Let me propose a thesis, and I'd be interested in your response. Evangelicals who support someone like Obama do not truly believe that the unborn are human persons deserving full human rights. I know that sounds both provocative and unfair. But imagine that we were not talking about the unborn but about toddlers. If 50 million--50,000,000!--toddlers had been brutally executed in our country, wouldn't it be utterly unthinkable to vote for a candidate who had a 100% record of voting for toddler execution and who never once in his career voted for a single restriction on toddler execution--and who promised that his first order of business as president would be to sign a bill that would codify the laws in favor of executing toddlers, and in fact would make sure that taxpayer money supported it?
If you object to the analogy, then you have to explain the morally relevant difference(s) between an unborn person and a toddler. Appearance? Stage of development? Size? Degree of dependency? Location?
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Evangelicals Who Vote For Obama and The Unborn
JT writes this in the comment section of this post. I think this is very important to think through:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
What I find more provocative is that for appearing to take a stand for the human rights of human infants, many evangelicals have failed to love and support the women to the extent that they have committed a genocide of the heart in place of a genocide of fetuses.
This is not a cut-and-dry moral truth where one camp is good and one is evil. It is true that life is better than death, but the church must not nullify one source of life (that of unborn infants) with a cause of death (the embittering and abandonment of young, scared mothers battling moral stigma for the rest of their lives).
Perhaps Taylor would prefer a corresponding image of millions of women brutally executed.
Ray-thejake,
I'm not sure that I'm understanding what you're saying here. Is it that churches need to do more to reach out to women who are considering having abortions, and/or women who have already had abortions? If that is what you are saying, I agree. Many churches do support ministries which reach out to women considering abortion, but undoubtedly some churches could do more (and that includes individual Christians reaching out to pregnant women and offering help and comfort).
I would agree with you that the pro-life camp isn't perfectly "good" and the "pro-choice" camp isn't completely "evil." Both camps have at least *some* good intentions.
Let there be no doubt though-- abortion itself *is* evil, and one who is either complicit with, or who actively supports, its continuing legalization is supporting evil, regardless of his/her intentions. Christians can definitely do more to help pregnant women, and we should, but that doesn't justify supporting candidates who would preserve a culture of legal abortion (unborn human person murder).
I meant to write, "its continuing legality," not "legalization" (as it's already legal in America, sadly).
That's pretty much what I'm saying. Christians must first spread the Good News of Christ, not the modern rhetorical condemnation of their confusion. Abortion is a terrible thing, but banning abortion and making it so taboo that women abort themselves with clothes hangers and risk two lives is just as great an evil.
The church might be better served concerting their efforts on the care and love for these women than by joining a political mud-wrestling match. "It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes" (Psalm 118:8-9).
I hear your heart on this issue, and for the most part, I agree. However, is it wise to put all of our focus on loving and supporting pregnant women to the *exclusion* of trying to outlaw abortion? Is that truly loving in itself? Should it not be "both/and," rather than "either/or"? (I mean loving and supporting women *and* working to outlaw abortion.)
As Justin writes in his comment, what if we were talking about not fetuses, but toddlers? In the eyes of God, both are living human persons.
Christians can and should do more to actively love and support pregnant women who are considering abortion. If most of what these women hear (and receive) from us is a loudly shouted political diatribe, then we are not communicating the love of Christ as we should.
Having said that, the love of Christ is a love that *hates* evil. Abortion is evil. We must love pregnant women and oppose the evil of abortion. Part of this opposing involves the legal sphere. It is not the only part, and it definitely should not be where the people of God focus all of their energies around this issue. Currently though, an atrocity remains legal in America, and that must change. We can love and support pregnant women actively *and* work to outlaw abortion. From a Biblical perspective, they might actually be two sides of the same coin.
Christopher, I totally agree with you. We are to be salt and light in the culture. It’s not an option. It is a direct command of our Lord so we cannot renege in our Christian duties. So, that’s first and foremost, but secondly, practically speaking, if we are not salt, Jesus says we will be trampled on. So we have to decide whether or not we’re going to obey our Lord and be the salt that he has called us to be or are we going to be the victims of a godless culture.
It’s a false dichotomy to say that a Christian cannot engage in both ministry and politics. In fact, I believe you can do both very effectively because, as you speak to the issues in the culture, God brings conviction of sin and righteousness and judgment to the heart and soul of the hearer which leads them to personal conversion as well. William Wilberforce was as regular of a Christian as any. The English slave trade finally came to a halt because of one Christian’s tireless efforts to get slavery abolished. It was a great success! Slavery was not abolished in England by preaching the gospel, it was abolished through political action. In the US, slavery didn't come to an end until there was a war and lots of blood met the sacrifice of brave mens lives.
If you look at the statistics, the body of Christ is doing a generally good job in fundamental areas that are critical: evangelism, personal piety and discipleship about living a godly life for Christ. We do a generally good job in churches helping families, and trying to keep marriages together. That’s great. And we do a generally good job of running churches, but where we have fallen down is where Christians understand their discipleship responsibilities as it relates to the culture and loving their neighbor. Loving your neighbor may include trying to get laws passed banning the murder of unborn children.
Christians being involved in politics should not be discouraged. The money we pay in taxes every year funds all these things! We pay money to Planned Parenthood. We pay money for kids to read about our ancestor monkeys and for them to receive condoms through “safe-sex” education. As tax-paying citizens we care that our money is being used for evil. These are things that concern our kids and as Christians we better care. We better wake up to what’s really going on. We had better inform, equip, motivate and support Christians to promote and defend the Biblical principles upon which the nation was founded.
Isaiah 25 reads that God will one day swallow up death. If God is in the business of destroying death then Christians must be in the same business! I mean, come on.
I really don't care if the question of when a fetus becomes a person, a question which, according to Obama, is a "above his pay grade".
I really don't care if he voted to allow babies born alive after failed abortion attempts to be killed outside the mother's womb.
I don't care that he sat through 2 decades of "God Damn America" sermons from Rev. Wright.
He gives pretty speeches that make me feel warm inside. He talks about helping poor people. They give me Hope. I like Hope. Thus, I am voting for him.
This quote is incredibly offensive. Any Christian who solely bases whom to vote for based on ONE ISSUE ONLY is acting irresponsibly in my opinion.
(Sorry, Z. I don't always agree with everything on your blog - and usually don't say anything but I couldn't keep quiet this time.)
Rachel,
I hear that a lot from different people. What if the one issue was infanticide? Would you EVER vote for a person who is in favor of infanticide?
We all know that the answer this question has to be (unless you are a nut job) "No, I would not vote for a person who is in favor of infanticide"
Ok, then you need to demonstrate the essential difference between a two week old baby and a 5 month old baby in the womb.
What is the difference? Why kill one and not the other? Is there an essential difference on which we can kill one and not the other?
Sorry if you are offended, but you didn't interact at all with Justin's scenario. I would love to hear you do so from a Christian perspective. Would you ever vote for a president that was in favor of infanticide or toddlers? Let me know what you think.
Also, don't feel like you have to "keep quiet". That is part of what this blog is for - interaction with ideas.
z
While I don't think it's right to judge someone based on who they vote for, I do think there is a legitimate issue here.
I cannot vote for someone who supports the killing of the unborn especially the way Obama does. There are many things I like about Obama, but this is something that I cannot ignore. I think we can't turn a blind eye to this issue because it is an important one. It would be nice to say that Obama's pro-choice stance will not hurt this nation but it is not reality. Obama wants to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act which would basically take away any of the state laws that aim to reduce abortion.
Like Zach said, we must come to a point within where we distinguish that the unborn is a "person". The strange thing is that politicians like Obama don't believe a 24 week old fetus is a person yet. At the same time, if someone were to walk into a NICU and kill a 24 week old preemie they could get charged with murder. What is the difference between a premature baby (which are now surviving at younger and younger gestations) and a late-term fetus?
Post a Comment