Forced to Vote Pro-Choice? Political and Cultural Engagement

In light of Rudy Giulliani’s support for Roe v. Wade tonight in the Reagan Derby, the imminent possibility of having no pro-life option in the 2008 presidential election demands a thoughtful Christian response that is grounded in a biblical understanding of the kingdom of God.  Please consider the following excerpt I pulled from an ethics paper.  I welcome any and all dissenting views:

Transforming Culture? Any proper strategy for political and cultural engagement must give Christ the supremacy he is due as the only means of ultimately transforming culture, either in the here and now by faith, or in the kingdom to come by his might. The Emerging Church movement is exactly right in what it affirms as some of the perennial issues surrounding social activism, seeing the Gospel in a more holistic manner that incorporates the care of the needy. However, such social activism apart from the indispensable message of justification in Christ alone is not an advancement of the kingdom. Rather, as citizens of the heavenly kingdom, social activism is to be viewed as the standing in the here and now against that which will one day be destroyed and alongside that which will one day follow behind Christ as he ushers in his kingdom. Any view of the kingdom that divorces this Gospel from social justice, misses the kingdom, and effectively leaves those whom they have fed, clothed, and sheltered as the enemies whom Christ will one day make for himself a footstool; the rich man and the beggar, the strong and the weak, remain enemies of the kingdom so long as they are outside of Christ. It is crucially important to understand that socio-political engagement for its own sake, is not an advancement of the kingdom; rather, the members of the Heavenly kingdom reside in the here and now as strangers and aliens seeking the ideals of the kingdom to come, confident their message is the only source of liberation from oppression.

Should a Christian Vote for a Pro-Choice Candidate? The Emerging Church is consistent in its understanding of the kingdom and socio-political engagement when it feels comfortable voting for a pro-choice president. For example, Wallis holds fast to many Democratic party values, while at the same time pleads for the party to make way for “pro-life democrats”. When socio-political engagement is heralded as an advancement of the kingdom and an effort to ultimately transform culture, it is easy to give support to a pro-choice candidate for the sake of other issues of social justice. Herein lie the extremely practical implications of a proper justification-centered, Christ-reigning understanding of the kingdom. Our duties are not merely to advocate social justice, but rather to represent that culture-transforming entry of the kingdom consummated, a task that seems nearly impossible while at the same time pulling the lever for a leader who advocates the destruction of an unborn child. If any election pits two such candidates against each other, a Christian should have virtually an insurmountable difficulty casting a vote for either candidate in light of the immense value of life in the age to come, where “the last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor 15:26). Knowing Christ will one day usher in his kingdom by his own power assures the believer that not participating in such an election is in no way a defeat for the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized who may be represented by other policies. Rather, they behold in the practice of its citizens their only means of victory: an eternal liberation is coming in the form of the kingdom of God, and it brings with it an ideal ethic that will last. It opens the doors for a consistent social activism that does not deny the Gospel in its practice, but affirms the priority of the kingdom to come. The poor are served only when the Kingdom’s ethic prevails, namely that a day is coming when death and social injustice shall be no more, a reality that can only be enjoyed in the here and now by faith in Christ alone. Or as Moore concludes, “When we plead in the public square for the sanctity of human life, we are saying something that we learn from the kingdom we will see in our own resurrections from the grave— that life is better than death because the gospel is more glorious than the curse.”

Addressing the obvious remaining question. Why does abortion mark the point of disengagement? Are there other issues that would constitute a similar approach? This is most definitely the line of questioning that follows the argument, and for the most part, sounds like a fair critique. It is not denied that there may be less significant issues where a lesser-of-two-evils approach is appropriate; however, in the case of abortion, there is a clear, distinctly Christian responsibility toward the protection of the unborn that is wrapped-up in the image-bearing nature of mankind. At the heart of the destruction of the image-bearer, lies an assault against the Creator himself (Gen 9:6). The same argument might be adequately made for a case that involves the issue of homosexual marriage. Other examples would have to be considered on a case by case basis and evaluated against the ideal ethic of the kingdom similarly to what has been done here in the case of abortion. Is there a distinctly Christian method of carrying out the issue at hand? Is there an immediate threat to human life involved? How much weight does the issue at hand hold against other peripheral issues that may be involved? Further, it must be conceded that for everyone, there is a point where participating in an election would cross the bounds of comfortable involvement. At the risk of sounding sensational (though history has known the type), what if both candidates favored the destruction of all newborn Jewish males? Or if both candidates promoted some sort of ethnic cleansing? There is a point when one’s economic policy or environmental strategy becomes negligible in light of the atrocities being supported on other issues. Taking into account the life that will one day be ushered in by Christ at his return, why is the destruction of an unborn life not perceived as well beyond the point where Christians refuse to participate? There is a tremendous need to recover the atrocity of the destruction of unborn human life in the face of the imminent return of Christ. Only then will the sting of abortion regain its barb, and proper political engagement its purpose.

tdg