexual and he is trying to get us to emphasize ministry more.
I think there is a danger in losing the balance on either side. We must hold the line on the sinfulness of the sin while also calling out those who treat homosexuals like spiritual lepers or put the sin in a different category.
I agree that there is a movement growing that refuses to stand against the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. I do not believe that Jonathan Merritt is part of that movement.
In short, I do not think Merritt is on the other side in this thing. He just has a different strategy for fighting the fight.
Do you really think that the SBC has remained silent on same-sex marriage? Fighting gay rights seems to be a top priority if not THE top priority of Baptist Press and the ERLC in recent years.
In wars there is a winner and loser. That gay marriage has become commonplace, as you write, indicates that those fighting gay rights have lost more battles than won in this culture war.
I think that is Merritt’s point. We have fought the fight with protests and pronouncements and largely lost the battle. We need to try to oppose homosexuality by engaging homosexuals with the love of Christ and bringing them face to face with the gospel of transformation.
I don’t speak for Merritt, but in a previous discussion on another blog, when I said, “I think this is what Merritt is saying,” he logged on and affirmed that I was understanding him correctly.
FYI, I’ve been hanging out at my son’s spoiling my grandson for a couple of days, but I’m back on the road today and back into hiding.
I think if I had it to do over again, I would skip being a father and go straight to being a grandfather.
You get to spoil them, walk away and leave your kids to fix the mess!!!
Well I’m fixing the mess! Baby boy James Oliver born this past Monday after a long labor.
Congrats…. you’re an old daddy now!
Warning: Many people have been known to become more conservative after having children.:o)
Aaron, that’s wonderful news!
God Bless the little one and his parents and family.
Keep this in mind: you did not become a parent.
You became the custodian of someone else’s grandchild. And those grandparents? They’re ruthless 🙂
Grandchildren are the reward for not feeding your teenagers to the alligators.
I don’t think this issue hinges as much on politics as you might think. At least not for those who are truly thinking about the issue itself, and not just spouting political rhetoric that was fed to them by one group or another.
The reason that some Christians can support “pro-choice” (and I believe that term is used because no one wants to be labeled ‘anti-life’) is that they do not see unborn children as people. In their minds they are holding to the “blob of tissue” view of unborn children. It’s a mind-numbing exercise that allows them to be comfortable with a choice that is otherwise untenable.
This is why there is such a high percentage of abortion-minded women who, when they actually see their babies on an ultrasound prior to having an abortion, change their minds and carry the child to term. Reality is hard to deny. It must be done through fuzzy-minded thinking.
There is one other reason that Christians can dull their minds and vote for “pro-choice” candidates: daughters. Many, many Christian parents live in fear of their daughters getting pregnant out of wedlock. The shame, embarrassment, and change in the future of that precious child of theirs are too much to bear. They are inwardly fearful that, if something goes wrong and this “thing” happens to their daughter, that the “option” to erase the mistake, so to speak, would no longer be there.
Of course, it takes additional fuzzy logic to be so concerned about the predicament of one precious child that you are willing to take the life of another precious child…. but then parenting can often create situations in which our thinking is not always logical.
Is this any different from other areas in which we justify our non-Biblical decisions and actions with faulty logic in order to make ourselves feel better?
The answer is a very old one. It’s self-absorption. We are selfish, sinful creatures by nature. And our ability to twist things in our minds to make them seem right to us is virtually limitless.
“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” Proverbs 14:12 (HCSB)
Might I also add… there is nothing new under the sun…
I vote pro-whole life which means:
Abortion
War
Death Penalty
Poverty
Gun Control
This sometimes means a Republican Candidate and sometimes a Democrat. And just about no one answers every one of these questions completly the way that I want to. Abortion is one of many pro-life issues that interest me. Its takes a great deal of discernment for me to choose. I cannot see Pro-life and then support them solely on that basis if they have no compassion for the poor etc……So complicated, it has to be about more than just one issue.
War
The US, as a soverign nation, has the right to protect its citizens and its interests. Sometimes this involves war. Anti-War is not biblically, and not intellectually, defensable. However, if it were possible I’d be happy to send anyone who feels that way to Poland or France in the 40’s. Let’s see how anti-War you are then.
Death Penalty
The government has the right to kill criminals. It’s called Romans 13. Look into it. What, when Paul said “sword” what he meant was “giant tickle feather”?
Poverty
Some people are poor because they’d rather sit on their cans while people like you take money out of the pocket of people like me so that they don’t have to work. Want a better life for yourself?? Work. Take out student loans. Work multiple jobs. No one should expect other people to meet their needs.
Gun Control
Please, point to one Bible verse that says something resembling anything that suggests for a micro-second that a citizen cannot own a gun? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
So, out of all the things that you’ve said are “pro-life” the only one a Christian needs to consider is abortion.
You’re welcome.
Corey, When there is gun control, the criminals love it. Because they know when they hold you up or break into your home or go into Luby’s and open fire, you most likely don’t have a gun.
It was also the lack of “gun control” that kept the Nazi’s from invading Switzerland where every home was expected to own a defensive firearm.
Criminals will always be able to get guns. But your sentiment is nice. but you forgot to include the death panels for Obamacare. :o)
“I cannot see Pro-life and then support them solely on that basis if they have no compassion for the poor etc……”
What does “compassion” for the poor mean? A sentiment? Spoken from stages?
Did you know poverty levels usually LOWER when the economy is booming? Obama is making MORE poverty. I read recently where some states are boasting about the increase in people getting food stamps. In some cases it is 60% more people applying!
It is nice to have “compassion” but what are we going to DO about it? Federal spending programs are not working.
I’m pro-life and I would like to share a personal story that fully illustrates the fears the pro-life position can cause:
I have a friend who is the wife of one of my college buddies who came to talk to me one day. She actually had a question for me, but first she needed to fill me in on some background in her life. In high school she was sexually assaulted and impregnated by an employee of her high school. Her parents–not particularly godly folks but trying to guide and help a daughter whose life was now officially upside down–arranged an abortion.
Some 10 years after that, while on a medication that could have caused severe birth defects AND the pill to prevent conception while taking that medication, she got pregnant. She came to me to ask a surprising question. Her doctor strongly advised an abortion because of the highly likely interaction between the medication and the fetus.
Her question? “Will you hate me if I agree to an abortion?”
I could fill in a lot more than that. But I will offer a thought instead: if you would not have been able to answer that question “No”, then I think it might be time to give the issue back to God to resolve and stop pretending you can make the world better through your own actions.
The death penalty seems neither right nor wrong to me. The government can deal with criminals in various ways, and the Bible simply doesn’t address that in these times. But I think we can infer that abortion is usually wrong.
I would disagree with your comment that the Bible does not address the death penalty in these times. Romans 13:4 “for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” (ESV) What do you use a sword for? God has empowered the government to take life justfully.
John, you are apparently correct, though God’s addressing Christians there. He’s telling them how they should live out their lives. The Bible is not addressed to government. The text acknowledges its use and validity at the time of the Roman Empire. Thanks for the correction.
Sal,
Thanks brother
Dave, you nailed my biggest problem within the combining of our faith with politics within the context of your article.
We’re told that we have to vote Pro-Life or we’re not Christians yet these men and women plowing our faith for our votes aren’t doing anything meaningful about it. It has turned being a Christian into nothing more than a political bloc of votes with an increasing diminishing of returns with each voting cycle. There is something grotesque about our politicians who’ll gladly come into our churches and stump from the pulpits about continuing God’s work if they’re elected and believers eat this stuff up.
And alas, it becomes nothing more than hollow words and outright deceit from our pulpits when these officials do absolutely nothing to curtail the evil that is abortion.
So there are many who will vote for the candidate that they favor on other issues while working against these individuals on the issue of abortion.
However, this does dovetail into something else I have a problem with, churches giving their pulpits to politicians at any time whatsoever.
Bill, I can’t agree more on what you’ve said. Why any pastor would give up his Pulpit to other than another SBC trained teacher is ludicrous – might as well throw in the baptismal pool while he is at it. That neither side of issues of great interest to churches has really gained ground is well known by many except those that are elderly and feeble minded or just don’t have the ability to reason or a third group, people that just don’t care. Try this: If a Bill is intrduced in the House or Senate there will be two groups of people. One, that wants it to Pass ; the Seond who want it to fail. Both sides now “beat their respective crowds” for money in order ” to Insure ” that their side will win/ or defeat this Bill.. Bare in mind that a Bill can be introduced that has no chance of passing but will be the basis for this fight on T.V. , Radio stations that sell stuff and other places. It’s a sham and the Religious public is not only gullible but poorly lead in this regard.
Bill , It’s one thing for Billy Graham to visit the White House and a sitting President professionally ; but, it is quite another thing to have a Presidential hopeful of some Party lead some popular pastor into a political rally hand in hand. This automatically divides people of his denomination whether of his church or not. Same holds true in my opinion of a pastor that attends a political rally and endorses a particular candidate.
“but, it is quite another thing to have a Presidential hopeful of some Party lead some popular pastor into a political rally hand in hand. This automatically divides people of his denomination whether of his church or not. Same holds true in my opinion of a pastor that attends a political rally and endorses a particular candidate.”
Jack,
What about Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright and many others who have used pulpits for politics?
Lydia – This blog and associated posts has been removed from the main listing so again I lucked out by chasing you down. What’s different is the setting. If it’s in his own church or as an invited guest speaker then they have control. Ending up on Bill Mayers ” shoot down ” is another thing.
Lydia – Other than my above explanation which church members have control, I believe it’s wrong.
Thanks for chasing it down. But I am confused. It is ok if they do such politicing in their church building but not outside their church building? What is the difference?
Lydia,
Do you realize how many churches can slap a pastor, reverend, phophet, apostle, etc. tag on a person and they claim it regardless of actual training or certification process?
There’s a church in the nearby city who just gave an Apostle tag to an eight year old and he can now call himself “Apostle ….” for the rest of his life?
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton stopped being legitimate pastors thirty years but cling to their titles so they can lay a “God told me…” or “God showed me…” and people just eat it up.
I’m more scared of the people who call themselves Christian than I am of the Atheists at times…
“Do you realize how many churches can slap a pastor, reverend, phophet, apostle, etc. tag on a person and they claim it regardless of actual training or certification process?”
No kidding, Bill. High school grad, CJ Mahaney referred to himself as an “Apostle” (big A) for many years in “People of Destiny” and then in SGM. Only in recent years did he drop that title.
Dave-
Yours is a good question.
I’ve been staunchly pro-life for as long as I’ve known what it meant. As someone mentioned above, I also read Whatever Happened to the Human Race as well as The Second American Revolution, and the best pro-life book of all–from a philosophical and historical standpoint–Rachel Weeping: The Case Against Abortion. For many, many years I would not even consider a candidate who was not against abortion. I picketed the most prolific abortion clinic in Atlanta (Midtown Hospital) and prayed regularly for it to be closed. It eventually was, but only after a long, long time.
After voting for the same party for nearly every election for a couple of decades, it dawned on me that said party–the one ostensibly against abortion–had done about as little to curb it as the party that was supposed for abortion.
When Clinton took office he issued an Executive Order allowing abortion on military bases. When Bush became president he rescinded it. When Obama took office he rescinded the Bush order. This is about as close as we have gotten to some change, but as far as party progress, there has been little or none.
Your analysis above is correct: said party has trumpeted a pro-life stance to secure the votes of a passionate part of the electorate and has introduced nothing of substance to change Roe. We were used. I choose no longer to be.
The only strategy the pro-life community has offered to stop abortion is to change the supreme court. This is not going to happen. We’ve been through presidents of all stripes since Roe and never tipped the scales. A Life Amendment is not going to happen because there are only two ways to secure it: a constitutional convention (remember the last one?) or ratification by 2/3 of the states. Neither of those are going to happen in our lifetime.
Ergo, I no longer count the position of a candidate on abortion to be the primary consideration. Not because it isn’t important, but because it isn’t actionable.
As others have argued above, there are many, many areas of social injustice of which abortion is a single part. If we take the minor prophets as any kind of pattern at all, we are forced to admit that treatment of the poor, widows, orphans, and–one might argue–economic injustice of all kinds are all important to God. If we live in a society where government curtailment of abortion is improbable (as I believe it is) we must have a full theology of how the rest of injustice is to be engaged. To ignore the whole for the one about which we are the most passionate is to miss the thrust of the Word.
Ultimately, I have come to believe that both left and right leaning people have less adjusted their politics to their theology than adjusted their theology to their politics. Neither is good, and neither is right.
Somebody ask Duren his position on gun control. 🙂
Both hands. Steady aim.
Marty Duren – Are y’all members of a club together like some kind of militia where they supposedly sit in a circle and polish their guns, are super patriotic and belong to that highly explosive and opinionated NRA ?
cb scott – Is there a reason why you don’t ask Duren his position on gun control. Just asking , no need to get upset.
Jack, C.B. was making a funny. (when he does this, he usually ruins the subtlety of his joke by putting a happy-face)
you’ll get used to him in time,
he’s pretty amazing
Jack-
He already knew. He’s just having fun ;^)
Lydia – If it takes place in a church pulpit belonging to this pastor or an invited guest pastor then the church members have control over what they’re willing to hear and put up with – like straw hats , kazoos, whistles etc. and even if the membership approves this function only a certain few will be subjected to this “happening” because it’s not a church service. I’ve heard it said somewhere that the isle down the center of a church has not been put there to separate the rich from the poor, the black from the white, Democrats from Republicans or in some locations Union from non-union workers and their families. This is what our Bible is about regardless of what some goofy by-law says.
Jack, I’d like to take off from what you said. We’re united in Christ. Our differences remain. Christians come in all shapes and sizes. We’re Democrats, Republicans, Independents, rich, poor, and so on. These differences reflect the diversity that should exist in the real world God created, and among the people who he created in his image. One of the worst things to arise in the church is the spirit of collectivism, or what’s termed cookie-cutter Christianity. Programs to impose uniformity have been a hallmark of the modern era. In the church we ought to find the true nature of humanity restored in Christ. Diversity in unity. Not uniformity.
When I reflect upon the kingdom of God at its consummation, I find that St. John reveals the following: all that is good enters in. The church is the last best hope for the world, and it must model this. We alone can manifest that diversity in unity. The world cannot. It can only oscillate between individualism and collectivism, despite all of its attempts. We all struggle with the problem of order versus freedom, too. But only in the kingdom of God is this philosophic problem resolved.
I just cannot vote for someone who is for abortion. This would be like voting for Hitler in Germany. I know that some of the supposedly, pro-life candidates havent done a whole lot to stop abortion. But still, I just cant vote for someone, who believes that the murder of babies is okay.
http://youtu.be/7y2KsU_dhwI
David
David,
There is never a justification for someone to vote pro-baby slaughter. Anyone who claims they can because of “other priorities” obviously doesn’t have God’s priorities.
Joe Blackmon – A lot of people would vote for someone you don’t like just so you can have some credit for electing them and they can watch you jump up and down !! So just keep it up.
I know of a lot of “yellow dog democrats” who will vote for a democrat just because he/she is a democrat. I have family, who are that way. I’ve had Church members, who are that way..and probably have some in the church I’m in now.
So, Dave, I guess another answer to the puzzle is that some people are just gonna vote democrat, even if the dem is pro-abortion, just because that person is a dem.
Also, Dave, another answer to your question is that some people just dont care. Plain and simple, they either just dont care, at all; or else, its all about the economy to them. Its all about money.
David
To say that abortion and that alone is the only “life” issue one would vote on seems myopic.