Obamamania and Christians: I just don’t get it
July 28, 2008
PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST HAS BEEN MOVED
You may access it here:
http://www.upfromfundamentalism.com/2008/07/obamamania-and-christians-i-just-dont-get-it/
———-
The American political romance over Democrat Presidential nominee Barack Obama is well known, of course. He is a fabulous speaker. He is inspirational. The American press loves him. And he has brought a group of voters to the polls that have historically almost never showed up to vote — the 18-25 year old. He currently leads most major American popular polls by at least a few points.
And we cannot hold it against the Germans when they gush over him. He tells them what they want to hear: American culture is not superior to European culture. In fact, its inferior. And the crowds go wild.
But one thing I cannot understand, and no one has ever adequately explained, is how a large group of otherwise sensible, serious, and astute evangelical Christians have totally bought into Obamamania. I just don’t get it. Fundamentally for me, the argument begins and ends with his position on Abortion — the most important political issue of our time. But what I really want to get at is what I find very odd, and frankly, a bit disturbing: the willingness of my 20something Christian friends to put their faith in any politician in the way that many Christians I know have done over Obama. At first blush, at least, I can’t remember a less reflective placement of faith in a politician by Christians in my lifetime.
This post is meant to start a discussion with this group of people. I want to understand the phenomena. I want someone to adequately defend it. I want to hear someone in this group make the case and defend it responsibly. I don’t want a bunch of platitudes that we are used to hearing from Obama himself. I want someone to persuade me that this group of people haven’t been just buffaloed by a charismatic good looking guy who is an exceptional speaker. Someone make the case how a serious Christian can seriously support this guy for leadership of the US.
If you still don’t get it, you need to watch this video.
Seriously though, I’ve been asking the same question. I know there are bright, honest, intellectual Christians who have no problem supporting a man who voted against a bill making infanticide illegal and has earned shining endorsements from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. These folks aren’t just crazy left-wing zealots.
So, how does it all fit together? Weeks? Anyone else?
Gary, like you Iam confused why so many Christians particularily younger ones are supporting Obama.Besides falling for his charismatic personality and speaking skills, the only thing I can see is that they must have a low priorityon the abortion issue. I cannot vote for someone who has Obamas stand in regards to abortion but if you cosiderit a minor issue and put other things like the environment or getting out of Iraq and I think he is wrong on those issues as well. He was against the surge effortin Iraq and in my view would not be effective in the fight against terrorism and is against offshore drilling anbd in favor of much of the enviromentalist agenda. I hope the younger crowd does respond to your challenge or for that matter any Christian who supports Obama to come and respond. I would like to know how a serious Christian coul support a presidential candidate who is supportive of abortion rights at its most extreme
Gary,
You forwarded this to me, so though this is probably the first blog I’ve ever responded to (including my own- I tell people I don’t do blogalogues, just coffee and lunch), here goes.
As pastor of a congregation filled with 20somethings who span the entire political landscape, including those who are unapologetically Obama supporters, I think much thinking goes along the lines that young people are disillusioned with the American political system in general (and right we all should be as those who hold allegiance to the politics of another Kingdom- see Ed Clowney, 1979 Westminister Theological Journal article). So for example, take black evangelicals (I know something of a misnomer as blacks in our country who are “believing people” simply have not come out of our “American evangelical history and tradition”- of course this was in part because we “conservatives” did not welcome them into our institutions for the lion’s share of the last 100+ years), why is it that so few of our black brethren are “conservative Republicans”?
At the cost of being overly-simplistic, it’s because issues surrounding poverty have driven black voters even more so than the abortion issue. Now, is abortion “the most important political issue of our time” as you say? I think probably “yes” but is it the only issue that trumps all other issues, even from a Biblical framework? Didn’t Jesus in Matt. 25 equate the whole notion of “caring for the least of these brothers of mine” as on par with a heaven or hell kind of issue (separating sheeps and goats, coming judgment, etc.?) Wasn’t the “sin of Sodom” in Eze. 16:49 that she was arrogant, overfed and unconcerned about the poor?
I’ve had this discussion some with a Grace Chapel person who rightfully uses the language of abortion being an absolute categorical evil. I agree. It is an absolute categorical evil sin of commission. That being said, I ask, is the sin of omission of being unconcerned about hungry and diseased children also a categorical evil? From an ethical standpoint, abortion is an easy target, killing children is absolutely evil and terrible. But how about building bigger barns with “money put in the hands of our hard-working Americans who deserve it!” (sound familiar?) when at least 10 million children worldwide die every year of preventable diseases and malnutrition? By the way, is it at all the least bit Biblical to state that fiscal confidence should come because of our trust in the inherent goodness, hard work and moral character of the American people (how many times have I heard president Bush, our “brother” saying this exact thing?) Doesn’t it say somewhere that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God? To return to the original point, to be unconcerned about the lives of these millions of hungry and sick children worldwide, isn’t that also a categorical evil and disregard for the sixth commandment?
On top of that, while I am a just war theorist, I do have people in my congregation who are pacifists and believe that war is also a sixth commandmant issue/problem. I’m not saying I agree with them, but what do you do when you see two political parties, each of which are heinous, godless and systemic violators of the sixth commandment (from the perspective of my pacifist friends, conservatives by mostly being pro-war and liberals by mostly being pro-abortion?). At the end of the day, you have to pick sides despite the incredible godlessness represented on both sides of the political ticket and then all the while pray, “maranatha, come quickly Lord Jesus come.”
To reflect on some of the assumptions in your post, you might run with different 20somethings than I run with, but the case of Obamamania somehow sweeping over and placing into a hypnotic trance young evangelicals who are otherwise astute and thoughtful, far overstates the case. It’s more basic than that- the problem is that our options are so terribly limited because we live in the City of Man while longing for the City of God to come in its fullness. Our only options currently: 1) vote democrat; 2) vote republican; 3) vote for a third-party candidate or 4) pout like James Dobson, pick up my sandlot ball and go home because the game isn’t going my way (remember Dobson said he wouldn’t vote at all if McCain was on the Republican ticket?).
The first three are your most reasonable options, the first two if you actually want to impact the outcome of an election. I wish there was a 5th option, but there isn’t, so pick your poison.
Many Christians say we need to look past the abortion issue. There are matters of poverty, and war, and our response to the AIDS that need to be addressed.
Well, I’d be happy to look past abortion but there is this big pile of dead babies that I can’t see over: 48,589,993 of them.
Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history and, undoubtedly, would appoint the most pro-abortion justices to the Supreme Court.
Just listen to Obama praise the Planned Parenthood Federation:
http://www.redstaterascals.com/2008/04/14/on-abortion-obama-could-not-be-more-disturbing/
I am not planning to vote for Obama, but I think I can offer a few thoughts:
1-Obama has to be understood in light of President Bush. Bush seemed to be the Evangelical president many of us hoped for, but once we got him, his performance deeply embarrassed many Evangelicals. This gave birth to the thought ‘voting ‘Evangelical’ in the way we’ve been told to doesn’t ‘work’.’
2-The growth of the Religious Left and a progressive spirit among Evangelicals who said, ‘what about the biblical calling to care for the poor? Don’t Democrats arguably get that more right than Republicans?’
3-The argument from the Religious Left that by voting against structural poverty one reduces abortion, thus blunting the abortion issue in the eyes of some.
4-The post-modern spirit in which the certainty of a President Bush or John McCain seems uncouth compared to seeming sophistication of Obama.
All of these, I think, play a role in giving Christians the sense that Obama is an acceptable candidate. I can’t defend those ideas because I don’t agree (at least not fully) with them, but that’s where I think these people are coming from.
I would put myself out there, no surprise to most, as liking, being inspired by, and otherwise leaning toward casting a vote for Obama in the fall. I have yet to meet any “otherwise sensible, serious, and astute evangelical Christians” who “have totally bought into Obamamania.” I have spoken with and listened to Christians who like Obama and have wrestled with supporting him or voting for McCain, whom they also find less than attractive.
As an initial exercise, I think it would be helpful to think about whether the following two statements are true.
1. A pro-life, evangelical Christian can never vote for a presidential candidate that is pro- choice.
2. Abortion is not an important issue to a pro-life, evangelical Christian who votes for a presidential candidate that is pro-choice.
If either statement is true, then this is simply a debate about abortion, rather than a discussion about how or why a pro-life, evangelical Christian could vote for Obama. I think there is much more than platitudes involved for those considering a vote for Obama.
I’m with Kenny position wise, and understand fairly well what Andrew is saying. As a 28 year-old who cares deeply (and votes) on abortion as a water-shed issue, I have had numerous conversations with friends about this issue. For almost all, it extends past abortion. Here are some other elements to consider:
1.) Is a pro-life vote getting what is promised? How many politicians have won positions for their pro-life stance and truly championed the cause at the level most pro-life voters assign it priority wise in their votes. I.e. would be getting much in return from McCain for a pro-life vote?
– subpoint: pragmatically, will a McCain presidency even be able to get a Roberts/Alito through a likely heavily democratic congress? Look historically (Reagan among others) who had to put hit/miss centrist judges in that ended up not being what was thought
2.) The Bushian context- this is huge. I don’t hate the guy but have problems with a lot in his presidency:
a.) Inane spending that can’t even pretend to be conservitism
b.) Haughtiness (not likely gaining anything here with either Obama/McCain
c.) Poor perspective on environmental stewardship- he recently proudly joke about being the biggest polluter in the world-I’m not overly ‘green’ but find this irksome.
d.) Being less that forthright oftentimes- the premise of going to war was, if not a lie, a will neglect of due-diligence
-I find his administrations perspectives on torture anathema, and I think this one of the greatest stains on his administration. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but the rationalization of this useless strategy to information-gather by someone who hold pro-life views indefensible. It is the equivalent of the incongruity of the left in championing the poor and abortion. And so many conservatives defending and rationalizing torture hasn’t helped one bit.
3.) Obama’s pragmatism. He’s given a lot of platitudes b/c he’s a politicians, but he has really probably talked more in depth on more issues than any recent candidate…I unfortunately don’t agree with a lot of what he says. But he comes across (at least to me) as pragmatic-one can cynically look at its as opportunist…I’m sure its a mix of both.
4.) Obama has spoken eloquently and pragmatically about race and the family (the Phili speech on race and the Chicago Father’s Day speech on family/male household responsibility). These positions can’t pigeonhole him as traditional liberal.
It seems like many conservatives are voting against Obama (your post said nothing about why to vote for McCain. I’m sure you have your reasons, as do I, but there are a lot that are just voting against Obama) and many on the left are voting against Bush/Republicans/McCain being an extension of the Bush administration.
These are a few thoughts. You seem to accuse young people of shallowly falling sway to Obama. Obviously you can find many that do, but also just as many who are simplistically anti-Obama Republicans. I think there are a great many who are living a tremendous political tension and are approaching this election with much more nuance than in the past…I know I have.
I share many of Mike’s criticisms of some conservatives unfettered love for capitalism and of some of the Bush statements he referenced. But, to be fair, it was Bush that began PEPFAR (HIV/AIDS and malaria money) in the order of $30 BILLION-I think it was something along the lines of $500 under Clinton-and it was just increased in Congress to $50 B. It has been well documented that this was ALL Bush’s brainchild (not Congress) that made this happen…the only criticisms the Kerrys and Feinsteins could make was that it was underfunded (which is laughable in the face of the funding previously existing). This is a hugely significant and compassionate thing that has been totally overshadowed and under-reported until recently. Most of Africa embraced him with greater enthusiasm than Obama in Europe, because they know literally MILLIONS of lives have been save in Africa through this effort.
That many people have never heard of PEPFAR or its results is a travesty. Michael Guelding (creator of LIVE8) and an ardent critic of the war in Iraq, wrote a whole book on PEPFAR to make it better known (as well as an excellent TIME article worth reading).
I also came across this morning a post by Ross Douthat (http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/can_conservatives_govern_1.php) discussing how Bush’s housing policy has reduced homelessness 12%. Anybody talking about that?
I want to be fair to Mr. Bush.
Another “Mike,” Michael Novak, has some astute observations at National Review’s The Corner:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDQ4YzA5MmMzMGNjZmIyNzZjZWZjMmI5MDFmYTc2ZGE=
The money quote as it relates to this discussion:
“Now we know why Obama took the American flag off his lapel. On July 24, in Berlin, he told us. The American flag is too small to contain him. He is not comfortable being an American citizen, only fully comfortable as a citizen of the world.
But “citizen of the world” is a utopian, unreal, angelic, inhuman term, an abstraction of the sort that leads to immense bloodshed as human irregularities are hacked off and angularity is loudly planed away . . . .
The Berlin speech also explains why Obama is more likely to praise an “ideal” America than the real America. He is bewitched by abstractions and lofty ideals. That is how he touches the secret chords of the heart of so many millions, the teenage romanticism of a world without different real interests, without the clashes of culture, the force of political arguments about who gets what, when, and how.”
He is touching the “secret chords” of the heart of our 20-something’s. Hearts, friends, not heads.
As Churchill said, and as was certainly true in my own life, if you’re not a socialist/liberal while you are in your 20’s, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you are in your 30’s, you have no head.
I don’t mean to be to much of a contrarian, but Red State, did you even listen to the Berlin speech or are you just recapitulating what you’ve read? If so, I’m interested in an actual critique. He spent about the first 15 minutes of the speech giving the historical context of how the spot he came to be speaking from was free due to America’s courageous efforts in the Berlin Air Lift. And the flag pin criticism just isn’t substantive. FYI, Reagan introduced himself to UN General Counsel as a ‘citizen of the world’ and George H.W. Bush used the exact phrase “citizen of the world” in presenting the national medal of the arts to Vladimir Horowitz. How does that level with your accusations about the term?
Again, I’m not at this point voting for Obama, but I weary of this tired, vacuous rhetoric about flag pins and ‘citizen’ and Obama as an arugul-eating elitists because he speaks above and 8th grade level (which is the level at which presidential speeches have purposely been written since Clinton) as proof positive of Obama positionally. Those are just caricatures. I vehemently disagree with him on abortion, but if you listen to his speeches his address issues with much more depth than McCain presently has (and much more depth any anything Clinton offered in her hack-Obama campaign). At least Obama spoke to Christianity Today and Relevant about his positions on abortion (whether or not they were just convenient statements is another matter). What Democratic candidate has risen to this? Again examples of weight of importance Obama places on pragmatic and civil dialogue, even on the most difficult topics. Though I disagree with him I can respect this.
I’m a conservative who as I’ve matured in my thinking have become more moderate (or probably just less Republican). I read more broadly than ever, and I think synthesize information better than I ever did when I was a lock-step GOPer. I read tons of people I disagree with…as much or more than I agree with and it sharpens me.
I just want a substantive discussion, not trite cliches and caricatures.
FYI: James Dobson is rethinking his stance and strongly considering voting for McCain. (not that I care, but there are those who do)
For those who want to hear Jeff and Stu wrangle through these issues we are doing an AFC elective on “Church and State” for the next 5 weeks (10:00 AM, Sundays in the Coffee House). Topics will include a biblical perspective on: sanctity of life, just war/pacifism, taxes, marriage, environmentalism, immigration, judgeships, healthcare, and any other topic the group wants to attack.
As several of the posts illustrate, it is challenging to have enough time to search the scriptures and search the topic enough to have a well-informed opinion. A year ago or so someone sent a post to the church list regarding free trade coffee. It was very sincere and compassionate. A PhD from the congregation responded with a few thoughts on ‘free trade coffee’ that helped me see it is not as much of a black/white issue as I might have expected. The same is true of many of these issues.
On the Obama front: he is a typical politician (which sounds like a slam, but really isn’t). From Obama and McCain, what I want to hear is their “Core Values”. What are the principles that will drive their decisions? At this point, the main principle seems to be ‘getting elected’, and this frustrates pricipled Christians (on the right and the left). For me, the most important issues are the sanctity of life (on all fronts) and the importance of good judges (respecting the Constitution). If we want the change the constitution we have a mechanism in place, with a high wall to scale in order to change it.
Stu said: “For me, the most important issues are the sanctity of life (on all fronts) and the importance of good judges (respecting the Constitution).”
Bingo. Which candidate does that best? I’ve landed at my conclusion based on who seems to have the fewest inconsistencies (with politicians they are a given and aplenty) on life and, here’s the clincher for me, judicial philosophy. The latter is a bit more cut and dried, but the former it seems to be a bit grayer, as Stud mentioned (sanctity of life should be a bit broader than just abortion to be consistent, IMO).
Stu,
Will your AFCs be recorded? I think there are a lot of Grace Chapel people (including myself) who would like to at least hear the presentations and discussions.
Interesting question about how to reconcile being Christian and pro-life with the Democratic pro-choice platform. I think it’s a really hard issue and I respect people who feel called / compelled to always vote for the pro-life candidate because that issue trumps.
Having said that, I feel like MY calling in using my vote is poverty, and so I try to vote with the candidate who best addresses poverty issues, and I feel like Democrats right now are doing more things to help “the least of these” – pushing for universal health care, traditionally stronger on public education, more funding for Food Stamps and the Child Care subsidy and public housing, more compassionate immigration laws, stronger stance on affirmative action, tax schemes that are more favorable to the lower and middle classes rather than the top 1%, etc.
And I think poverty policies are related to the crazy abortion rate in this country. I think there are lots of young, poor mothers who get abortions because they feel like they have no other choice, and if there was a stronger social safety net, at least some of these mothers might decide to keep their babies. (This idea is supported by the fact that abortions were lower under Clinton than they were under George HW Bush, even though Bush was pro-life and Clinton was not.) I think that if we’re worried about sanctity of life, we should continue to worry about it beyond the time when the baby is born – that kids shouldn’t be going to bed hungry, shouldn’t be going without healthcare, shouldn’t be forced to live in cars and homeless shelters, etc. And kids who DO grow up this way are more likely to be the ones who become teenage parents, and the cycle continues.
Not that voting for a Democrat fixes all (or any) of these problems, or that Republicans don’t care about things like child hunger and homelessness. Also, I’m definitely with conservatives in thinking that the ultimate salvation for a hopeless, destitute world is first and foremost in Christ. But it just seems to be that on issues of poverty, as well as other issues that I think we as Christians are called to care about (war, energy / environment, immigration), the Democrats in my opinion are more closely aligned with Christian principles.
There’s also the issue of practical results. Let’s say the next president appoints enough SCOTUS judges to overturn Roe v. Wade. I’m not sure how much will really change about the actual number of abortions being performed each year, because this will not outlaw abortion; it will give states the choice of what to do about abortion. So strongly pro-life states like Nebraska, South Dakota, etc. will quickly move to ban abortion, which is great, but they already have a minimum amount of abortion clinics (i think there are 2 in Nebraska right now?) and perform a minimal amount of abortions because the pro-life culture is so strong. Meanwhile, more liberal states like California will retain legalized abortion — so in the places where abortion is most prevalent, it will continue to be legal, and people living in states where it’s illegal can just cross the border into the state where it’s legal and get it done there.
This is NOT to say that I think overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn’t be a step in the right direction, or that it wouldn’t cut down on the number of abortions performed in the US – it would be a huge step forward, morally. It’s more to say that if I vote for a Democrat this year, there will be a very real and immediate effect on things like low-income children’s health insurance and the timetable for getting out of Iraq. To change the abortion rate, we’ve got to do so much more than make it illegal – we need to create a country that values the sanctity of life (which isn’t the government’s job) so that people won’t want to get abortions (legally or illegally) and that supports women who want to keep their baby but don’t know how they’re going to make it financially or kick that substance abuse habit or whatever the issue is that drives them into the abortion clinic.
According to the Nebraska Health & Human Services abortion report from 2006, 737 children were killed in the womb at 37th and South streets in Lincoln. That was just one year. That is just one city in Nebraska, as they are performed in Omaha as well. I would rather stand before God and say we did what we could to eliminate abortion in our community, just as we can do much to reduce poverty, hunger, injustice in our own community. Right now the Supreme Court does not prohibit us from addressing these issues in Lincoln, excepting abortion.
I absolutely agree with you that each and every abortion is a tragedy, and that we should do what we can to reduce and eliminate the number of abortions performed. But some evangelicals who vote Democrat “justify” this vote based on the belief that reducing poverty will do as much (possible even more?) to actually reduce the number of abortions performed nationwide than overturning Roe v. Wade. The Nebraska Health & Human Services report from 2004 (which is the most recent i could find online) says that 90.4% of women who got abortions listed their socio-economic situation as the reason.
Regarding Stu’s and Erin’s comments, one issue is how you feel about political pragmatism. The assumption Christian Democrats make is that there will actually be less abortions under a Democratic regime than a Republican one, despite the policy platforms of the respective parties. There is empirical data to suggest Democrats are right about this assumption, and so one question is whether one is willing to compromise in principle to achieve less abortions.
Obviously, eliminating abortion is not as simple as voting Republican. There’s an extremely long and tenuous causal chain between your vote for President (or whatever) and stopping a specific abortion. Deciding which vote best accomplishes this requires the voter to predict the future, which is something no one I know of can do with great confidence. The thinking Republican or Democrat has to admit that their vote will not necessarily eliminate abortion, and even may increase them, which makes deciding what to do difficult either way.
So, I want to describe a hypothetical and ask you to think about the odds of each subsequent event occurring: you vote for McCain; he wins; at least two liberal justices step down from the Supreme Court; McCain chooses to appoint pro-life judges; these judges get confirmed; a majority of the Court decides to overturn Roe v. Wade; Nebraska outlaws abortion; the 700 women in Lincoln who wouldn’t have got abortions decide not to go to a more liberal state for an abortion or have an illegal one here.
Hopefully, it can be seen that there’s a lot of places this chain could be broken, in which case one’s McCain vote does nothing to help the abortion situation, whereas arguably a Democratic vote would have done more to reduce abortions.
This is just one reason Christian Democrats don’t feel that voting Republican is a necessary step in being pro-life.
ANDREW, KENNY and BEN
It seems to me that Andrew has focused our discussion on the right question but I will quibble with how it is framed. It is overstated to frame it as broadly as “Can a pro-life Christian never vote for a pro-choice person?” That is not the issue.
Obviously, as Edmund Burke or maybe Russell Kirk once said, politics is the art of the possible, and is not a purely idealistic exercise. So, when one votes one must consider the candidates, the alternative candidates, and the practical issue about whether the candidate themselves will have any opportunity to exercise power on the abortion issue. Obviously, the abortion decision might not have any play in a choice between 2 pro-abortion candidates. If we were picking between Giuliani and Obama, this would be a much less important presidential race in my mind. Important, but much less important.
The important question is: Does Abortion control Presidential politics until Roe v. Wade is squarely overturned?
Or, as is suggested by other posts, do other political considerations — the war, poverty programming, and so on — have any purchase on this decision?
My answers are YES and NO. For me, Abortion controls the Presidential decision until this is resolved. Until this dark period in our moral history is over, I am a 1 issue voter. And I don’t understand how any serious Christian can be otherwise. The magnitude of the evil of abortion controls all other questions in a Presidential election until it is resolved.
This is particularly true in the Presidential election, because it is the President who decides who is appointed to the Supreme Court, and right now, friends, we are on the edge of the reversal of Roe v. Wade. The current vote is 5-4 in favor of Roe. A shift of 1 judge can end it, and it is fairly certain that at least 2 judges will be appointed by the next nominee. Both Justice Stevens and Ginsburg are very likely retirements, and Scalia is a possibility. If EITHER Stevens or Ginsburg are replaced with a judge that sees Roe properly, then Roe is OVER, and Abortion numbers probably drop dramatically shortly thereafter. This reality means that the next President decides the question. Plain and simple.
If the claim from the Xian Obama supporters is that other issues ought to inform our decision as well — important issues like the war, or the environment, amount of federal spending, etc., I could appreciate that in any other context, and I would be much less surprised by the Xian who supports Obama.
But Abortion is the primary political and moral fact in our nation. You must equivocate on either the morality of abortion or the signficance of its evil to vote for Obama at this moment in history.
It is true that it is certainly possible for McCain to pick the wrong judges. But if Obama wins, it is very clear that he will appoint 2 judges, maybe 3 who will move the Roe balance back to 6-3 or 7-2, and we’ll have another two decades of 1.3 million babies slaughtered every year. That is 20M+ more dead babies, friends. McCain may mistakenly pick a judge, granted, but we can be sure that Obama won’t make 3 such mistakes.
So the challenge for the Obama supporter is that you have to establish how these issues can approach in ANY measure the importance of Abortion.
The War is a violation of the 6th Commandment? I don’t agree that the Bible teaches pacifism, but I will grant the point for the purposes of our discussion.
My answer: OK. Maybe it is. Lets count the dead. The War has killed 3000 american soldiers and 20000 enemy? That number of 6th Commandment violations is covered by 4 days of abortions in the US. The war dead in Iraq is not even a blip on the 6th Commandment screen in comparison to the abortion evil. (Don’t try to pin the terrorist killings of civilians in Iraq on us. That is an unjust attribution, and the Bible prohibits it.)
All the Christians I am talking about agree that abortion is murder. And yet — relatively speaking –very small numbers of Christians in history have believed that the death of combatants in a just war are prohibited by the 6th Commandment. And I imagine most Christians today would not claim that this current war is an unjust war.
What other issues are people attempting to compare to the quality of abortion when choosing a President? Race? Obama is better on race?
It is no doubt true that electing a Black President would help unify the country on matters of race. Surely it would be a step forward. But you have to ask yourself: Is the benefit worth the cost of millions of more dead babies?
The answer is simple: NO. ITS NOT WORTH THAT. I want racial integration. I want that bad. But not at that cost. I will take the live babies and figure out how to accomplish that in some other way. (How about electing a Black pro-life President, for example).
Poverty?
I appreciate the importance of the issue and I agree that it must be a greater concern of ours. On this point I think Americans are certainly the most generous private contributors to food relief for the poor and Christians have done some of the most important intellectual work on addressing this problem. No doubt we must care for the least of these.
But your point begs the question. Who exactly are the least of these in the US right now? The most vulnerable people in our country right are not the poor. The most vulnerable children in our country are 1.3M children in wombs who will make their way to abortion clinics this year. Hundreds in our own city. These are not vulnerable to lives in poverty, as bad as that is. They are vulnerable to death at the hands of their mothers, and homicides, protected by the full power of the State. I would submit that we start caring for “the least of these” by first allowing them to live.
Again, I don’t think there is any real moral comparison to be made here, without a serious equivocation on the quality of the evil in American abortion.
CITY OF GOD AND CITY OF MAN
I want to address this point from MIKE: “To reflect on some of the assumptions in your post, you might run with different 20somethings than I run with, but the case of Obamamania somehow sweeping over and placing into a hypnotic trance young evangelicals who are otherwise astute and thoughtful, far overstates the case. It’s more basic than that- the problem is that our options are so terribly limited because we live in the City of Man while longing for the City of God to come in its fullness.”
Well, I certainly agree with the despair over the City of Man v. City of God dichotomy. I don’t like it either. But I must say, a good number of these 20something Christians appear to be gushing over Obama, and when I ask them to identify any substance that motivates them, I get very little real response.
I wonder if Jeff’s “secret chord” point is not spot on: Many Xians appear to be attracted to Obama because of his charisma more than anything else. I hate to say it, but I just don’t see the sort of sober evaluation of him that is called for by a Christian understanding of human nature. Those on the right who reflexively support whatever Republican that comes along have the same question to answer, or course. But I am not addressing them at the moment.
ERIN
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of these responses.
The first point you make appears to be that prioritizing poverty reform over abortion reform is legitimate.
My view is that that can’t be correct. Abortion of children is a much more direct and profound evil that the perpetuation of poverty. With abortion you actually have a person murdering another person. That directly violates the 6th Commandment. Our government is now taking the view that it will use the full power of the state to make sure this can happen on a massive scale.
There is simply no comparison between the evil of abortion and poverty. For one, ordinarily there is no particular person impovershing another in the same way that you have with a crime. Indeed, the causes of poverty are complex, poorly understood, and often involve a large amount of personal responsibility with the impovershed himself. I frankly have no clue how you can trust Obama with the assignment of loving the poor, when he resisted adoption of legislation to stop a person from being able to kill their infant who is born alive after it survives an abortion.
Moreover, the argument certainly is not resolved that governmental welfare programs reduce poverty, and many believe that the democratic platform’s typical ideas associated with expanding the welfare state actually perpetuates the problem of poverty. Right or wrong, who knows? The point is that stopping abortion is a much more straightforward challenge, and a much more profound evil to be stopped in the first place.
I don’t buy the claim that reducing poverty would reduce abortion more than actually making abortion illegal in how many ever states would do so.
We can’t be satisfied by assumptions that people who want abortions will just go to a state where they are legal to get them. That is certainly not how it worked before Roe. (Even for the wealthy). There were states in which abortion was legal to some extent before Roe v. Wade. (New York, for example). After Roe forced every state to legalize abortion on demand, Abortion rates exploded in the US. For that matter, abortion rates exploded in those states that already permitted abortion.
Why? Because SCOTUS said that states could not regulate abortion in half-measures, or even subtle ways. America suddenly had the most liberal abortion law in the Western World. (See Mary Ann Glendon’s book on this.) Abortion could not be limited to the first trimester, for example, and survive Roe. So some states that permitted abortion in some cases, now had to permit them in all cases. And so on.
It is also the case that the cost of an abortion will dramatically increase as the supply and distribution of abortionists decreases. As a result, it is just true as a practical matter that fewer women will be able to afford abortion than those that have it now. Making aboriton illegal in Nebraska will stop Nebraska abortions. Hooray! Costs of travel will stop many abortions. All in all a good step forward.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly is the message about the value of life that a change in the abortion regime would send to the US and to the world. Norms tend to normalize. Right now, we tell young girls that the norm of our society is that if you have a pregnancy, you get rid of it, quick and dirty. What norm does that promote? A degrading of life on all levels.
If we started sending a different message through anti-abortion legislation (more than 30 states still have anti-abortion laws still on the books, if I recall correctly) perhaps those young girls — perhaps everyone — will start valuing life more than we currently do. That will reduce abortion far more than any governmental anti-poverty program could ever hope to.
Gary
Gary,
Grace and peace to you, in our Lord Jesus Christ.
I believe that the tenor of your comments is fueled by a right and deep opposition to abortion. Nevertheless, your comments go wrong in a number of important regards.
Most importantly, I reject your statement that “I don’t understand how any serious Christian can be otherwise (than being a 1 issue voter).” I wonder if you are fully aware of how this comment sounds and what it infers.
What you have said is a very short step from saying anyone who votes for Obama is not a serious Christian. Do you mean to imply this?
If so, I can only say that this is false. I know many serious Christians who will vote for Obama. If your statement, that you don’t understand how this can be, can be taken at face value, then the explanation is that you don’t understand, not that these people are not serious Christians. I will speak more to this in a moment.
That said, I’m further concerned that you would say this because I understand you to be a leader in a church that emphasizes God’s grace in any person’s “being a Christian.” Your statement is also not far from saying that anyone who votes for Obama is not a Christian, for where is the category in Scripture for the non-serious Christian? I understand it to be crucial to the theology of your church NOT to add requirements to a person’s Christianity beyond faith in Jesus Christ. When you suggest that an Obama voter is not a serious Christian, aren’t you adding to the requirements of being a Christian? I do not believe a non-Obama or non-Democrat vote is a part of any important creed or statement of the faith. Yet, from your comment it is inferrable that it should be.
That said, I will review the ways in which the decision of HOW to oppose abortion is not clear. Your comment does not clearly acknowledge that many pro-Obama Christian believe that by supporting Obama, they are to the best of their abilities opposing abortion.
You say “This reality means that the next President decides the question. Plain and simple.” But you admit there is no guarantee McCain will get the right judges. Therefore, you are betting on an uncertain percentage (see my previous comment for more on this). It is absolutely not plain and simple that the next president decides the question. The next president MIGHT decide the question – MAYBE.
Since this is true, you are saying that you cannot see how a serious Christian cannot read the probabilities the same way you do. And this is just unreasonable. Many uncertain events must occur for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, but you would require a Christian to have the exact same reading of these uncertain events in order to be a serious Christian. I do not think there is a Scripture or even Patriarch you could cite for this position.
You also say “You must equivocate on either the morality of abortion or the signficance of its evil to vote for Obama at this moment in history.” But this statement fails to acknowledge the relationship that Christian supporters of Obama see between abortion and poverty. Again, they believe that voting against abortion BETTER opposes abortion than a McCain vote.
You can debate whether this position is right, but you cannot say that it is obviously wrong or plain and simple. Again, there is non-frivolous data to support that view. You have said ‘you don’t buy’ that reducing poverty would better reduce abortion than illegalizing it, but, again, this is a non-obvious judgment call. Yet you speak as if it’s obvious, and again, suggest that a serious Christian needs to make the same judgment call you do.
You make many other statements. I agree with quite a few of them; others seem arguable. But I am not primarily concerned with how you interpret each aspect of the abortion issue. My concern is your claim that a serious Christian cannot vote differently than you and cannot see the issue differently than you.
I would ask you to reconsider and retract this statement.
Kenny:
Well, thank you for your counsel about my tone. I don’t mean to overstate matters.
Please take measure in how you evaluate what I have said as well. In particular, I did not say or mean to say that a person that votes for Obama cannot be a serious Christian.
Let me make that clear. I don’t mean to say that someone who votes for Obama is not a Christian because of their vote. That would be silly, for the doctrinal reasons you describe.
What I said was that I don’t know how a serious Christian can vote for Obama at this moment in history. I mean that.
My claim is that the composition of the Supreme Court is the most important issue at this moment in history. I am assuming we are talking about serious Christians and not challenging their status as such. My point is that I don’t know how these serious Christians can reconcile their votes for the current SCOTUS regime being perpetuated another 20 years or so can do it. I mean to challenge their behavior, not challenge their status.
Regarding the poverty explanation. I must say that I can’t really take seriously the claim that a vote for Obama is a better anti-abortion vote than a vote for McCain. I don’t really think there are many Christian Obama supporters actually making this claim, but if they are, I would guess that there is a serious rationalization going on here. They are looking for cover for their votes.
Obama has made his view of abortion very clear. He opposes any change to the Roe regime, and he has made it clear that the judges he appoints will only be those judges. The gravity of his views on this matter are widely reported on the web.
If you really think that the plan of attempting to reduce poverty put forward by Obama or the Democratic Party will reduce the real number of abortions more than radically reducing the scope of abortions that are legal in the large majority of states, then I would say that we are going to have to agree to disagree. To me that view is obviously wrong, but I don’t know how to persuade you of that. I will give this some more thought.
[And by the way, some may say what they want about Republicans, but I would suggest that they read Ramesh Ponnuru's "Party of Death" if they think that the current Democratic Party is to be trusted with caring for our poor.]
Now, let me address the issue of McCain picking the wrong judges. We only need 1. You are correct that McCain may make a mistake in picking 2 or 3 judges so that we do not gain this one vote shift. But so what? You think it is proper to walk away from these 3 opportunities on this basis, and vote for a guy that will surely get the 3 choices right for his wicked view of abortion?
This is a critical moment in history. We are on the precipice of the Court overturning Roe. How in the world can we walk away from the biggest chance we have had in 35 years to get rid of this deeply profound evil? This totally baffles me. The only reason I can muster for such a change in strategy is that people’s knees are wobbly on how evil in fact abortion is. That is why I said that there must be equivocation going on here.
Friends, if you are living in Russia in 1940, and 15M+ people are locked up in the Gulags and millions more are being murdered, do you think Christians in Russia at that time could say that some hope they had that Stalin could alleviate poverty means they could continue to support Stalin? Do we let Mao stay in office because he might provide new jobs to the poor in his “great leap forward”?
It seems to me that the only response to this comparison is to say: the abortion evil in our land is not Stalin or Mao kind of evil. Like I said: Equivocation.
Hear me: Obama is not Stalin or Mao. But the Roe-Casey SCOTUS regime is perpetuating as profound an evil as the world has seen. And the opportunity to end it is at our door. How can we walk away from this?
Gary
Gary,
Thank you for qualifying your statement about whether an Obama vote makes one a serious Christian.
I agree with you about the chance we have, and I most likely will take the same chance you plan to.
However, I think it’s important to clearly see this moment, in your words as a ‘chance.’ If McCain wins, in addition to the possibility that he won’t pick the right judges, there is the strong likelihood that the liberal justices won’t step down so as to prevent a Republican from getting to ’stack’ the court with anti-Roe/Casey judges. Again, this is just another contingency that diminishes the chance that even a successful McCain vote will affect abortion.
Again, I too will probably take this chance. But what I’m having a hard time understanding is how you can’t understand why another Christian would read the tricky political landscape the same way you do. To me, you still seem to be saying that a serious Christian must be able to assign the proper probabilities to uncertain political events, and this still seems unreasonable to me at every level. Professional analysts can’t do this, but you’d make it a sine qua non for serious Christians “at this moment in history.”
Regarding poverty’s connection to abortion, I’m not saying I think it’s more significant than Roe. What I am saying is that there is data that one could use to support such a position, such as the well known fact that Bush 41 had more abortions under his administration than Clinton. To me this isn’t decisive, but it makes the question of abortion more complex, so that I can see how a Christian Obama supporter can say the opposite of what you are saying: I’m not convinced a Republican vote best opposes abortion.
I don’t at all disagree with your vehemence or passion for opposition to abortion, but I still
think you’re saying too much when you claim that a serious Christian can’t vote Obama at this moment in history. This moment in history, to many, seems extremely complicated, and I don’t think we can expect all serious Christians to see it the same way, agree or even get it right.
Thanks for your response. If you are in Lincoln we should get a beer or coffee sometime.
Regarding the Probabilities issue.
First, let me say that almost no 20 something Christian who supports Obama that I have spoken to, or their blogs, evaluate their judgment for Obama carefully enough on the abortion issue to justify just ignoring it, which is what I see ordinarily.
There appears to be just such an enthusiasm for Obama by this group of people that they just punt on the abortion issue. I ask them how then can ignore the abortion issue, and I typically just get blank stares, or tap-dancing. You just can’t take this approach to politics if you are being responsible.
To your point: How can we be sure the next President get to pick any judges that will impact the composition of the court on abortion?
While I of course agree that we can’t be sure of these matters, we can do a lot better than to say that the uncertainty on this permits a vote for Obama for the anti-abortion voter.
Most commentators on SCOTUS say that it is very likely that the next President will replace JP Stevens and David Souter. Stevens is 90 and Souter has made it known that he is likely to retire very soon. Most commentators also state that Ginsburg is a strong possibility to step down as well.
That is 2 pro-abort votes that will likely go, and 1 other that may. As I have said, we only need 1 of these.
Secondly, these commentators generally agree that if a Dem is elected to be President, all 3 will almost surely resign during the next Presidential term.
So, the calculus here is that if McCain wins we are likely to have 2 pro-abort judges to replace, and maybe three. Lord willing he gets it right 1 out of these 2 or 3 opportunities. If he doesn’t, it will be the greatest of tragedies.
But if Obama goes, these three votes will almost surely retire and will be replaced by pro-aborts. If that occurs this historic opportunity is totally lost, and the 5-4 abortion regime is probably resolidified for another 15 years.
Because of the seriousness of the abortion outcome, I don’t think one can just ignore the Court and this calculus.
My claims is strong, I suppose, but I think that Abortion is, or at least it should be for the serious christian, the overwhelming issue for any Presidential election until Roe-Casey is gone.
But punting on this issue is what I am seeing from this particular group of people, for the most part. This phenomenon is what I am trying to understand.
Gary,
I agree that many Christians who say they are going to vote for Obama don’t have a satisfactory explanation of the abortion issue, and this is a problem.
And I agree that most Christian Democrats are prioritizing poverty, etc. over abortion (as opposed to actually believing Democrats will reduce abortion more than Republicans), which I think is is a mistake.
And I also agree with your read of the Supreme Court issue; I do think however that in the event of a McCain presidency, the liberal justices will try to hold out four more years. Maybe not, but they’ve held out this long. Also, it’s not totally clear that we just need one more, as you’ll remember Roberts’ statement about how he would “follow precedent,” which was taken at the time to mean he wouldn’t necessarily overturn Roe. Still, yes, given the three possible seats on the Court opening up, I like the odds.
I guess your characterization of liberal Christians ‘punting’ on abortion seems basically right to me. But I guess, to extend the metaphor, it looks to me like a fourth and long situation, and so I understand why some Christians decide to punt.
I am in Lincoln, though only temporarily, and would be glad to meet.
Best regards,
Kenny
For what it’s worth, I wanted to repeat a very important distinction: The government does not STOP Christians from being involved in matters of poverty, justice, and mercy. We have complete freedom to serve as we believe Jesus has called us to serve in these areas. However, the federal government has–through the Supreme Court–given free reign to perform nearly any kind of abortion. They have taken a side against innocent life. Historically, when people attack innocent life it has been the church to stand up as the moral voice in the culture to defend the weak and defenseless. Most evangelical churches are awakening to Christ’s call to mercy and justice and are getting more involved in their communities. This is certainly happening in Lincoln. Praise God. The poor can advocate for themselves (they have a voice) and we should be advocating for them in word and deed. But abortion is unique in that the victims cannot speak for themselves and the government is soundly against them. The point, in America, is that WE are the government. We elect people who are called to punish evildoers and commend those who do what is right (Romans 13:3).
Holy postings, this is terrific stuff.
I’m curious how McCain’ers with abortion as their primary moral concern for our country believe that a vote for McCain will REVERSE Roe v. Wade when eight years with an ‘evangelical’ President and Republican Congress couldn’t?
I also see Christian 20-somethings with their interest in Obama recognizing the shallowness of narrowing morality to gay marriage and abortion. For them, abortion no longer trumps a War without just cause (Iraq, not Afghanistan), poverty, immigration, and a white house led police state. Not to mention the trillions in debt and fiscal irresponsibility handed down from G. Bush the next President will be facing.
Yikes, just read my post. A bit rash and harsh. Don’t mean to disrupt the kind nature of this blog— please forgive if offended!
Thy Kingdom Come!
Gary,
Let me begin by saying, though blogs are hard to read in terms of tone, know that at no point in this e-mail am I mad at you. I love you and consider you one of my closest friends at Zion. So with those things in mind, here goes.
Do you notice how this conversation quickly became very narrow with pings and ping-backs primarily between you and Kenny?
Your unyielding rhetoric is built on your presupposition as stated in an earlier post, “until this dark period in our moral history is over, I am a 1 issue voter” and only grows from there. In the end, if you aren’t careful, it will push away many of those you mean to invite to the table.
I hope this comes across through blogdom in a kind manner, but your optimism in a McCain presidency overturning the tide of abortion in this country is overly-simplistic and filled with a naiveté surprising to me, given your intentional and extreme thoughtfulness to theological matters.
Also I hope the following comes across in a theologically-reflective and biblically-healthy way, but given the proper restraints we should place on our hopes regarding the political system’s ability to promote true righteousness, your postings reflect inflexibility to someone who comes out of the gates with a different set of presuppositions. Now, hear me on this when I speak of true righteousness as there are many senses of the word “righteousness” in Scripture, but I’m talking about the kind in Matt. 5:20 that will characterize the coming Kingdom as well as our present world as we pray “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
Again, I think in a biblically-healthy way, I’m disillusioned with the political system. I would like to pick up my ball and go home like James Dobson, but unlike James Dobson not because I despise the two candidates from which to choose, but because the politics of the Kingdom are far different from the politics of the upcoming elections (yet, because I am somewhere along the lines of Niebuhr’s classifications of “Christ Transforming Culture” and “Christ and Culture in Paradox”), picking up my ball and going home simply is not an option. So I’m stuck.
Bush did appoint Alito and Roberts, but the phrase that keeps replaying in my head during the Roberts’ nomination hearings was “stare decisis.” I’m not sure I still understand Roberts’ explanation of the idea, but the commitment to upholding existing law came across, especially as it related to Roe v. Wade. As an attorney, perhaps you understand this better and can explain to me what changes regarding Roberts commitment to stare decisis, if a few more conservative judges replace Stevens and Ginsburg.
What is more, your casual dismissal of the war in Iraq being a crux issue to some is built on some assumptions that are not shared by many in the U.S. and most globally. I don’t have the book in front of me but Shane Claiborne in his book “Irresistible Revolution” cites a source that would state most theologians and Christian leaders, outside of a few narrow, right-winged groups (your blog title is “Up from Fundamentalism,” isn’t it?), have come to the general consensus that Iraq is not a just war. I am a just war theorist- that does not necessarily mean I believe the war in Iraq to be a just war. I agree that we are there now and need to do the best we can to finish our part, so therefore do not simply vote against the Republican ticket as a result.
That being said, I get why Bush’s public approval ratings are so low and so many are fed up with the general deceit and mismanagement of the war in Iraq.
Taken from Kevin Phillips, “American Theocracy”:
“The first international polls taken as the United States was preparing to invade Iraq surprised Americans with findings that most foreigners were hostile to the invasion, but focused much of their negativism on George W. Bush. By 2004 and 2005, however, the result became hostile in a deeper way. The Pew Global Attitudes Study for 2004, based on some sixty-five hundred interviews in eight countries in addition to the United States, found that respondents in every nation but the United States said the war in Iraq had hurt, not helped, the war on terrorism. Only in Britain did a majority of those queried believe the U.S. war on terror was sincerely directed against international terrorism; others thought it was insincere and principally aimed at controlling Middle Eastern oil.”
Where has there ever been a place at the table, under the current Bush administration to dialogue about the value of the war in Iraq?
Esther Kaplan, in her book “With God on Their Side” (taken from the Phillips book), writes:
“He (Bush) really isn’t interested in faith in general. The president didn’t flick an eyelash when the National Council of Churches and the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops opposed his war on Iraq. He didn’t listen when the Council of American-Islamic Relations filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act. When the Union for Reformed Judaism announced that an antigay marriage amendment would ‘defile the constitution,’ the president took no notice. Nor did Bush respond to a joint call, signed by fifty prominent Christian leaders, including Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals and Jim Wallis of Call to Renewal, for policies that promote ‘quality health care, decent housing and a living income for the poor.’ His is not an embrace of spirituality or ethics broadly speaking, or of faith as an important voice among many in the national debate. It is, instead, an embrace of right-wing Christian fundamentalism.”
My point isn’t to say; therefore, vote Obama since McCain policy on Iraq will be entirely continuous with the Bush Administration, but to say how we Christians got “duped” into believing George W. Bush (or Nixon or Reagan or Bush Senior for that matter) to be a godly man and the Republican party to represent us as those somehow living under “chosen nation” status, is beyond me.
Of course abortion is a direct violation of the 6th commandment- that’s easy. But now we’re saying under the rubric of “just war theory” that the war in Iraq is somehow a cloudier issue or that neglect of the poor is much “less” a “direct and profound evil”? Whose ethics are you working under here Gary? Are they Sermon on the Mount ethics? Kingdom ethics? The ethics of the prophets? You demand substantial issues. I’m telling you that even if the issues raised in opposition to your “substance,” do not comport well with your calculus of aborted fetuses vs. the war dead in Iraq, nonetheless, the ethos of corruption and godlessness in Washington under the current regime, short of making you Amish, should at the very least cause you to tone down the polarizing nature of your comments about so-called serious Christians voting for Obama.
The corruption and power represented in the Bush aristocracy of privilege is sickening to me. Don’t get me wrong, you would have had the exact same problem had Kerry been elected instead in 2004. My presupposition is this- I’m a multi-issues voter, the issues that fully outline the ethics of the Kingdom. In the meantime, I vote within the framework of my limited options because I must vote.
One more comment (or maybe two more)- knowing you Gary (and specifically some of your heart), I think the strength of your tone probably comes from the rivers upon rivers of tears that have flowed (and much righteous anger), given the wholesale and mind-boggling slaughter of the unborn in our day. I weep with you brother- the thought is nearly unbearable and your point is a good one about an appeal to Matt. 25 regarding the “least of these” begs the question in our day. Yet you and I can do better with our prayers and our fasting (really, I mean our fasting- check out Piper’s chapter on “fasting for the little ones” in his book, “Hunger for God”). We can effect true change by investing more of our energies into praying for the coming of that river whose streams make glad the city of God (Psa. 46:4).
Let citizens of a heavenly city journey onward, establishing a city on a hill WITHIN THE CHURCH, praying the Lord’s Prayer, and placing our hope in something akin to the vision of the Kingdom of this world becoming the Kingdom of the Lord- there’s your greatest hope to moving out of this “dark period in our moral history” (as if between Christ’s two advents they aren’t all hopelessly dark).
By the way, did Case just wake up from a nap?
Hsu
i’m so sleepy…
I don’t see Case’s post. So I can’t be offended.
I really don’t think my rhetoric in this post is unyielding. I am not sure what you even mean by that. But I will say this that I can’t yield to the claim that fighting poverty is equivalent to stopping abortion, because it just isn’t. Neither is stopping the Iraq war. It’s not even close. I would gladly give up on the war against terror, or the war in Iraq if you could give me the end of abortion in the US.
If we think that these issues are on a par with abortion, then we have aparently become so numbed to the reality of evil of abortion by the length of its tenure that we need to be shaken out of our slumber. I think this is in fact what has happened with the pro-Obama Christian. Norms tend to normalize.
But, I will reply to your post at more length Mike later. In the mean time others can respond.
Gary
Case:
I am not a McCainer.
But if you want to know why the next President matters for the abortion issue, it would help for you to actually read the posts I wrote where I explain the economy of abortion on the Court. Changing the court composition is an incremental process, and takes several Presidents to do it. George Bush did as much as he could to reverse — appoint 2/2 pro-life members of SCOTUS. We need just one more vote, and the next President will very likely have that opportunity.
Now Case, let me ask you. You speak with contempt for those “McCainers, who have abortion as their primary moral issue,” as though they are wrong. And then you dismiss those who have the narrow moral focus on gay marriage and abortion.
This misrepresents about everyone I know who prioritizes abortion in politics. But I’ll grant you the point.
Here is my question for you: Is abortion not your number 1 moral issue? If not, why not? How can it not be? It is the greatest moral evil in the history of the US.
You are proving my point that this group of Obama supporters appears to just have gone soft on abortion. Tell me if I am wrong.
Every year in Lincoln Nebraska, about 700 mothers hire people to cut their babies up into small pieces. If it were happening on South Street, in the open, my guess is that we would have an easier time with this. But for some reason the fact that it is hidden from view has allowed people to move it down on the list so that we can somehow vote for a guy that thinks the state should permit this to continue.
And another thing. The US is a police state? C’mon man. That is just plain silly. Read a little bit of history about actual police states before you throw that sort of rhetoric around. Read the Gulag Archipelago, or the Unknown Mao. Then tell me that George Bush has implemented a police state.
To quote Morrisey: Heavy words, too lightly thrown.
GY
MIKEY:
I love you man. And Case too. You guys are my brothers, and so I hope that we will not be too easily offended when we talk frankly with one another. I am certainly not offended by you guys, even Case.
I reread my post that you were responding to. Unwieldy? Inflexible? Give me some quotes that you have in mind.
I don’t really understand the point, actually. I don’t see how one makes moral claims about abortion with flexibility. I can’t equivocate on the evil of abortion, and I don’t know how I could be more flexible without equivocating. This is kind of my whole point with the Obama Christian.
Your claim appears to be that one can properly conclude that there are other things that are just as important or more important than abortion as moral issues of our day. My claim is that that conclusion is wrong. There aren’t things that are just as important. Not even close.
I don’t know how to say that other than to challenge contrary conclusions directly and firmly. That is apparently making people anxious, but I don’t really know why. These are serious issues, and a certain amount of directness is called for.
The war? Okay, lets assume that Iraq is not a just war. I haven’t seen a good argument from a Christian that the war is unjust, but I will grant it. Iraq is an unjust war. End it today.
Abortion will still cause the slaughter of 3 or 4000 babies tomorrow. And the next day. And the day after that. A month will go by and the blood will still be flowing. In every City in our country the blood is everywhere.
My claim is that when this sort of blood flow is the reality, we don’t really have an ordinary political situation where we can debate issues with one another and pick a candidate we like between the subtle policy differences that exist between Republicans and Democrats.
NO. We are living in the context of an evil that is on par with anything the world has ever seen. How are we to respond to that in our political choices?
And where is all the moral indignation from the 20 something Obama crowd on the abortion blood? Answer: NO WHERE. I don’t see it. I see alot of Green-concern, a lot of enthusiam for stopping global warming, a lot of concern for poor, I see alot anti-Walmart-McDonalds-corporatism concerns. But the #1 moral cause in American History? Silence.
Mike: I don’t understand the challenge to my ethic. My ethic is hopefully a biblically informed ethic built on the law and the gospel. You appear to be saying that it is wrong to evaluate evils and say that one is worse than the other? Is that your claim? I can’t believe that. What do you mean?
I also don’t understand the point of your Kevin Phillips and Esther Kaplan quotes. Kevin Phillips says that world opinion opposes the Bush and the war. Ok. Esther Kaplan says Bush isn’t informed by Christianity if he does not listen to Islamic religious group claims about the Patriot Act? Or if he doesn’t take the National Council of Churches seriously? I don’t follow why you think either of these has purchase on this discussion. Tell me what you mean.
If your point is that being a Christian is not the equivalent of being a right-wing Republican, then we agree. I am not a right-wing Republican. This was a blog entry about abortion, not supporting the Bush agenda or the right-wing aristocracy of privilege or whatever. I was asking a question about Obama and supporting him at this moment in history in the context of the opportunity to end the profound evil of abortion.
I am all for the Kingdom ethic you refer to at the end of your post. Of course that is correct.
But that being assumed, on election day God calls us to choose who we will vote for. Our mutual commitment to the Kingdom does not provide us cover for just doing whatever we want when we are asked to vote on the person that will pick the person that will cast the vote on whether millions of babies live or millions of babies die.
GY
Gary-Dude,
The thrust of my comments drive to a few central convictions:
1) the investment of hope we place into the political process should be tempered by measuring the platforms of each political party with a Kingdom ethic where all evils are appropriately recognized for what they are. As a result, we find that ALL platforms result as being terribly wanting. Are there degrees of evil? Of course. Is lusting after a woman not your wife a “lesser evil” than sleeping with her? Yes. If one must choose, most wives I know of prefer the former over the latter; however, that being said, in the end neither is preferred because both are terrible evils inviting the wrath of God. The M.O. of power politics is counter to the way of the Kingdom.
2) The idea of “weapons of this world” verses Kingdom weapons being primary weapons for advancing the cause of the Gospel of the Kingdom which includes within Its purview abortion, injustice, poverty, etc. being obliterated, the good news of Jesus Christ traveling “far as the curse and found” and reversing all effects of the curse.
3) Conviction #1 and #2 when brought together tempering our comments regarding “serious Christians” voting for one political platform vs. another. Why? Because regardless of how we vote, neither candidate nor party will have the spiritual resources to usher in the Kingdom of God, turning the tide of abortion in our country (and all other evils already mentioned).
Gary, dude, you’ve made some compelling reasons for me personally regarding the direction of my voting- that being said, my voting record is not for public consumption. As a minister of the Gospel, I resolve to know NOTHING but Christ crucified.
My point is to encourage you, and all Christians for that matter, to reduce the amount of hope (and rhetoric) we place in the political process and concomitant with that exhortation rid our vocabulary of unilateral political endorsements placed on the same level as standard “heaven or hell” issues (historical nature of the resurrection, deity of Christ, inerrancy of Scripture, etc.).
Hmm. Of course, I don’t think voting for one candidate is on par with endorsing the historicity of the resurrection. I never said such a thing. I think we agree on this much.
I am not sure, however, that I agree that the difference between important theological claims and political claims means that we cannot make unequivocal political statements, which sounds like what you are saying.
After all, we have a fundamental commmitment to things theological that necessarily imply political commitments. We can’t vote for Obama, in my way of thinking, because he does not show adequate respect for the 6th Commandment on a matter that costs millions their lives.
If you think I am wrong, what would your view be if the issue was stated more directly: Should abortion for mere convenience be permitted?
Does your ethic require one to say: A Christian can vote however they wish on this question? Does a Christian ethic prevent one from saying: No Christian should vote YES on this.
I don’t see any justification for a claim that Christianity cannot make unequivocal political claims. Stalin was evil, and the Church should have resisted him. Hitler sought cover from the Reich churches. The Church of England should certainly have opposed the British shipping trade in Slaves. So too, the Southern Presbyterians should have strongly opposed the evil of US slavery.
Now, for what we agree on:
Do we put our HOPE in political change? Of course not.
But that is precisely one of my points with the pro-Obama Christian. No other candidate in recent memory has been ascribed with religious sorts of themes and Kingdom like rhetoric than Obama. Obama appears to willingly trade on expectations that he can address our problems in spiritual ways or at least on the level of our souls, and not merely address the temporal world.
We shouldn’t put our hopes in political leaders? But Obama’s signature idea is that he brings us hope. Obama describes his election to the Presidency as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”. He describes him and his supporters in purely messianic language: “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Obama represents “Change we can believe in.”
So, in the end I would ask the pro-Obama Christian to at least disavow the part of their support for Obama that is motivated out of these weird sorts of Kingdom-like expectations that seem to surround him: false hope, false unity, false claims to “heal the planet,” etc.
If they do this, however, what is left of Obama in the temporal world?
A guy who has promised his supporters that when he is asked to appoint the Judge who will decide whether babies live or babies die, he will choose the latter.
That is enough for me.
Gary
Gary is asking the question: “How can a Christian support Obama in light of the 6th commandment and the evil of abortion?” He’s looking for convincing, logical arguments based from a Christian worldview that support the candidacy of a very pro abortion politician. The main point of Christians supporting Obama is that there is more than just the abortion issue that we need to be concerned about. One of these issues is the war. In general, the Obama supporter argument can be summarized by this statement: “The unjust war represents a greater evil than abortion.” In a subsequent post I will discuss why I believe the war is just, but for now I will go along. Here’s my argument for why that assertion is not true:
Assumed number of dead because of Iraqi invasion (for the sake of argument): 100,000
Number of dead because of legalized abortion: 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 +
100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 + 100000 = 48,300,000.
I recognize that the number of deaths cause by the Iraq invasion is disputable in (either direction) and unknowable, but I hope you get my point. I’m not trying to be a smart aleck here. I’m just trying to give the two issues perspective.
The second argument I hear from Obama supporters is that his policies would create a better social safety net for the poor. I also will dispute this in another post but again, I’ll go along for now. As I hope we all know, the current social safety net which consists mainly of social security and Medicare is going to collapse financially if left on its present course. That will occur because of the changed demographics of our country. There are too few people paying into these systems in comparison to the older people who will soon start drawing benefits. One very big reason that the demographics are messed up is because over the last 35 years we have aborted the equivalent of the current populations of 25 US states including:
Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon and Kentucky.
And of course, a large portion of these 48.3 million people would have had children of their own by now. As a nation we are presently aborting about 250 children for every 1000 that are born. Since I started dabbling with this post last night, the number of abortions in the US has exceeded the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq in the past 5 years.
There is a third argument that Gary is probing for, but no one seems willing to put it out; and that is: An abortion doesn’t really kill a person. I suggest you go to this web site and see for yourself what the result of an abortion is. I warn you in advance that it is disturbing and that you will not be able to live in denial of the “personhood” of these children after you’ve witnessed it: abort73.com; photographic evidence; see the pictures; 22 weeks.
When we go outside of God’s will for us, there are negative consequences and we can not avoid them forever. By the time they catch up to us many of us won’t even know what has caused the calamity. We can’t commit murder 48.3 million times and counting and expect it not to have an effect. Sorry if this seems a bit harsh, but it’s a harsh topic.