I think that many Christians are drawn, as many people are, to Obama by virtue of his youth, his eloquence, his "coolness", his purportedly fresh-thinking manner. I can understand some of this interest, though I am not as charmed by Obama as some. I am concerned, though, when I hear that fellow Christians are not simply impressed by Obama but won over by him. That is to say, I am distressed when I hear that Obama is gaining support among conservative Christians. Remember that Obama is pro-choice, and not just pro-choice, but ardently so. (See here for more on this matter.) On a matter like abortion, we are not being small-minded when we prioritize it. We are being logical. Matters of life-and-death must take priority in our political philosophy. However much we may be charmed by a candidate's native gifts or his perceived ability to unite people, we must evaluate him by his positions, and his positions on the most important matters must take intellectual precedence. It is no bad thing to want a candidate who cares for the environment or the poor--we would hope for such candidates!--but it is only biblical to first and foremost desire a candidate who will actively work to stop the slaughter of millions of babies.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Owen on Obama and Abortion
Owen Strachan writes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
OK, I'll give my bias here. I am certainly pro-life. However, as Christians, I do not think it behooves us to vote for a president (or not) based on his or her stance on the abortion issue. President Bush is ardently pro-life and he hasn't made one bit of difference. What makes a difference is as individuals and churches in the community, caring for those women feeling the pressure to have abortions. Similarly, we need to come behind poor, widows, and orphans, not? In my albeit limited experience, most republicans are very good at lining there own pockets and telling the world that they are more "moral" than those dastardly democrats.
Both Republicans and Democrats have proven themselves to be very good at lining their own pockets. However, when it comes to abortion, I have to ask myself, if I had lived in the time when slavery was widely legally allowed in the U.S, would that issue have had a deciding factor in how I voted? I hope that it would have! I do have problems with President Bush's policies in more than one area. However, he has made a difference on the issue of abortion in at least one very important way-- by appointing pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. We in the church do need to help the poor, widows, and orphans. (I'm poor myself, financially, by U.S. standards.) We can always do more for struggling, hurting people, and we definitely should. That fact doesn't necessitate voting for candidates who would do next to nothing, legally, to stop the taking of unborn lives.
Zach - Yes, and Amen.
dockanz - I somewhat, but not completely, hold your position on the role of the President in this matter. It is frustrating to watch the electoral process, where each candidate pretends that they will solve all of the critical issues of the day. The funny thing is, in most cases, the Executive branch has very little constitutional grounds with respect to those issues, and furthermore, the legislative and judicial branches have a lot more real-time influence on those particular matters. The politicians running for POTUS are in most cases just pandering to the itching ears of the crowds, with no clue where to begin with respect to meeting their promises made on the campaign trail. Hence, my agreement with your assertion that "President Bush ... hasn't made one bit of difference" with respect to the abortion issue.
BUT, the President influences who sits on the Supreme Court bench, which in turn has a huge influence on the determination of what is deemed moral and acceptable in our Nation. And no, I certainly am not calling for the legislation of morality - that is bad news; but not legislating morality is a far cry from actively legislating immorality.
The President is in some respects the face of our Nation, and hence is looked to by the World as a gauge of our Nation's moral stance on issues. In addition, a person who is so morally corrupted that they can support, and even promote, the torture and murder of innocent human life (look at Senator Obama's voting record on these matters) should be the leader of this great Nation.
You are correct that regardless of the political bent of our Nation, the Church needs to care for, and support, women who for various reasons are under great pressure to abort the life of the unborn child in their womb.
I'll be honest, I have no idea who I am going to vote for at this time (I am pretty much equally disenfranchised with both Republicans and Democrats), but I certainly could not vote for Senator Obama, given his outstanding track record with respect to legislation that works at eroding the morals of this Nation.
The Christian movement is reaping what it has sewn.
For years, the 'contemporary' 'seeker sensitive' churches have attracted members, not on a firm foundation, but upon entertainment, feelings, and emotion.
Those same attributes are what is attracting people to the Obama campaign. Not issues, not policy, but empty rhetoric that makes us feel warm and fuzzy.
It should be no surprise, then, that many of those who became Christians based on this, are now being swayed by the empty, feel-good tone of Obamamania.
You people are political simpletons if you think Bush "hasn't made one bit of difference" on the abortion issue. Have you considered what kind of SCOTUS justices we would have with a President Gore or Kerry? It certainly wouldn't be Alito or Roberts, and there probably would have been at least one other retirement. Thanks to President Bush, we stand one vote away from making real progress on ending legalized infanticide.
No one going to discount the need for the Church to continue to minister to the women in our communities, but we can do that with or without Obama's feel-good message of "hope" and "change". A vote for Obama or Clinton is a vote to continue legal abortion.
What exactly is your definition of an important issue, if you're discounting the rights of millions of unborn children? Ultimately, I suspect that your definition of "pro-life" lacks the foundational belief that life begins at conception.
This isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. It's about who will advocate the continued murder of the unborn.
Feel free to vote for the baby killers, provided that you think there is a greater good to be found. I'd love to hear what that might be.
Wow anonymous, tell us how you really feel! It would have been nice if you had mentioned who you were because it's awfully easy to criticize others from behind the veil of anonymity.
Roe V Wade is still firmly in place. In fact, more abortions were performed last year, near the end of Bush's presidency, than have been done previously. Do I commend him for appointing pro-life judges? Sure. Would I love to see all pro-life judges on the supreme court? Yes. Do I think it will make a difference? I don't know.
What other important issues? Hmmm...education, welfare, aid for the poor and lower middle class. Republicans historically do not prioritize (or actively oppose) these issues hiding behind some rhetoric that when people have lower taxes, they pump more into the economy. Hogwash. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Please understand that I am pro-life, but that cannot be the only issue on which we vote for a president. I think that if you asked many evangelicals to discuss other political issues, they would be completely at a loss. We vote for who James Dobson tells us to, which is really unfortunate. It's too bad we cannot try to make our own decisions about who to vote for through prayful consideration and consideration of God's word. Unfortunately, none of the candidates match up completely.
For a bit more self-revelation. I voted for president Bush, but in hindsight, I think Gore would have been a better president (I don't know about Kerry). If Huckabee made it through, I'd probably vote for him to, because he cares about social justice issues. John McCain seems to have all the bad of a republican and very little of the good.
It raises another question for me, though? Are you of the opinion that those who vote for a pro-choice president are somehow lesser Christians? Is John McCain a "better" Christian than Barack Obama? How do you know?
"Would I love to see all pro-life judges on the supreme court? Yes. Do I think it will make a difference? I don't know. "
You don't know? OK, I'll help you out, because I do. A SCOTUS with just one more pro-life justice will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. If you don't think that will ultimately reduce the number of abortions in this country, I cannot help you. If you're willing to concede the Supreme Court to liberal activist judges like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, then you are no friend of the pro-life movement.
"What other important issues? Hmmm...education, welfare, aid for the poor and lower middle class."
Your argument here is that government handouts are more important than the lives of the unborn. That's pretty weak from someone who is "pro-life". You've clearly stated here that throwing taxpayer money at perceived social inequality is more important than the lives of the unborn. From a Christian perspective, I cannot understand that. Murder or welfare? Tough call.
"I think that if you asked many evangelicals to discuss other political issues, they would be completely at a loss."
On what do you base that assertion? Is it because your favorite liberal commentators tell you that evangelicals are uninformed? Are you calling your brothers and sisters in Christ stupid? My experience is that conservative Christians are among the most politically informed people I know.
"Are you of the opinion that those who vote for a pro-choice president are somehow lesser Christians?
You're twisting the subject, but I'll bite: Maybe not a lesser Christian, but certainly one who has been misled by the world. I will never critique someone else's faith, as that is a matter between only them and the Lord.
On the other hand, I am confident saying that those who knowingly vote for openly pro-abortion candidates will have contributed to the taking of human life. I'm not sure how much "prayerful consideration" one needs to undertake to arrive at that point.
I'm from this point forward done with this debate. I have been careful not to call you names (i.e., political simpleton), yet clearly we have been at odds. I feel that debate loses something when personal attacks begin, it quickly degrades. I apologize to you anonymous if I have somehow raised your ire enough to engage in calling other Christians names.
Zach, I also apologize to you for this. I appreciate this forum to share ideas, but sometimes we simply reach an impasse.
I implore all of us to consider this political year prayerfully and in conversation with our Christian brothers and sisters. God can do his work in all circumstances and I humbly request that I be used as servant in that, no matter who ends up in the oval office.
Jason,
Thanks for you kind words. I think I don't agree with your stance, but I still call you a brother. Won't be the last time that Christians disagree...
Anonymous - please don't leave any more comments, unless you leave a real identity with your comments. It just seems cowardly to drop bombs and leave no name. I'm not a big fan of your tone (or at least how your tone seems to be) so if you want to leave comments please leave a name and think through how we can gently (2 Tim 2:24-25) interact with those who "oppose" us.
Oh crud! I just realized a major typo in a sentence in my comment left to dockanz.
In the sentence:
"In addition, a person who is so morally corrupted that they can support, and even promote, the torture and murder of innocent human life (look at Senator Obama's voting record on these matters) should be the leader of this great Nation.", I left out the key word "NOT" - "...this person should NOT be the leader of this great Nation," is how I meant that sentence to read.
I hope others were able to catch my drift and were able to mentally fill in this important modifier, but I apologize for any confusion that might have caused!
What other important issues? Hmmm...education, welfare, aid for the poor and lower middle class. Republicans historically do not prioritize (or actively oppose) these issues hiding behind some rhetoric that when people have lower taxes, they pump more into the economy. Hogwash. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. - dockanz
This is pretty silly. Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to cede money to a federal government so that it can, in turn (after wasting 75% of it on bureaucracy), spend it on "education", "welfare" or "aid for the poor." Instead, we are commanded to do that individually.
To that end, studies have consistently found that political conservatives give more money to charity than political liberals.
Obama, when he was in the Illinois legislature, wasn't merely pro-choice. He was radically so. He voted AGAINST a bill that would've extended legal protection to a child who had survived an attempted abortion and who was now outside the mother's womb. That's right; that's the guy who has wooed you to vote for him with empty talk of Hope, Rainbows and Unicorns.
Declaring oneself to be "prolife," presumably based on the realization of what that practice entails (the wholesale slaughter of kids in holocaust-like numbers) and then voting the other way because you're angry that Republican make too much money is reprehensible.
Sadly, when even evangelical Christians can be sold on the Democrats' disastrous policies of the last 40 years merely because the rhetoric sounds warm and fuzzy, we've reached a point of no return in American politics.
Greetings.
This is an issue that I care deeply about. There is no other political issue that motivates me more than defending the unborn. It grieves me to consider the atrocity of abortion in America. It angers me when I see Christians wavering on the issue (or at least what appears to be inconsistency). I stand behind my assertion that voting for openly pro-abortion Presidential candidates undermines the goal of ending abortion.
In re-reading my posts, I would withdraw a couple of comments (the "simpleton" comment was over the line); any personal attacks are unnecessary, for that I apologize. I didn't think my tone was quite as harsh as it was taken, so I guess I missed the mark there.
Your verse from 2 Timothy is well taken. I would add that verse 25 continues: "correcting his opponents with gentleness." I may have missed the mark on gentleness, but the need to correct remains.
Post a Comment