In response to my comments on Bush’s speach, Eric asked:
So how do we Christians respond faithfully?
Great question. I started to reply in the comment, but felt it was more worth a full post.
Interestingly, it seems that this is a different question from “How should a Christian respond?” or even, “How should I respond faithfully?”
Because it is “we Christians” who put Bush in power, it is exactly American Christianity as a whole that should be responding. Bush won (twice) largely because of Christians (and especially evangelicals) giving passion and dollars in the hope of retaining some sense of “moral values”. Often people reasoned that it would be worth all that has been lost to get a chance at an anti-abortion SC judge.
So how do WE respond? Christians need to look deeper when picking a candidate. Leave one-issue voting behind. Consider treatment of the poor, environmental regulations, and tax codes to be “moral issues”. Christianity needs to reclaim it’s heritage of non-violent social action. We need to apply “love thy neighbor” on a global scale.
Sure, easy enough to say, but a long way off? Perhaps, but i think Christians are starting to be discontent enough with traditional conservativism that other options are becoming more viable.
And we get there one step at a time. Which leads us to the other questions, of individual response. As we make progress, we have to share what we know and learn. Talk about these things with everyone. Instigate discussion. Definitely keep praying, for our leaders, and for the state of the Church in this country. Let your spending and giving reflect your values. Keep seeking to let your values reflect the character of God. Live the Gospel in all way possible. We need to apply “love thy neighbor” on a very personal scale.
So, that’s my post-length answer. I’d love to hear thoughts or ideas from others. What do you think?
October 21st, 2005 at 19:08
I am lost in this area because I get the feeling that the solution is “vote for a democrat” which currently feels like a morally worthless answer. I cannot think of a political candidate for president in my lifetime that I could say “look, that’s the kind of person that a Christian should vote for”. People forget that the last Democrat in power led a military action in Bosnia that was far less concerned with civilian casualites than anything Bush has done. He also dropped bombs on Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan without getting anything positive done in those places, just indiscriminate killing. Not to mention the president before him, or the president before him, or before him or him or him or him or….
(btw, as an off-topic side note, I was wondering if you’ve seen the new reports that showed that the study saying Bush has led to a rise in abortions was completely wrong. http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2005/05/19/index.html
http://factcheck.org/article330.html
since you previously wrote that a supposed increase in abortions showed that Bush’s policy is evil, does this new and this time accurate information show that Bush’s policies are good?)
October 22nd, 2005 at 17:14
Jon -
I totally agree, that there are no candidates that perfectly reflect Christian values. And i don’t think there ever will be. Each candidate is a very mixed bag. But i do feel that some are worse than others. I am a hugely in favor of a multiple-party system, where representation is proportional, rather than this waste of time winner-take-all two-party schmuck-A or schmuck-B game. HOWEVER i don’t see it changing at all i the near future. and until it does, i will continue to encourage people to do their best to vote according to a wholistic just and moral vision for the world, which ever schmuck that leaves us with.
And if anyone has a good way to help bring about a parlimentary system like Britain, let me know.
as for the abortion stuff, i hadn’t seen the new report. thanks. I’m grateful to hear that the abortion rate has decreased, and thankful for whatever policies brought that about. however, i still maintain that the back-and-forth policies aren’t gonna be what ultimately ends the babycide. Policies directly related to abortion seem to have little impact, and are destined to be short lived, since the parties are so polarized, and switch power ever 4-8 years. additionally, many nations with fully legal abortions have significantly lower rates than we do (only 8 out of 28 with complete data are higher). as best as i can figure, the problem is more in the permissivness of our society, combined with a lack of moral authority, combined with a lack of concern for the poor. What do you think? What is at the heart of 22% of all pregnacies world wide ending in abortion? what’s different in places where it is so much lower?
October 22nd, 2005 at 19:35
Yes, proportional representation would be much better, as would ending the electoral system so that every person’s vote mattered the same. As long as we’re stuck with this system, I don’t feel like I can back anybody. Every time I begin to get feelings like I want to support someone (Clinton, Gore, Clark, Edwards, Kerry, Bush) they go off and look absolutely terrible. I’m done putting support behind politicians for quite a while.
I think that in some ways it is not what the politicians do that will end or significantly reduce abortion. But there’s been an enormous increase in abortion since Roe v. Wade, so I think the law has to have something to do with it. I would be very happy if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and simply said that the decision was up to the legislature of each individual state. I feel this would be an enormously significant development. Most (but certainly not all) states would outlaw abortion in most circumstances. I think this is the best situation, because making it illegal would put a moral condemnation on doing it that seems to be missing currently. However, someone who was desperate could still go to another state to have the abortion done, so back-alley abortions would be unlikely. Also, smaller state regulations (parental notification, late-term regulations, husband’s rights) would then be allowable. It would not take much of a shift in the Supreme Court from the current makeup for such a ruling to be conceivable.
To be honest with you, I think that the combination of a condemnation of premarital sex along with a general acceptance of it (quite a contradiction, eh?) are behind the problems in this nation. People in European nations tend to have just about zero moral issues with premarital sex with just about anyone. As a result, cultural acceptance and understanding of birth control are very very very high. It’s a bothersome tradeoff, and I’m not sure what the best thing to do about it is. To what extent do we make the sexually active culture the norm in our high schools, so that unwanted pregnancies may be less common?
October 28th, 2005 at 08:13
You know what else I think? I think Brooke needs to post more often.
November 10th, 2005 at 11:50
uhh… that’s true.