But just this once I wanted to bring up a subject because of a phenomenon I have noticed that I am hoping somebody reading this can help me understand. What's the deal with all of the evangelical support for Barack Obama? Just judging from anecdotal evidence I have seen, there seems to be quite a bit of support for him among evangelicals, and I just don't get it. In fact, though I haven't really discussed politics with people much this time around, I have a strong suspicion that, among the 5 dearest and most trusted Christian friends of mine - the first 5 people I would call if tragedy struck my family to ask to pray for me - all of whom I consider to be better people than me in every way - I know for sure of at least one, and I strongly suspect 2 or 3 of them plan to support Barack Obama for president. I'm not judging them or their motives, but I am simply, honestly, humbly admitting that I don't get it at all, and either I am missing something or they are.
Before anybody accuses me of being behind the times let me tick through a few of my credentials as an "in touch" evangelical.
- I have read Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz and for the most part liked it. I found it challenging in many ways (though a little naive in some). I think that guy's a little weird but at the end of the day I'm glad to have somebody to point to if somebody were to accuse evangelical Christians of all being Dockers-wearing suburb-dwelling SUV-driving, golden retriever owning cookie cutter robot people in my presence. (I could also point to myself - my dog is a chocolate lab). Donald Miller is certainly a counter example to that stereotype and I'm glad to count him a brother.
- I have read Brian McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian" and lik.....well....I read it.
- I have several Derek Webb songs on my iPod. I like Derek Webb. I guess I would say that I view his music in much the same way I view "Blue Like Jazz". It's challenging. Though some of it is a bit naive. But still mostly challenging, and that's why I listen.
- I know what the "emergent church" is. I know that this is not the same thing as the "emerging church". And I know that this is not a movement, but a "conversation" (although I must confess that I don't know what that means).
- I can use the word "missional" in a sentence. (See? I just did!)
- I led my small group Bible study through "Death By Suburb" which is a somewhat critical look at, well, people pretty much exactly like me.
All this is basically to say that I usually feel quite "in touch" with my fellow evangelicals, and I'm not the type to turn a deaf ear to the voices within evangelicalism who have fairly critical words for a "typical" evangelical like myself. Many of them have good points. In fact my recent ratcheting down of the level of political obsession is due in part to some of these people who have cautioned against putting your faith in the Republican Party rather than in Jesus Christ. Looking back I would have to say that this was a fair criticism of me.
So hopefully the above puts what I will say below in context. I'm not coming at this as some crotchety, doesn't-listen-to-anybody, jerk...guy. I'm not some weirdo who wants to make a big deal of Obama's name or claim that he's a "secret Muslim" or something. That kind of nonsense makes me crazy. But still, I don't get the appeal of Barack Obama to evangelicals. I understand that there are people within evangelicalism who resonate with issues such as universal health insurance and other anti-poverty programs, and that's fair enough. I have a different position on many of those things, but those are positions I hold in an "opened hand". I don't claim to have a "biblical case" for my positions on these issues - they just come from my opinion on where the evidence leads. However, the thing that really gets me is that Barack Obama is not merely pro-choice, but a pro-abortion radical! Honestly, I don't understand how a person with his record could have the "audacity" to even ask for the evangelical vote. Let's take a look at what he said at the Saddleback Forum and then compare it to his record:
Rick Warren: At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
Barack Obama: Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.
Barry:(I wasn't really there) First of all, you're running for president. It's not above your pay grade to have a position on this. However, fair enough - let's say you don't know when human rights begin. If you claim not to know when life begins, doesn't it then make sense to have a rather conservative position on this issue? If late term or even early term abortion might be killing a human being, wouldn't you err on the side of life? But he doesn't take a conservative position on this issue. He has a rather radical one. NARAL loves this guy. They have given him a score of 100% for every year has has been in office.
You the reader might be asking: C'mon - aren't you being a little extreme by saying he's a pro-abortion radical?
Barry: No.
"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote." (Source)Folks, that's extreme! He's to the left of NARAL on this issue.
About 8 years ago I read a - not overly graphic, but frank - description by George Will of how "partial-birth abortion" is performed, and I will never forget it. When I read that I thought I would never hear of anything more barbaric. Now I have.
Moving on with the forum....
Obama: But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one. But, point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I am pro-abortion, but because ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. They wrestle with these things in a profound way. In consultation with their pastors or spouses or their doctors and their family members.
Barry: To borrow a point from Greg Koukl, would he say the same about the issue of slavery? Would pro-slavery legislation be good law because the people who make the decision to own slaves don't do so flippantly? And if you think that it's not a fair comparison, I would just have to disagree with you - it's fundamentally quite similar because it is about who gets basic human rights and who doesn't. We have decided rightly in this country when it came to the issue of slavery that the question of "what is a human?" is not to be left up to an individual. To borrow another point - this one from Dennis Prager - I may not know exactly when human life begins. But I do know when it doesn't - it doesn't begin whenever the mother decides it does!
Moving on...
Obama: And so for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where we can find some common ground, and by the way I have now inserted into the Democratic Party platform -- is how do we reduce the number of abortions, because the fact is that abortions over the last eight years have not gone down.
Barry: OK somewhere in here, I suspect, is the answer to my question about how evangelicals can support him. I think the argument would go something like this:
"Abortion is only one issue, and while I'm not with Barack Obama on this issue, the president really doesn't have a lot of control over this. For instance, George W. Bush is pro-life and he didn't manage to change anything, so it's sort of a moot point and therefore I'll vote for him based on some other issues that I agree with him on".I recall that a few years back a dear friend of mine sent me this article which is written by a Christian seminary professor who claims that abortion actually had gone up during the 1st Bush term, and gave 3 main reasons - all of which strike me as very weak arguments. 1) Under GWB unemployment went up, which causes abortions to go up because women who can't afford them will abort. 2) Women who abort usually aren't married, and men who don't have jobs don't get married, so therefore increased unemployment means increased abortions, and 3) Women worry about health insurance for their children and since fewer people had health insurance under Bush abortions went up. (This one seems especially weak to me).
So basically both Glen Stassen and Barack Obama want to make the appeal to those who may like the Democrats on some issues but don't like them on abortion is that, really, if you want less abortions, you should vote for people who favor them rather than oppose them. To this humble cubicle guy, this sure seems like a ridiculous argument, even if the facts were correct about the claim that the number of abortions went up under Bush (and by the way, they're not). And it seems especially disingenuous for Barack Obama to decry the inability of George W. Bush to make inroads in the reduction of abortions when it's people like Barack Obama in the House and Senate who are fighting him every step of the way!
Still, the notion that President Bush hasn't done important things for the pro-life side is actually quite false. He's done two hugely important things for the cause: John Roberts and Samuel Alito. GWB appointed two "strict constructionist" judges to the supreme court - one to replace another conservative judge, and another to replace a swing voter. This puts the court currently at 4 conservatives and 5 liberals. The next appointment could tilt the court in the other direction. Note also that judicial appointments are for life! There is still a judge on the court who was appointed to the court before I was even born! The conservative president will appoint the type of judges that believe Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and the liberal president will appoint the type of judges that believe Roe v. Wade was rightly decided. In case you think it's a bit extreme to talk about overturning Roe v. Wade, it may be a good time for a reminder of what Roe v. Wade was, because I suspect that it's more radical than most people realize. Roe v. Wade did not make abortion legal. Rather it declared that any law that a state might have restricting abortions was unconstitutional. Abortion was already legal in some states at the time. Now it has to be legal in every state. I just raise this to point out once again the extreme nature of this position.
Judicial appointments are important. You have to be patient to get them, but once they're in, they're in for a very long time. It seems such a shame to me that when we only need one more conservative judge to tilt the court in the pro-life direction, we are going wobbly on the issue as evangelicals.
So I need to wrap this up - this is very long. I just wanted to point out these things because I humbly think that some people are being tricked into thinking that the abortion issue is not a consideration when voting for president. It very much is! And given that even the more moderate to liberal evangelicals out there share my position on this issue, I'm just surprised that they're willing to vote for somebody who is so extremely on the opposite side of it. I'm surprised that Brian McLaren went out on a limb and did a campaign commercial for him!...especially given the fact that he used to say that Christians should be less involved in politics (I guess he just meant conservative politics), and I'm also surprised that Donald Miller said a prayer at the DNC where he basically prayed the DNC platform (complete with the "spin").
Barack Obama has very little experience so we know very little about him. But a lot of the little we know about him is very disturbing to me, including who he associates with (EXHIBIT A1 and EXHIBIT A2 ) (EXHIBIT B), and his abortion extremism. Is it really a good idea to vote for this guy?
I'm not a huge McCain fan. He wasn't my first choice. But every election is the lesser of two evils, because this side of glory we're always going to have to settle for a fallen leader. Ironically the people who would vote for Obama probably would like the things about McCain that I don't like about him. But to me the choice is still quite clear. My faith is not in the Republican Party - but I do love my country and I fear what it would become under Barack Obama. I know he speaks well, and I would sincerely love for our country to reach the race relations milestone that an African-American president would represent, but, it seems to me, this is just not the man for the job.
Can somebody tell me what I'm missing?
Future posts will be back to the regular programming, and maybe an opinion here and there about my favorite jelly or sitcoms.
9 comments:
Amen.
Now I'm curious about your favorite jelly...mine is pepper jelly in case you care.
Grape
From a mom of 4 and 1/2 :-) who never takes the time to find out what's going on in the political world- thanks for the post. It was very informative.
Leandra
What a great post. I love it when you did deep, take a risk, and throw something out there. I can tell you spent a lot of time and a lot of thought on this.
My mind is currently preoccupied, but in time I hope to give this the thoughtful response in deserves.
And what the heck are you doin' hangin' out with Obama supporters? Sheesh.
Interesting. Another approach to this topic might just be to avoid it altogether which seems to be this group's approach.
I think you are right on. I don't get it either. How in the world can a follower of Christ vote for someone who doesn't value life? He has a list of other issues that I find horrifying (including his notion of financial equality - which sounds like socialism to me...) but on the issue of "life" I'll vote for McCain because Obama simply frightens me.
K
Thanks everybody. I'm disappointed that nobody who disagrees with me has commented. I just ran across this report which pretty much blows both Glen Stassen's and Barack Obama's argument mentioned in this post out of the water.
I have more to say on this topic but don't want to break my promise about keeping this to one blog post - so I'll either add it in the comment section later or add to this post.
To those Obamagelicals please respond to this!
I don't know you - I found your post through a friend's blog, with a link to your blog, so I hope you don't mind my posting since you asked for "Obamagelicals" as you called them.
I appreciate the time and thought that you have put into this article, but I have to respectfully disagree with you.
Perhaps you are right when you say that "we" are allowing (or ignoring) his pro-choice stance because we favor him on other factors, but I think you are strongly minimizing these "other" factors in your argument. The country has a lot of problems, and it is not the people like you and me who are suffering for these problems. As a Christian, I believe it is our duty to care about what happens to others as much as, if not more, than to ourselves and even our families (if we are capable, which I have to admit I am not -- I'd throw 10 strangers under a bus to save my son). I think that many of these so-called "Obamagelicals" are voting based on the many concerns they have about the ability of most American families to survive economically while the small percentage of high income families continue to find new ways to prosper and enjoy their lives.
It was easier to vote on moral issues in the past, when it seemed like the other stuff wasn't as important, but when you are faced with choosing between two candidates solely based on their moral stance, or choosing largely on your concern for how they would actually RUN the country, I no longer feel that choosing solely on morals is acceptable. At some point, to me, it becomes an AMORAL decision to let millions of other families suffer economic hardships so that they guy in charge will support my moral goals.
You may find this short-sighted, given your concerns about the Supreme Court, but I would like to point out that several judges appointed to that Court in the past did not vote the way they were expected to when nominated. The campaign to be chosen to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is a long one, and many men and women have spent their entire careers presenting a case for their appointment to the Court, not necessarily by voting their beliefs, and this has shown more than one time to result in a President appointing a judge who made decisions counter to that President's desires. That being said, it isn't my goal to say you shouldn't be worried about the long term effects of a Supreme Court appointment, but that the extreme views of a President (if they even are extreme because I do dispute some of your arguments on this subject) do not necessarily translate to a change in the actual Supreme Court's decisions or make-up.
My biggest concern for the long term is more about how many good families will fall apart and suffer because of financial strain, and how many children and parents will die because they can't afford the medical care they need. Should the life of unborn children be MORE important then the lives of children already living, or EQUALLY as important? I think equally. Should we make decisions based on what is best for ALL God's children, or only the ones we have taken notice of because of great Political machines?
John McCain's healthcare ideas and his economic plans would continue to force families to make difficult decisions and to suffer in ways we can't even imagine because we don't have to live that life. It is our responsibility as Christians to recognize a need and step in to help in whatever way we can -- volunteer in soup kitchens in your area -- I bet you'll see a lot of people you never would have expected to see in a place like that, having to feed their families off of charity and desperate for a government that can help get them back on their feet again.
We are not living in a society where the poor are just lazy. The idea of government assistance being abused by lazy people may have been a valid concern at one point in our past, but these people who are suffering right now are REAL people, people you went to college with, people you may have been friends with, people who do or used to HAVE a "real" job and are willing working hard, but who just can't make it because of the way the economy is right now, and the current government is not helping them, and John McCain's economic plans will not help them.
I believe that if we really care about saving human life and preserving human rights, we have to consider all humans and not just the unborn ones. I don't think it makes me a bad Christian to believe that some fights may need to be left to other days to help more people now.
I have answered Anonymous here:
http://texasquiver.blogspot.com/2008/11/answering-anonymous.html
Post a Comment