Here was the bulk of their objection:
We were really interested to listen to the “vote” sermon as it was introduced as one that would challenge us to consider what it means to think responsibly and biblically about our citizenship. Instead, the bulk of the content centered around the very strong suggestion that we ought to consider abortion the most important issue facing us today. Indeed, the intense discussion on abortion made up the vast majority of the sermon’s second point entitled, “what to do,” seemingly implying that the correct thing to do once making our list of important issues is to realize that voting for candidates who oppose abortion is “what we should do.” The emphasis on abortion, especially to the exclusion of other topics that many Christians believe God speaks clearly on as well (caring for His earth, aiding the disadvantaged of our society, supporting humble rather than ethnocentric leadership, etc.) led us as listeners to either feel that we must vote based on abortion alone or feel incredibly guilty before the Lord if we don’t. The world is so complicated, and it is not easy to understand how the Lord would have us “vote,” but we feel that it is a great travesty that in the Christian community we are wrestling with this less and less and, instead, making it seem like a simple answer by equating a Christian vote with the pro-life candidate.His response is very wise and pastoral. I would encourage you to read it before casting your ballot.
We profoundly appreciate the importance of teaching the community of believers to be thoughtfully, prayerfully, and humbly involved in our country’s political process so that our privilege to vote, and to reflect the character of the Lord in that act, is not “wasted.” However, although the sermon started in this manner, the entire second half was almost exclusively focused on the sin of abortion. While we do view abortion as an egregious sin, our experience is that such imbalanced focus on abortion as a single hot button issue, especially within the church, not only does harm to our political process, but weakens the capacity of congregants to think for themselves about how to reflect the character and heart of God in the midst of a world that has far more going on than just abortion. The pastor who preached this sermon began by encouraging people to become aware and involved in the political process, but we fear that for many, this sermon basically ended up providing a simple answer about how to vote. The surprising and exclusive emphasis on abortion as the issue that everyone should consider as most important, or at least most black and white from the Bible, is practically equivalent to holding up a sign that says “Vote Republican” or “Vote John McCain”.
19 comments:
I don't know if they should HAVE to talk about abortion IN church. Do they spend Sunday sermons talking about regular old murder? Not normally, not at my church. Don't christians know that the bible tells us 'thou shalt not kill'? From the letter, it sounds like the pastor really was looking to make a political statement from the pulpit. So the question is, is THAT okay...making political statements on which party (although thinly veiled) to vote for or what issues to vote for.
I think I would side with Josh's rationale on this one. Did you read it?
z
I'm just asking if we think it's okay to make political statements at church?
I see what he's saying, that abortion is such an important issue. But does it need to be said?
I like what he said about wishing that abortion was not limited to just one party or another. I wish that too, because it would free a lot of people to vote for other issues that are important. But pro life IS only associated with one party now, so we have to ask, is endorsing one political party from the pulpit ethical or legal?
I would say that when it comes to abortion we certainly should.
z
Z,
I would agree with you. If these votes keep coming in, something may change in the future for both parties to have more pro-life candidates. Where I am in Japan, there are NO parties that believe in making abortion illegal. The average Joe has NO choice in this kind of political process.
It's all well and good to continue in this discourse, but I will quote the counselor of a friend of mine:
"What are you doing about it?"
I'm not talking about raising the rabble to vote for a candidate. I mean what he meant:
"What are you doing about it?"
We as the church have a firm grasp of morality (sometimes to a fault, but often to a healthy degree). But our faith needs some more doing - and voting is not the same as doing. We are called to be light to the world - but not light that simply exists, but light that makes lucid the obscure and eventually points to the True Source of Light.
Voting is not enough. What do you suggest?
Amy,
The reason that it is legitimate (and important!) to talk about abortion in church is that abortion is not *first and foremost* a political issue. It is a moral issue (murder is obviously immoral) that was *made* into a political issue by people who thought that murder of unborn children should have been a "choice."
Since 1973, sadly, abortion (murder) *has* been a choice, and working within the political system is one important way to change that situation. It's not the only way, but it is one important way. Fundamentally though, abortion is a moral issue, not a political one-- and as Christians, why shouldn't we seriously look at moral issues in church and out of it?
You write that at your church, murder is "not normally" a part of Sunday sermons. I would agree that having physical murder as a *regular* part of sermons in a church might be strange and unhealthy, but Biblically speaking, to hate someone is to have murdered them in one's heart. To God, murder is much more than the physical act. In that light, murder should be mentioned *often* in sermons! Moreover, as abortion actually *is* physical murder, yet much of the culture around us doesn't view it as such, why should that terrible fact not be mentioned, and seriously explored, in church?
Amy and others,
I would suggest that individual Christians, families, and churches reach out more to pregnant women to see if they need help in their lives. Many churches are already doing this to some degree, with members volunteering as counselors at crisis pregnancy centers. I hope to do this myself as I have the chance (I have a physical disability and can't drive, so getting to and from places is often an issue).
I would also suggest that Christian families adopt children, as my brother Zach is doing. May more families do so, and be tangible witnesses of God's adopting love to a world which often treats children as "inconveniences." (I hate to even type that word...)
I hear many Christians echo the same thoughts as the writers of these letters. And probably if you'd asked me about 3 years ago what I thought, I'd probably be against abortion but in favor of keeping it legal.
But that was a time when I did not know the true life that exists within the womb. I don't think I knew that until my pregnancy with my daughter how truly a unique person she was even only a month following her conception. The reality hit me that this is not just a political issue but one where we are allowing (and in some cases, condoning) the extermination of a person just because they aren't "wanted" and because they happen to live in utero instead of out.
I'm glad Pastor Robin Boisvert spoke out on this issue. We can't ignore it. We may try to, but the reality still exists. Unborn children are killed everyday on the basis that they are simply not "wanted". We can't ignore it and we must at least try to reduce the incidence of abortion even if overturning Roe v. Wade at this stage in the game seems a little farfetched.
I don't know if truly the only motivation behind working against abortion should be political though. I think we also must try to volunteer in organizations who help women keep their pregnancies and give the child up for adoption or raise the child, if they choose to do so. We need to work to discourage abortion not to only outlaw it, but to find ways to reduce it as well that don't involve legislation.
Is it really any surprise that Christians who are voting for Obama don't want abortion to be talked about?
Of course it's no surprise. If I were voting for him, the last thing I'd want is someone to actually force me to confront the consequences of my decision.
It's so much easier if I'm not confronted about my vote for Obama. Then I can do it without the guilt.
You're hilarious.
...and I'll sleep fine tonight, thank you, knowing that I won't be voting for another George Bush, idiot clone and his little moron vice presidential 'hockey mom'. Let the republicans continue with 'abstinance only' education and see what happens to abortion rates. Really, sife, I'll just be glad knowing that we might have the chance to get someone in office who cares about the love to the poor and sick that Jesus shows in the New Testament.
I do like having discussions, but I do not appreciate it when people start attacking each other and making insults. I have been having good discussions with everyone but you, sife. Although Zach and Christopher and I do not agree on who to vote for, we are civil and respectful. If anything, you've made me more solid in my decision. And for that, I thank you. Peace.
I would be fine with a sermon about abortion at my church, so long as there were follow up sermons as well. Sermons on adoption (why are there orphans in a nation with MILLIONS of Christians), sermons on providing for the poor (including KNOWING poor people and not sheltering yourself), ect.
I agree that this is not a "political issue" but a moral issue. However, if we don't do a comprehensive series on the Christian's responsibility beyond voting, WE are making it a political issue.
"..and I'll sleep fine tonight, thank you, knowing that I won't be voting for another George Bush, idiot clone and his little moron vice presidential 'hockey mom'. Let the republicans continue with 'abstinance only' education and see what happens to abortion rates. Really, sife, I'll just be glad knowing that we might have the chance to get someone in office who cares about the love to the poor and sick that Jesus shows in the New Testament"
- This should tell most of you all you needed to know. It just needed to be coaxed out of her.
Amy wanted to give the impression that she was a thoughtful person who was "praying" and struggling with the decision. What lied underneath was just generic liberal anger.
To answer Christopher Lake's question earlier, that's the perfect example of what needs to be coaxed out, rather than pretending that she was ever really considering her decision.
That last outburst (e.g."little moron vice presidential 'hockey mom'") sure makes it seem like Amy's hatred of Bush is more powerful that her desire to end abortion.
I hope I'm wrong. As much as I hate seeing Christians voting for infanticide, I still hold out hope that it's done so with a pure heart.
Amy,
My sister in Christ, John McCain is definitely not a "George Bush idiot clone." I'm honestly curious here-- do you pay attention to politics year-round, or only during seasons of presidential campaigns? Anyone who has paid serious attention to McCain and Bush over the years knows that they have differed many times. As for the "McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time" ads," they are very misleading. McCain has differed with Bush on how to conduct the Iraq war, on how to deal with illegal immigration, on certain tax cutting initiatives, and on campaign finance reform. How are such differences "clone-like"?
As for Sarah Palin being a "moron hockey mom," one does not become governor of a state and effectively take on political corruption and energy issues in that state if one is a "moron."
About Obama "caring for the poor," why do you think that McCain *wouldn't* care for the poor? Amy, I used to be an ultra-liberal Democrat, and I bought into this kind of rhetoric about conservatives. As a moderate conservative now though, I know that it is primarily based on emotion and not facts and careful thought. It's not that Democrats care for the poor and Republicans don't-- they *both* "care for the poor." They just disagree on how to *effectively* help the poor.
Post a Comment