In just a few days, I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama in hopes that he will become the next President of the United States. I think he is the best politician in the race who will work to solve issues that divide us and who will try to build a consensus around our shared values, dreams, and ideals.
Having voted Republican ever since I was old enough to vote, it has been a big deal for me to cross party lines. And a big deal to discover that I actually relate to the Democratic Party much more than the Republican. I’ve had to bite my tongue while talking with friends who consider this unforgivable. And who consider the fact that I would even think of switching to the Democratic Party, much less vote for Barack Obama, to be a blight on my spiritual life because there is obviously only one choice to make in this election in which God would be glorified. Seriously? Of course, some of you McCain/Palin supporters have been quite kind and thoughtful while debating me on the issues. That’s always helpful. ;)
I spent yesterday evening reading through The Audacity of Hope. Barack writes beautifully about his faith, his journey into politics, and his dream to have a new kind of politics - a politics that builds upon those shared understandings that pulls us together as Americans. The tears came when he started talking about faith and how he’s been accused of being steeped in doubt, that his faith is adulterated, and that he is not a true Christian. It felt like I was reading someone’s journey out of Fundamentalism.
The majority of what I read from the GOP and some of my Republican friends echos what Ambassador Alan Keyes so famously said in 2004 about Barack Obama in his race for the Senate.
“Christ would not vote for Barack Obama,” Mr. Keyes proclaimed, “because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.”
To presume that Mr. Keyes knows anything at all about how Christ would have voted in the Senate election, and to presume that any of you (including me) knows how Christ would vote in this election is, quite frankly, impossible. Christ might would choose not to vote and instead head downtown to hand out stickers at the local children’s park. Or, He might write in a name of a politician that no one has really observed.
I can respect those who say “we know what God loves and what He doesn’t love and therefore we just need to elect someone who has a biblical worldview.” I can respect that person, but I completely disagree. Christ didn’t come to save our government. He came to redeem souls. The Gospel is simple. Matter of fact. But Caesar’s world doesn’t find its standard in the Bible (nor should we expect it to, since Caesar’s world is made up of people from different faiths) but instead we find our standard in common, human decency. How could we use the Bible when we are a pluralistic society that can’t agree on whether the Bible is just a good history book or the inspired Word of God?
The kingdom Jesus came to establish was “not of this world.” It didn’t look like any political agenda, party, government, ruler or nation. Rather, the kingdom Jesus came to establish looks like him. It always reflects the character of Christ, dying on a cross for those who crucified him. The central call of all kingdom people is to “be imitators of God” and thus “live in love as Christ loved us and gave himself for us.” We are to do exactly what Jesus did.
Even more so than America today, the environment Jesus ministered in was thoroughly politicized. Yet, though many tried, Jesus refused to let the political and ethical concerns of his day set his agenda. For example, some wanted Jesus to give “God’s opinion” on whether they should pay taxes in support of the oppressive Roman government or not. They wanted a simple “yes” or “no” response, but Jesus wouldn’t bite the bait. Instead he got them to question whether they were giving to God what belonged to God – their whole lives. In another instance a man wanted Jesus to use his kingdom authority to settle a legal dispute. Jesus refused, asking the man, “who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you”? He was in essence asking, “Do I look like your lawyer?” Instead, Jesus warned the man about the dangers of greed.
Jesus always kept his kingdom mission distinct from the divisive politics of his day. He kept the kingdom of God “holy,” set apart from all others issues and considerations. This is how Jesus could have an “ultra right wing” tax collector (Matthew) and an “ultra left wing” zealot (Simon) among his followers and not so much as comment on their differences. When people with widely different political views have Jesus in common, their political differences are (or at least should be) rendered irrelevant! Matthew and Simon (and Jesus?) may have had some interesting political fire-side chats. But in terms of advancing the kingdom of God, their differing views of how the kingdom of the world should operate were
considered inconsequential.
This is the model kingdom people are called to follow. Jesus is to be our example in all things. We must at all costs keep the kingdom of God distinct from all aspects of the kingdom of the world. The kingdom of the world is always about winning, but the kingdom of God is only about giving. The kingdom of the world is always about getting power over others, but the kingdom of God is always about exercising power under others by sacrificing for them. The kingdom of the world wants to control behavior, but the kingdom of God is only concerned with transforming people’s hearts.
The kingdom of God is always about looking like Jesus, dying on Calvary for those who crucified him.
- Christians and Abortion by Greg Boyd
It’s so important to remember that we are called to share Christ to others. Not to reform our government to reflect the Bible.
So how do we exercise our political voice and vote for who we think will preside best over our country and ignore what he or she may do, through passing legislation, that will be “right” or “wrong” in regards to “Christian morality?” You don’t have to lay your faith and values at the door when you go to vote or ignore what will possibly occur through legislation. You have every right to choose a candidate on whatever basis you want to. But please understand that there really is a distinction between the kingdom of the world and the kingdom of God. And that choosing a candidate to preside over a country should simply be about which candidate would preside best.
In choosing a candidate who would best preside, I personally think it comes down to your preferred ideology on issues.
Should we place a higher tax burden on the wealthy in order to provide safety nets and opportunities for the poor (roughly, the Democratic plan)? Or should we rather provide more incentives for the wealthy to expand their business ventures so they will continue to create new jobs, thus providing opportunities for people to get out of poverty (roughly, the Republican plan)?
- William Wilberforce and the Possibility of Christian Politics by Greg Boyd
I understand that is a rough sketch of both parties and so to really learn what a candidate believes, how they would lead, and what their record says, you have to do a little digging. If anything, I think this particular election has made us all start educating ourselves on politics in general. How you educate yourself will influence your way of thinking as well. If you get your information solely from Fox News or MSNBC, it’s going to be biased. And if you just read the Drudge Report or Daily Kos, it’s going to be biased. That doesn’t mean you can’t prefer a particular new source (I watch The Rachel Maddow Show religiously and think she is a HOOT) because you agree with them, it just means that you need to know that what you are hearing/seeing/reading may have a slight or not-so-slight bias.
Spend time reading different sources, viewing articles that you know you are going to disagree with (because you shouldn’t be worried that someone will change your mind, after all, don’t say you believe in something unless you are okay with being questioned), and if you get really desperate, see how many words you can create from the names of the candidates. Whichever one produces the most words wins. See? I’d be a great President. :-P
Although I respect both candidates, I do agree more with Senator Obama than Senator McCain on the issues in our society.
Remember, these are my personal citizen views. Not “this is how all Christians should vote because we are Christians, bless Pat.”
I think we need to be out of Iraq as soon as possible, I think we should let the Bush tax cuts expire, I think Guantanomo detainees should have the right of Habeas Corpus as well, I think we certainly should have diplomatic relations with rogue countries before going to war, I think same sex couples should absolutely have Federal rights and benefits, I oppose renewing No Child Left Behind, I think Obama’s Health Care plan looks much better than McCain’s (also, McCain tends to look quite overwhelmed when discussing anything health care related, as though he still hasn’t managed to get a grasp on how it all works), I think we’ll pay less taxes under Obama’s plan, I support net neutrality, and I could keep going.
But of course, I can’t leave out abortion. As Camille quaintly said, it’s “the Mother of all Christian Right issues.”
The heart-wrenching, emotional, mind-boggling discussion over abortion has grown quite heated lately. Of course, I understand why it’s so heated but I really wish we could remember that good and godly people can and will disagree on how the abortion issue should be handled by our pluralistic government.
There are 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States. That means there are a LOT of women who are getting unexpectedly pregnant each year. Some of these women are choosing adoption, some are choosing to continue the pregnancy and raise the child themselves, and some women are choosing abortion. The women (and children) in the latter crowd are not the only ones we should be longing to reach. All women who find themselves with unwanted and/or unexpected pregnancies deserve our attention. As they suddenly find themselves in the midst of an emotional, life-changing decision, they also find themselves in the midst of a warring, angry, hate-filled debate that has been going on far too long.
The Christian Right has proudly shouted from the rooftops that abortion is wrong, and that because God says so, we should change our legislation to protect innocent lives. The pro-choice crowd overwhelmingly finds shoving a religious belief into mainstream legislation quite offensive. And so for years, we go back and forth, ’round and ’round. And women weep over the immediate life-change, the sudden decisions, and the fear of how they will be judged.
If America is not a Christian nation, how can we expect to change our legislation to reflect the Bible when we simply cannot use the Bible as our standard when we have a pluralistic nation with a large portion of the people who do not believe the Bible is God’s Word? What is our standard, then? Common human decency. Or, the ability to explain why abortion, for instance, violates some principle that all people would be able to understand. Not just Christians.
The natural question then, is, when does life begin? Because if we can answer that question then we can have a starting point for discussing how abortion violates lives.
Biblically, we almost always answer that question with a resounding “at conception!” even though there are still quirky questions that linger. What about identical twins? When the zygote splits, are there suddenly two souls? Were there two souls all along in the zygote? It’s maddening and yet awe-inspiring to ponder this.
Scripture doesn’t specifically address the exact question of when life begins even though we are passing around anti-obama-because-he-kills-babies emails left and right, with verses copy and pasted throughout as though it’s just plain as day that life begins at conception and if you’d just open up your liberal eyes and let the Holy Spirit flood your soul with truth, you’d see it! The Bible does say a lot about life, about murder, and about justice all woven into the magnificent story of God redeeming His people. We know that God sees us in the womb, that He lovingly knits us there, that He has a plan for us, but when do we get a soul? When are we considered in the image of God? I lean strongly towards believing that “life” does begin at conception based on the verses that I have read.
But I still have to respect Christians who believe that life may begin around 11 or 12 weeks, when the “quickening” occurs. That is in fact, when we begin registering brain waves for the first time.
Politically, or scientifically, it’s much more difficult to talk about when life begins. Some believe at conception, some believe at the “quickening”, and some believe that we shouldn’t call a fetus a baby until birth. Another words, life, to them, doesn’t begin until the baby takes its first tiny breath.
The reality is this: both pro-choice and pro-life sides of this debate will agree that the fewer the abortions, the better. Fewer abortions would mean that we are meeting a lot of needs (socioeconomic, poverty, education, etc) that play a huge part in why women find themselves with unwanted/unexpected pregnancies in the first place. Also, we tend to agree on the reality that abortions performed later in the pregnancy are the worst kind.
As Greg Boyd pointed out in his amazing article, Christians and Abortions, the issue of abortion no doubt requires compromise from both sides of the pro-life and pro-choice aisles.
Instead of working together to create a society in which abortion is rarely necessary and later abortions never occur, the two sides are for the most part polarized at extremes, both fearing that giving an inch will justify “the opposition” in taking a mile. Politics is always about compromise (another reason why it is radically different from the kingdom of God), yet on this issue neither side is compromising.
Greg Boyd’s particular suggestion is that it would be best if second and third trimester abortions were outlawed while the decision during the first trimester was left up to the mother. If that raises your blood pressure and makes you want to kick cats, you deserve it to Greg to at least read his argument in entirety.
His suggestion makes sense in a pluralistic society. Remember, to pass legislation, we need to be able to discuss this issue calmly, without shoving our particular faith views down the throat of Congress.
Of course, if you believe that life begins at conception (remember, I lean that way too), it may be difficult and nearly impossible to think about the lives that would be lost during the mothers’ first trimester. Isn’t that where faith comes into play on an even greater level?
Can we not reach out in our particular communities and make a difference on this issue instead of expecting our government to just make a law and fix it? The reality is that even if Senator McCain is elected, and surprisingly, abortion is outlawed…it does not mean that abortion will no longer happen.
I personally think Obama will do more for this issue than McCain. McCain tends to focus on “let’s make sure everyone knows how wrong abortion is” and “we’re going to go after abortion doctors.” Obama tends to say that “abortion is a woman’s choice” but “we should figure out how to lower the abortion rates and make fewer late-term abortions.”
If I was voting to elect a Pastor of our country, I would choose someone who matched what I thought the Bible said. But I’m voting to elect a politician who will bring our country together on issues that divide us. I think Senator Obama has proven himself very well in this election to have the stamina, the wisdom, and the patience to listen to all sides.
In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he writes about faith and abortion in humbling, powerful words. This comes from a man who has sat at who knows how many kitchen tables and has seen the tears of citizens who abhor abortion and seen the tears of women who are so afraid that they will no longer have the right to choose.
Obama mentions a particular instance in which he received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School. This man described himself as a believer and whose faith led him to believe that abortion and gay marriage were to be opposed but he also questioned the idolatry of the free market and the quick resort to militarism that he constantly saw in President Bush’s foreign policy. The reason he was writing Obama was not because of Obama’s position on abortion as much as it was about a statement on the campaign website that suggested Obama would “fight right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.”
The doctor wrote the email to say that he believed Obama was fair-minded, had a strong sense of justice, and had a high regard for reason. But “if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgement, are not fair-minded….I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”
Obama checked his website, found the statement that his staff had written to summarize his prochoice position during the Democratic primary for his Senate race, and felt shame.
Yes, I thought, there were those in the antiabortion movement for whom I had no sympathy, those who jostled or blocked women who were entering clinics, shoving photographs of mangled fetuses in the women’s faces and screaming at the top of their lungs; those who bullied and intimidated and occasionally resorted to violence.
But those antiabortion protestors weren’t the ones who occasionally appeared at my campaign rallies. The ones I encountered usually showed up in the smaller, downstate communities that we visited, their expressions weary but determined as they stood in silent vigil outside whatever building in which the rally was taking place, their handmade signs or banners held before them like shields.”
- The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama
Obama shares a story of arriving at a meeting hall to speak and being informed by his campaign staffers that abortion protesters are out front. And that it would be better if he went in the back of the building.
“I don’t want to go through the back,” I told the staffer driving me. “Tell them we’re coming through the front.”
We turned into the library parking lot and saw seven or eight protesters gathered along a fence: several older women and what looked to be a family - a man and woman with two young children. I got out of the car, walked up to the group, and introduced myself. The man shook my hand hesitantly and told me his name. He looked to be about my age, in jeans, a plaid shirt, and a St. Louis Cardinals cap. His wife shook my hand as well, but the older women kept their distance. The children, maybe nine or ten years old, stared at me with undisguised curiosity.
“You folks want to come inside?” I asked.
“No, thank you,” the man said. He handed me a pamphlet. “Mr. Obama, I want you to know that I agree with a lot of what you have to say.”
“I appreciate that.”
“And I know you’re a Christian, with a family of your own.”
“That’s true.”
“So how can you support murdering babies?”
I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant women felt the full force of the moral issues involved and wrestled with her conscience when making that heart-wrenching decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once in this country and as they continued to do in countries that prosecute abortion doctors and women who seek their services. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.
The man listened politely and then pointed to statistics on the pamphlet listing the number of unborn children that, according to him, were sacrificed every year. After a few minutes, I said I had to go inside to greet my supporters and asked again if the group wanted to come in. Again the man declined. As I turned to go, his wife called out to me.
“I will pray for you,” she said. “I pray that you have a change of heart.”
Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But I did have that family in mind as I wrote back to the doctor and thanked him for the email. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff an had the language on my website changed to state in clear but simple terms my prochoice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.
- The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama
I’m not naive enough to think that Obama is perfect. But the idea of truly wanting to listen to both sides of this heart-wrenching issue is so rare in the political sphere. Many politicians say they care about both sides but before long, it comes out in some way that they really have no respect at all for the other side.
One of the many moments in which I lost respect for the McCain/Palin ticket was when he sneered about Obama’s comments about the “health of the mother” being a lie from the “pro-abortion camp.” That type of talk is not evidence of a man who wants to bring our country together. At all.
Read through what McCain and Obama are both saying they will do in regards to the issues surrounding abortion. Once again, I personally think Obama will do much better.
Lastly, on the issue of abortion, I will state publicly that I disagree with John Piper and Randy Alcorn when they make emotionally-charged comments about how if you vote for Barack Obama you are going to have the blood of millions of babies on your hands when you stand before Christ. I respect both of these men GREATLY but I (along with many other well-educated, highly-respected Christians) disagree with merging the kingdom of God with Caesar’s world. Once again, the kingdom of God is simple. Plainly stated. We are to be grace and peace to the world as we share the story of our redemption through Christ. But Caesar’s world is full of compromise and reason. We are not called to save our government or society. But we can no doubt be the hands of Christ in our community as we reach out to the women who are ultimately making this choice for themselves. Whether we agree with it or not.
Please remember, I’m not trying to convince you to vote for Barack Obama. I’m asking you to respect Christians who weep over abortion just as much as you do but who believe that we can disagree on how our government should handle it and still be fellow believers who share faith and who work to make abortion something we rarely (if at all) see.
For me, another critical piece of this election has been, respectfully, watching Senator McCain put the “ick” back in Maverick. If their campaign is an accurate reflection of how their Administration would be, then we are in trouble. Neither member of the ticket seems to be able to put together concise answers that they both agree on. And the amount of negative speech from the McCain/Palin campaign has been shocking.
When I watch this fear-mongering ad, is McCain really saying “vote for me or you might die?”
I was interested when Sarah Palin finally gave a speech on policy (her interview with Katie Couric were horrid, horrid, horrid!). But she reversed McCain’s stance on a spending freeze and assured us that she’d cut out spending on silly stuff like fruit fly research and instead spend money on research for autism. It sounds lovely. I just wish she or someone on her staff would have looked up what the fruit fly research was benefiting.
There is also talk about Palin going rogue because she and McCain are just too mavericky for their own good.
In the most recent Reader’s Digest, Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama both gave interviews. I was really interested in what both ladies had to say but I have to admit when I read this from Cindy McCain, I couldn’t help but shake my head. I just want honesty. Be real. Don’t wear a masque with the American people.
Cindy McCain said, “There is no McCain temper; I’ve never seen it …He’s as healthy as a horse and as young as one too … We never argue.”
Really? You are just going to lie on record? Senator McCain, bless his heart, is KNOWN as being one of the most hot-headed men around. Of course, that is not reason enough to disqualify him from the Presidency, but don’t give us some sugar-coated comment about how you both are so sweet to each other and never, ever argue. Especially when he talked to you so horridly in front of reporters.
And lastly, as far as the barrage of emails I’m getting about Obama, I hope that you’ve seen Truth Fights Back and Fight the Smears. It answers a lot of the ignorant emails going around. No, Obama is not a “radical Muslim” who “will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance.” There are more. You can easily discover the truth if you just research a bit online.
So, with only days left until the election, I hope you know whose name you will pick when you are in that claustrophobic booth. I’ll still be your friend even if you choose John McCain or gasp, a third party (joke!). If you are a U.S. citizen, you have a voice in your future and in your children’s future. We should be exceptionally grateful that we have a democracy. Isn’t that reason enough for us all to be willing to talk through what we believe and why without fussing horridly?
P.S. I’d also like to point you in the direction of a few fellow bloggers who are endorsing Obama. They both have a distinct take on this election that I haven’t necessarily addressed here. Camille of A Time to Laugh and Rick of Mmm, That’s Good Coffee.
