This year's presidential election may see the largest divide yet between self-identifying evangelical Christians at the voting booth. In one sense this is a very good thing. The increasing number of erstwhile "conservative Christians" interested in voting for the Democratic candidate(s) is directly correlated to the increase of the influence of younger evangelicals on the Church's emphasis on social justice. Matters of poverty, global conflict, health care, etc. are registering higher and higher on the Church's radar. To be clear: This is a good thing.
It is the Church's duty to be concerned about social justice. If you consider yourself a citizen of Jesus' kingdom, then you should absolutely be concerned about the "least of these," about the marginalized and downtrodden and exploited. Just look at the Beatitudes right at the front end of the Sermon on the Mount if you don't believe me.
The problem -- as I see it -- is that many of those in the Church concerned about addressing social ills make the interesting leap of seeing the Church's concern become the government's duty. See, it is not just the Church's duty to be concerned about social justice; it is the Church's duty to do social justice (so to speak). And this divorce between concern and doing influences just who we think ought to be addressing social ills and that ends up prompting those gosh darned false dichotomies.
For example's sake, I'm going to laser in on the hot-button issue of abortion. The false dichotomy comes into play whenever one hears a defender of abortion rights say we can't criminalize abortion, we need instead to work on addressing the underlying issues that lead to the tragic choice of abortion. The position posited may be put thusly: Fighting against the cause trumps legislating against the effects.
I have two responses to this. The first response I won't elaborate much on because it is thoroughly theological, which is to say, we can fight against causes all day long, but no program or counseling, governmental or ecclesiological, will cure us of sin. My second response, though, is that this is a classic case of false dichotomy. Fighting against the underlying problems that give rise to abortion may indeed be "better" than simply criminalizing abortion, but that does not mean we must choose one or the other.
What is the thinking behind either/or? Why can't we do both/and?
Why can't we address and attack the underlying causes and issues of poverty, moral decay, etc. that contribute to the abortion epidemic and outlaw killing babies? Why does it have to be "We can help unwed moms or we can outlaw abortion?" We don't say that we can either address poverty and mental health or we can outlaw robbery and murder. We do both. And we should.
Today a commenter on another blog wrote this:
The problem is I don't see [Republicans] addressing the underlying concerns AT ALL. The attack at the high level (only criminalization I should say) is all that matters to them. If you know somewhere where they are, great!
This is still more dichotomized thinking. It goes like this: Conservatives aren't pressing for governmental addressing of underlying causes, therefore they don't care. This, friends, is bad logic. It assumes a priori that the government is the best venue for addressing social change, and if you don't buy wholesale into that venue, you obviously don't care.
The reason this commenter -- and other dichotomized thinkers -- think conservatives don't care about addressing underlying causes of abortion is because they aren't acknowledging that conservatives are addressing these issues outside the instrument of the government.
I know lots of places where conservatives are attacking the underlying problems. They're just not doing working through legislation but through more grassroots efforts: counseling centers, after school programs, shelters, adoption agencies, health clinics, local churches, etc. (Let me ask you this: Which option sounds more like The Jesus Way? Living out the kingdom in community and personhood to right the wrongs of our society? Or trusting the government to do the work of the kingdom?)
The breakdown in logic may come down to one's political philosophy. The biggest reason Republicans aren't big on governmentally addressing these issues is because they know that the government sucks at things like this. Always has, (probably) always will. There's a reason, for instance, Canadians who have universal health care keep coming into the States to pay somebody to treat them.
Historically speaking, this plays out as well. The government couldn't and didn't change hearts about slavery and, thereafter, segregation. But the government could sure legislate against those things. The government outlawed them. And it was the Church that worked to proclaim justice in those areas. (Where were the liberals then saying we shouldn't outlaw those things, only throw money and government programs at them?)
My point is this: Just because Republicans aren't advocating governmental addressing of social ills doesn't mean they don't care about social ills and are doing nothing about them. Indeed, if you look at the recent data tracking charitable giving rates among conservatives and liberals, it becomes quite clear that liberals outdoing conservatives when it comes to social good is a myth.
Moreover, if you want to look at the charitable giving of each of the presidential candidates I think this is well reflected. Obama's personal giving is pathetic. Less than 1% of his income between 2000 and 2004, up to 6% two years ago. Contrast with that evil Grinch-like Dick Cheney and his wife, who gave 78% in 2006. No, that's not a misprint. Contrast further with the Republican candidate for president, John McCain, who gave 26% in 2007. All I figure is that Senator Obama and his supporters think this difference is okay, because he plans on spending your money and mine to "fix things."
Political conservatives and their largest voting base, evangelical Christians, are hammered for selfishness and apathy all the time. But those charges are false. Do we have a way's to go? Yes. Does the American Church have a selfishness and self-concern problem? Yes. But it has been the Church throughout history that has cared for the "least of these" most often here and abroad.
Here's to truth and to clearer thinking. And to a two-fisted approach to social justice: criminalizing what should be criminal and caring for who should be comforted.
Jared Wilson is the pastor and co-founder of Element, a missional Christian community in
Nashville, Tennessee, and an award-winning writer whose articles, essays, and
short stories have appeared in numerous publications.
Jared's first book, The Unvarnished Jesus, releases Fall 2009 from Kregel.
A graduate of Middle Tennessee State University, he lives outside
Nashville with his wife and two daughters.
Encounter Jared's passion for the ongoing reformation of the evangelical church
almost daily at www.gospeldrivenchurch.com.
I guess I wouldn't say that the problem is conservative apathy. It's more like conservative militantism. I am pro-life but I cringe when I hear other Christians talk about the abortion issue. Their inability to understand that everyone hates abortion whether they are pro-life or pro-choice shows that they really don't understand the issues beyond the binary good/bad.
The problem is that for years the Republicans have used the black-and-white position of criminalization to win the support of conservative Christians. For some reason Christians tend to have their pet issues like being pro-life when it comes to babies, but then they forget about many other issues which are more obvious to the rest of America. President Bush flashes his "conservative Christian" card and Christians no longer pay attention to things like misleading the population, illegal bribes, political judicial appointees, refusing court orders and failing to uphold the Constitution. These are all well-documented facts but ask a Christian about them and they will be unaware or deny that they are true. Why? Because Bush is "pro-life".
To borrow from one of Jesus' parables: Let's say there are two men. One has a plan to reduce the number of abortions in American, but says he is pro-choice. The other says he is pro-life but has no feasible plan to reduce the number of abortions. Which one is pro-life?
Because most pro-lifer's are unable to see this, there is a real dichotomy that exists.
"I guess I wouldn't say that the problem is conservative apathy. It's more like conservative militantism."
Jack, I think I know what you mean. Pro-lifers can do a lot better when it comes to civil discourse and compassionate conversation. I do think, though, that the "militantism" comes directly from the passion involved in believing that babies are being killed. That's a pretty tragic thing and the number aborted has surpassed Holocaust victims. Is it militantism to be upset and angry and passionate about the Holocaust?
I guess that's why I'm "soft" on pro-life zeal (when it's limited to rhetoric, I mean).
"Their inability to understand that everyone hates abortion"
This isn't true. This is another canard I meant to address in the post but didn't have room for. It makes no sense to say "I hate abortion" and "I think we ought to have every right to it." My main question is "Why does one hate it?" What's so bad about it? Why is it wrong? And if the answer is "It takes the life of a child," then it certainly doesn't make sense to say "It's okay in some circumstances." The "I hate abortion too" approach does nothing to help the pro-choice cause. They should stick to saying it's just a medical procedure, the fetus is not a life, etc etc
"For some reason Christians tend to have their pet issues like being
pro-life when it comes to babies, but then they forget about many other
issues which are more obvious to the rest of America."
I would say the real problem is that the rest of America thinks everything is more important than the killing of babies. Are you really suggesting that babies dying should be low on the totem pole? If we're talking about health issues and human rights, abortion fits the bill perfectly.
"To borrow from one of Jesus' parables: Let's say there are two men. One
has a plan to reduce the number of abortions in American, but says he
is pro-choice. The other says he is pro-life but has no feasible plan
to reduce the number of abortions. Which one is pro-life?"
Again, false dichotomy. This is a hypothetical scenario with no basis in reality. What we really have is this: One man who thinks abortion should be widely available and even thinks denying treatment to babies who survive abortion is acceptable, but he thinks if he spends enough government money on enough government programs abortions will become less frequent (for what reason, I don't know, since he doesn't think abortion is wrong per se). One man who thinks killing babies is wrong and therefore should be illegal and will appoint judges who agree and supports and trusts churches and charities to make the desire for abortion less frequent. Which one is pro-life? The guy who thinks everyone should have as much access to killing babies as they want? Or the guy who wants to make it illegal and trusts the people of the country to counsel each other, not the government?
"It makes no sense to say "I hate abortion" and "I think we ought to
have every right to it."" (I'll leave alone the fact that you are
quoting the extreme position not held by the majority of pro-choicer's.)
The pro-choicer's I know (and I admit I only know a few, mostly
neighbors) are compassionate, upright and moral people, and yes they
hate abortion for what it is. But they think it is none of the
governments business, which is a point you fail to mention. What
pro-choicer's (as well as I myself) are tired of is a political party
saying they have the corner on morality because of this one issue,
while many upright and moral people are being called baby killers.
To top it off, Christians seem to not be paying attention to the vast
amount of corruption in this political party. It would seem that the
"moral stance" that the Republican party has taken on abortion is only
a smokescreen. The Bush administration willfully mislead the American
people into war with Iraq where tens of thousands of men women and
children have been killed. Is that being pro-life? Most Christians
say that the killing is justified because America has a right to defend
herself. Sounds like a pro-choice argument to me. Now there's a
dichotomy for you!
Answer this: Do you believe that a person can be both pro-choice and a Christian?
"It makes no sense to say "I hate abortion" and "I think we ought to
have every right to it."" (I'll leave alone the fact that you are
quoting the extreme position not held by the majority of pro-choicer's.)
But it is the position of Senator Obama.
I am making the leap that supporting Senator Obama's approach to
abortion rights means supporting his position on abortion rights. :-)
The pro-choicer's I know (and I admit I only know a few, mostly
neighbors) are compassionate, upright and moral people, and yes they
hate abortion for what it is.
What is it? What do they think it is? We should probably clarify that. Because what I think it is is taking the life of a baby. And if a pro-choicer also thinks it is, my question remains: How does it make sense to say we should work on making killing babies less common but not make it criminal?
But they think it is none of the
governments business, which is a point you fail to mention.
This is pretty much inherent in my point. Pro-choicers DO think it's the government's business, which is why they want federal laws protecting abortion rights across the nation. I also fail to compute the quote-unquote "liberal" perspective that says abortion is tragic but not the government's business and that poverty/disease is tragic but IS the government's business. In my world, that's called hypocrisy.
What pro-choicer's (as well as I myself) are tired of is a political party
saying they have the corner on morality because of this one issue
I nowhere said anything about a political party having the corner on morality. Nowhere. That's something you brought into the conversation. I'm saying that abortion is taking the life of a child and I'm saying that's immoral. And I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to say that conservatives who want to criminalize abortion are uncaring because they don't think the government is the best venue for addressing underlying causes. The whole Bush is a liar, prolifers are jerks thing is a ploy at avoiding talking about the real issues: whether abortion is taking a child's life and, if it is, whether it should be criminalized or not.
while many upright and moral people are being called baby killers
What is abortion, Jack? What happens? If it's not killing a baby, why is it tragic? Why should we care about reducing it? This doesn't make sense. If it's not as bad as all that, what difference does it make if we reduce it or address the underlying causes?
Do you feel the same way about slavery? What if slavery were still legal? What if I was saying, "We should criminalize slavery because it's wrong and immoral and inhumane"? Would you be saying "It's not nice to call moral upstanding slaveholders wrong and immoral?" Or "We shouldn't criminalize it but just work on curing the social ills that give rise to it"?
Aside from the obvious difference between abortion and slavery, what's the difference?
Your last paragraph actually reveals the futility in these conversations. It always becomes tit for tat. "Forget that! What about this?!" For as much frustration as you have trying to talk to moronic prolifers I have the same frustration trying to talk about it with people who don't think abortion is all THAT bad because such and such is also bad. Another dichotomy. I haven't even said anything about the war in Iraq (if that's the one you're talking about), so you couldn't possibly know my position on it. And I haven't said a thing about President Bush. But you assume.
Answer this: Do you believe that a person can be both pro-choice and a Christian?
Yes.
Answer this: Why is abortion bad (or tragic or whatever word you want to use)?
» left by Jack (52 days 19 hours ago.) "What is it? What do they think it is? We
should probably clarify that. Because what I think it is is taking the
life of a baby. And if a pro-choicer also thinks it is, my question
remains: How does it make sense to say we should work on making killing
babies less common but not make it criminal?"
Yes it is taking the life of a baby, and that's a terrible thing. A
horrendous thing. The problem is that there is no way abortion is
going to be criminalized on a national level without a constitutional
amendment and there is nearly a 0% chance of that happening. So with
the pro-lifer's unable to carry on any real conversation about how to
reduce the number of abortions, that leaves us with no hope but to rely
on the pro-choicer's to try to reduce the number of abortions in
America.
The slavery scenario doesn't work because there was a possibility of it being outlawed and indeed it was.
I suppose another way to sum it up is that there isn't a chance for
abortion to be made criminal on a national level, so shouldn't we be
working on the next best thing? Currently, it appears that the
abortion issue is just being exploited by the Republicans for votes,
and it is working.
Yes it is taking the life of a baby, and that's a terrible thing. A
horrendous thing. The problem is that there is no way abortion is
going to be criminalized on a national level without a constitutional
amendment and there is nearly a 0% chance of that happening.
Says who? If there's a zero percent chance why do pro-choicers freak out every time a pro-life judge gets appointed to the Supreme Court?
A constitutional amendment would pass if the majority of congress were for it and the president agreed.
We both apparently agree that abortion is killing a baby, but the real difference, I suppose, is that I think that's horrendous enough a thing to push for criminalization and you don't. Okay.
So with the pro-lifer's unable to carry on any real conversation about how to
reduce the number of abortions . . .
Wrong. Dead wrong. The people actually working to reduce abortion on a grassroot level are prolifers. They are in counseling centers and homeless shelters and after school programs and churches. They are doing mission work without making a huge p.r. circus about it and all the while being slammed by people like you for not caring enough to want the government to do the job for them.
What you really mean is "So with prolifers unable to agree that the government should handle this . . ." Because you can't really be ignorant of all that is going on on a local, missional level to address social injustice. Can you?
The slavery scenario doesn't work because there was a possibility of it being outlawed and indeed it was.
It more than works. What a tidy spin you're putting on something that went on for hundreds of years (and still does in many parts of the world), required lots of arguing and fighting and mission work, and let's not forget A WAR to end. Sure, there was a possibility to end it, but it wasn't without the things you say we shouldn't do: argue, fight, legislate.
I don't think killing babies is any less a human rights issue than slavery. And abortion has only been legal since the 70s. If anything, the possibility to end abortion is better than it was to end slavery at that time.
I suppose another way to sum it up is that there isn't a chance for
abortion to be made criminal on a national level, so shouldn't we be
working on the next best thing?
Again, false dichotomy, which brings me full circle. The BEST thing is to work towards legislating against it AND work towards reducing the scenarios and temptations that give rise to it. We don't have to choose.
Currently, it appears that the
abortion issue is just being exploited by the Republicans for votes,
and it is working. If I wanted to respond flippantly (and I guess I sort of am), I would point out that it's not like the Democrats aren't exploiting anti-war sentiment for votes (or anti-poverty or anti-oil or anti-business or anti- lots of things for votes). In any event, this is kind of a weird pigeonhole to put pro-life voters in. I am not pro-life because I'm Republican. I vote for Republican (usually) because I'm pro-life. I take killing babies seriously, so if my options are one guy who thinks it's sad but should be widely available and legal for anybody who wants one and one guy who agrees it's killing a baby and should be illegal, yeah, I'm gonna vote for the second guy. And he most often turns out to be Republican. I'm not being exploited. I'm voting against the guy who doesn't think baby killing is bad enough to criminalize.
Saying I'm being ignorant or naive or "exploited" is a great way to become what you say you hate, by the way -- a black/white thinker uninterested in discourse.
Yes, Jared, you continue to make my point. Everything you say indicates that you fit the syndrome that I am suggesting is commonplace among the majority of those that I see calling themselves pro-life.
It's not like we're saying one party is for killing and one party is not. One party says they are pro-life and also lies to the American public in order to justify going to war, which also kills babies, adults and children. My indignation is that Christians are justifying both of these positions and then telling those who choose not to vote Republican that they are morally inferior because they are not voting for the 'pro-life' candidate. Then they go around calling people torn in the middle baby killers.
So you admit you're a 1-issue voter and this means that you usually vote Republican. My assertion is that the Republican party doesn't care about killing babies, all they care about is votes. They don't want abortion to be made illegal because then Christians wouldn't let them get away with all the corruption that they are ignoring now. How many of the latest Supreme Court appointees, nominated by a Republican, are actually pro-choice? Because of this, I say you are being exploited for your vote. Your vote is not going to lead to the criminalization of abortion, nor will it lead to a reduction in abortion.
This has been an interesting debate and you have indeed helped me hone my opinions, but it's gone on long enough. I'll let you have the final word.
Yes, Jared, you continue to make my point. Everything you say
indicates that you fit the syndrome that I am suggesting is commonplace
among the majority of those that I see calling themselves pro-life.
This is insulting, juvenile, bad logic, and indicative you're not really paying attention.
You're not even responding to my points or responses.
One party says they are pro-life and also lies to the American public
in order to justify going to war, which also kills babies, adults and
children.
I'm not arguing for a party. I'm not arguing for President Bush. This tack you keep taking about the war and blah blah blah is just a diversion from actually discussing what the post is about. Instead of actually replying to my rejoinders you just go into "But Bush lied! War kills people too!" as if that evens everything out, as if I'm even talking about any of that. Very poor form.
If you want to play that game, I guess I'd say you have just as much to answer for as your Republican boogeymen do. If they're hypocrites for being pro-life on abortion but supporting the war, aren't pro-choicers hypocrites for being pro-life on war but supporting abortion rights? (The answer, by the way, if your logic is fairly applied both ways, is yes.)
So you admit you're a 1-issue voter and this means that you usually vote Republican.
We both agreed (I thought) that abortion is killing babies. I won't apologize for thinking that issue trumps all else. I like babies.
My assertion is that the Republican party doesn't care about killing babies, all they care about is votes.
My hope is not in the Republican party or any other party or any politics. It's in Jesus. You can read my other posts on politics if you're tempted to think I'm a Republican zombie.
I think it's kinda funny, though, you that throw this out there as if it doesn't equally apply to the Democratic party.
How many of the latest Supreme Court appointees, nominated by a Republican, are actually pro-choice?
Bush nominated John Roberts and Sam Alito, both pro-life with variances of nuance in their positions. Both were confirmed. He also nominated Harriet Miers who "appeared" pro-choice but she wasn't confirmed anyway.
Your vote is not going to lead to the criminalization of abortion, nor will it lead to a reduction in abortion.
Is this some sort of Jedi mind trick? :-)
My conscience won't let me vote for someone who thinks killing babies is sad but not wrong. So I'll vote for the guy (or gay) who thinks it's wrong, regardless of how the law of the land results. My hope, again, is not in the government.
I realize my vote won't lead to a reduction in desire for abortion. That was the point the post, one of the many you've ignored or missed.
I'm honored to have "honed" your views, but I don't think you were in any danger of budging anyway. You read what you wanted to and skipped what was inconvenient. Meanwhile, you'll keep thinking prolifers don't really care, and I'll keep caring and working because your willful disbelief doesn't affect me one way or another.
I agree we're done. It's no fun debating someone who doesn't actually address the things you say.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
