Scott, this is interesting, however you miss the point.
First, many, most of the actions you mention are the very things that have been done for decades to reduce AND end abortion. It is incorrect to describe these efforts as having been ONLY directed at court and legal action. That, in part was what movements like abstinence and many others were all about. No? Abortion numbers have actually dropped in recent years (even though the rate in the Black community is still horrendously high).
Where the Church has been ineffective or even non-attentive is in the case of adoption … and laws surrounding adoption. Witness the cost differential between the act of abortion and a single adoption … exponential.
However, back to where you miss the point. Republicans, Democrats … neither represent the cause of Christ. However, Christians do. What is disturbing is how easily Christians were convinced by a simple “change in rhetoric” to support those who not only promise policies diametrically opposed to what you say the Christian wants – to end abortion – but who’s histories match the promises.
It is ironic that at the culmination of decades of work; when partial-birth abortion is near being ended; when the act of abortion itself is showing signs of retreat; we evangelicals have become the instrument that has pushed back these gains. Gains that may take 20, 30, 50 years to reclaim.

Y’all know how anti-abortion we are (to us, abortion-on-demand is equivalent to the worship of Baal through child sacrifice) yet we are disappointed in the Religious Right’s unwillingness to actually stop abortions and yet support the death of adults in foreign wars. And for this stance we have been persecuted by both the government and right-wing Evangelicals (“RWE”). The RWE have had 20 years since 1980 to stop abortion and yet still rides that crest like a surfer in a tsunami. As much as we disagree with the Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture, we still applaud the “Seamless Garment” argument of the last pontiff. Either choose life or not.

Scot:
You have clearly outlined the very issues that this conservative, 50-something Christian read about, researched, prayed over and ended up with the decision to vote for a Democrat in this election.
Thank you for this articulate summary of the issue.

Obama has said he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act which would eliminate virtually every restriction on abortion. Can someone please explain to me how this can possibly be seen as a strategy to reduce abortions?

David, You’re right. Obama’s official stance has been to support the Freedom of Choice Act. In Maryland we enacted the Freedom of Choice Act and have only seen the number of abortions substantially increase.

Being a Canadian and outsider, I see the issue of politics being far more that the abortion platform on the left. What about all the other “pro-life” and justice/economic issues that are missing in the republican camp and campaigning. Does God only care about unborn babies? I don’t understand how politics can be so polarized over 1 issue.

I understand the alarm about Mr. Obama’s positions on abortion. What I don’t understand is the lack of alarm about the way the Republican Party, which purports to represent our values, has governed this country over the last eight years. I fail to see the Christian virtue in:
1) Management of a war characterized by arrogance and narrow-mindedness (regardless of what one’s position was on starting the war).
2) A politicized response to a massive natural disaster that surely cost lives.
3) A complete lack of stewardship of our nation’s finances, with tax cuts unmatched by spending cuts resulting in an explosion in debt our children will have to deal with.
4) A reactionary economic philosophy that considers individual economic freedom to be the ultimate good.
5) Cronyism and an utter lack of grace toward their political opponents.
If a Christian decides that abortion trumps all else in casting their vote, I can live with that. What I can’t live with is the notion that the Republican Party has represented our values on all, or even most, political issues in recent years. The outrage needs to flow both ways.

Ron,____I agree with you that neither political party truly holds all the views that are dear to Christians, however I must say that the “change in rhetoric” is not what has swayed many Christians. Part of the issue is the unchanging rhetoric from Republicans with unchanging results while they tout the opposite. I also agree that the church should focus on adoption and the like because, well that is what we are called to do with the orphans anyway. ____I have a theological question for you all that I have been wrestling with: Do you think that God gives us freedom of choice? I know this alludes to the issue of soveriegnty and responsibility (I believe Scripture supports both)but think about that for a minute. Is it wrong for a candidate to support the notion that we should have the opportunity to make a choice albiet it may be the wrong one?

I don’t think the point that Scot is making is that a Democratic government will in fact lead to less abortions. It may, and it may not. We’ll see. His point, I think, is that many sincere Christians who voted for various Democrats (or just Obama) are, in fact, strongly pro-life, and do believe there is a good chance that a Democratic platform–on the whole–will result in fewer abortions, or, at least, fewer violent deaths of all sorts, including, but not limited to abortions. This is the point. They may turn out to be wrong, but their vote was not an abandonment of pro-life concerns. It was a willingness to try a change in strategy, a loss of faith in the existing strategy, and/or an embracing of a “pro-life” position that included but went beyond abortion.

Phil,
The reason it is a polarizing issue is because of it’s magnitude. Yes, 10′s of thousands die in wars and 10′s of thousands are in poverty; but if you believe that life begins at conception, then millions have died in abortion. (Is this rhetoric, or fact?)

It might be pointed out that the Clinton administration saw a major reduction in the number of abortions compared to both Bush Sr. and Reagan. Since Clinton, the number has continued to drop no matter which party sat in the oval office.

Scot, thank you for this response. I totally resonate with #4 and #5. If we really want to overturn abortion we better be ready to live as the church in Acts did.

Joey,
That is an important point, if true; and have heard that before. Is that due to the laws? Perhaps in part. But it is clearly not the only or even chief factor at work.
David,
Some believe that promise will go unfulfilled, or that other policies will make more of a difference in terms of how many abortions of any kind are sought. Many also believe Obama will move to the middle now that he’s in the office, especially on such a charged issue and when there are so many big, big problems he will be facing immediately. Either that promise will diminish or be indefinitely shelved, or the Democratic change in platform will diminish. We’ll see. I think McCain’s disavowal of appointing only anti-Roe judges also played a significant role. That’s been the most notorious strategy linking the presidential election to the pro-life issue, and McCain denied (even in the election!) that he would adopt it.

Interesting observations and yes

Scot, you note that: The Democrats changed their tune from “pro-choice” to “reduce abortions.”____That’s a nice change in tune but when it’s accompanied by the Democrats running the candidate who has the strongest pro-choice record possible, one who has voted against every single piece of legislation to place any restrictions on abortions that has crossed his desk, and who has vowed to make it a high priority to sign the Freedom of Choice Act . . . I have a hard time buying that teh change in tune is anything more than a cynical manipulation of the same group (or a subset of the same group) that the Republican strategists have cynically manipulated with anti-abortion rhetoric in the past.____I find someone who voted for Obama a lot more credible if she or he just flat admits that on abortion Obama’s legislative record is horrible and that the culture of abortion on demand is likely to strengthen under Obama, but then goes on to say that they find other issues to trump those facts. Buying the democrats’ new “tune” that their social policies will actually reduce the number of abortions seems naive to me – a rationalization to make one feel better about a vote one wanted to cast anyway, for other reasons.

Scot,____I think you have adequately captured the shift in language. Reducing abortions means something different than pro-choice (I know there are plenty of your readers who would say, “No, its the same thing!). It also means a shift in understanding there are broader and deeper issues affecting unwanted pregnancies/children. This means that it is no longer a simple equation, of pro-life=Republican. As you note, many voted Democratic were passioantely opposed to abortion. This seems to indicate the conversation is changing about how we reduce abortions. For some, it seems that to vote in this contradictory way is a sign people don’t understand the arguments. I would suggest the arguments to reduce abortions are changing.

You make the point clear that many of us Obama supporters are in fact pro-life. And while people can argue back and forth on what Obamas stance truly is (or will be), I think the point needs to be made that abortion itself is not a one issue issue. Even ignoring other right to life issues (like war, death penalty…), abortion is connected to everything from poverty to education, to nutrition… On such issues I have seen republicans making choices that seem to push women further towards abortion and not away. Helping reduce abortions now will save those children now.
I was reading recently about the abolitionist William Wilberforce. In his push to abolish slavery in the British Empire altogether he opposed many gradual reduction laws that came before Parliment since he favored an all or nothing approach. Decades later slavery was finally abolished, but many have speculated that if he had supported those gradual reduction strategies it would have ended much sooner (but without the revolutionary moment…).

T,
I did a quick Google search for year to year statistics and checked it from two sources and yes, starting in 1993 (Clinton’s first year) the rate started dropping. Bill Clinton vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban in both 1996 and 1997 but the rates of abortions still dropped. It seems to me that the “laws” have a lot less to do with it than the culture. I could be missing something though.

When will RWEs learn that when you fight with the world?s weapons, the world WILL WIN every time?

Scot, I think you also omitted what is maybe the most important distinction: if we agree that abortion is wrong, what is the role of government in enforcing that moral norm?
We always seem to forget that the law is not the immediately culpable party in an abortion. No law in the U.S. forces anyone to get an abortion (event taking into account that some alternatives, such as adoption, are more difficult than perhaps they should be). A man and woman conceive a child and a doctor performs a “procedure.” These are the immediately culpable parties. Why not focus 90% of our efforts on challenging and supporting these deciders, rather than focusing most of our energy on the law?
And GregF(#10) – poverty is a cause of hundreds of millions of deaths globally, and it substantially contributes to abortion in the U.S. Deal with poverty, and you go a long way towards dealing with abortion, without even overturning Roe.
Is it maybe easier to rant about “activist judges” and to tar all fellow Christians who vote for the “other” party as traitors than it is to develop one-on-one relationships with people at risk for abortion, particularly poor unwed mothers? Is there something darkly satisfying about apocalyptic rhetoric that lets us of the hook when it comes to dealing with real struggling people?
Abortion law in the U.S. should change. Law is a teacher as well as a restrainer. But I think a pragmatic understanding of the limits of the law might help us refocus our efforts here in a more unified way.

Joey: “It seems to me that the “laws” have a lot less to do with it than the culture”____I’d say you’re right on the button. I am originally from a nation with abortion laws that have been in place since 1961(probaby quite liberal at the time). Yet over the past 15-20 years the rates of abortion have changed consistently, in an upward trend. http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/hot-off-the-press/abortion-statistics/abortions-year-ended-dec07-hotp.htm and more at http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/092edeb76ed5aa6bcc256afe0081d84e/3c5bba0a283fd536cc256b2500129e20?OpenDocument____This indicates that abortion has become socially acceptable in the past 15 years, even though the legal status has not changed for 45 years!

Great thoughts, Scot! Enjoyed the comments as well!
We need to change the people AND change the laws. Often we try to change the laws to change the people. Real life happens the other way around. Three quick examples:
The people of Nineveh turned to God and away from their wicked ways just before the King made a proclamation asking them to do so (Jonah 3:3-7). The passage reminded me that often politicians are reactionary and true change must come from the ground up.
Abraham Lincoln once said: ?With public sentiment nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed?. He who holds public sentiment goes deeper than he who erects statutes or pronounces decisions.?
Martin Luther King, Jr: “The Civil Rights Act was expected by many to suffer the fate of the Supreme Court decisions on school desegregation?.massive defiance. But this pessimism overlooked a factor of supreme importance?.this legislation was first written in the streets.?
We forget that our power is not limited within the confines of the voting booth!
Politicians change laws. Pastors and people of faith can change people (who change laws)!

Scot,
I’m trying to fight the urge to pull my hair out. This is a particularly dangerous urge, as I’m on the road to having your hairdo. I’m having trouble accepting that you actually believe what you’ve said here.
The Democrats changed their tune from “pro-choice” to “reduce abortions”
And then they changed it back. They removed the language about making abortion “rare” from their platform. As their own people have pointed out, they want to make it clear that having an abortion is just as moral as not having one.
a focus on changing the law has not been matched with efforts to reduce abortions
I would argue that it has, but more, I’d would ask how you think they’re going to reduce abortions.
Is it by removing all abortion restrictions? Is it by taking federal funds away from crisis pregnancy centers? Is it by making taxpayers pay for abortions?
Is it by increasing welfare? We used to pay women per child, and there were plenty of abortions. Is it by handing out free birth control? Oh, wait, people already do that. Is it by providing medical care to pregnant women? Oh, we do that too.
Perhaps the Democrats will change their tune on “free speech” and ask Hollywood to change the filth they spew out. Maybe they’ll change their ways and stop saying teenagers should wait until they’re “ready” to have sex.
What, exactly, do you think they’re going to do that hasn’t been tried in spades?
if the Supreme Court… can overturn Roe v. Wade and then what?
First, overturning Roe is essential to enacting any meaningful restrictions. Then, even if 40 states still permit abortion, at least that’s 10 that don’t, but it’s bigger than that. Right now the debate centers around “a woman’s constitutional right to choose.” Take down Roe, and we can have a conversation on whether abortion is right or wrong; currently the debate is structured so that pro-lifers are seen as attacking women.
Now, what do we who oppose abortion do? Oppose abortion laws, of course.
And vote for a man who’s promised to undo every abortion restriction passed at the state or federal level in the last 30 years.
we have to work hard against the conditions that increase pregnancies and that can lead to abortions
Which Democratic policy is designed to do that?
Roe v. Wade is a symptom of the problem
Yes, but it also aggravated it. Roe was a necessary step in the devaluing of human life that has brought us euthanasia and all manner of violence against human beings, especially children. (Don’t tell me people aren’t capable of reasoning that if it’s ok to kill a child two days before it’s born, it’s ok two days after.)
You want to oppose abortion? One side of this debate has enacted laws that have made measurable improvements in the status quo. One side has fought them every step of the way.
Let’s drop this sillyness about voting for “other ways” to end abortion. Lots of people voted for Obama and couldn’t tell you why — he’s inspiring, he’ll bring change is all you could get. Others were mad at the Republicans or Bush. Others liked his economic policies or wanted him to make us more popular worldwide.
People, if you voted for Obama, own up to the fact that you decided other things were more important to you. But don’t feed us any garbage about the Democrats using other ways to end abortion; isolated individuals aside, they have no interest in such a feat.

ChrisB, you might be careful using “they” as if it is universal.

Joey,
Drops in abortion in the Clinton years are attributable to the state-level laws like parental notification.
And “isolated individuals aside,” it is pretty universal — especially among Dem leadership.
dopderbeck,
There are approximately 42 million abortions a year worldwide. Poverty kills approximately 10.6 million children per year.
Is the latter a tragedy we should be fighting? Yes. And many, many are. With the former, though, they don’t have a fighting chance, and every government acts like this is perfectly ok.
It’s also worth asking — how many children really die of poverty in the US?

Sorry, #26 is me.

Chris – are you trying to tell us why we voted the way we did? that somehow you know me better than I know myself?
disagree if you will, but don’t put words in our mouths.

Scott, I do believe that while it is good to focus energy on changing the law, we must also focus our energy on the result of such a law being changed. Or in other words, the government may be a good vehicle for “forcing” mothers not to murder their unwanted children, but it’s a lousy vehicle for taking care of those unwanted children, just like it’s a lousy vehicle for addressing poverty. So, is the church ready to be a net for those children?
Also, I must add that the term “reducing abortions” whilst supporting one who would like to entrench the legalization of the murder of children (FOCA) sounds just about as logical as wanting to reduce rapes and murders whilst supporting legislation to protect the rapists and murderers.

Daniel #29,
I just have to object to your language a little bit. I’m not being nitpicky, this matters…
You said, “Or in other words, the government may be a good vehicle for “forcing” mothers not to murder their unwanted children”
If abortion is sin, whose sin is it?
I think that to say its the sin of a mother murdering her unwated children is incomplete at best (and the idea that all of those children are unwanted is a myth…who knows how many are deeply wanted, and yet the mother is so hopeless she sees no way to have them).
Isnt it also the sin of fathers who would not be there if the child was born?
Isnt it also the sin of a society who refuses to value children after they are born?

Julie,
Most liberals are remarkably good at self-deception. You may not be one of them.
But if you actually believe you’re being “pro-life” while voting for Obama, you’re wrong.

ChrisB,
Come on – be fair. Most people are remarkably good at self-deception. This is not a trait tied to political view. Certainly conservatives are just as good at it as liberals.

For those pro-lifers who saying fighting to change abortion laws and adding legal restrictions is a waste of time I refer to an article by Michael J New at http://www.publicdiscourse.com
“For instance, the 1990s decline in the abortion rate–a decline that is eagerly touted by these Obama and Kerry supporters–had virtually nothing to do with policies enacted by President Clinton, and much to do with the dramatic increase in the number of states that were enacting pro-life laws. The information below comes from NARAL’s Who Decides, an annual publication which provides information about abortion legislation:
- In 1992, virtually no states were enforcing informed-consent laws; by 2000, 27 states had informed-consent laws in effect.
- In 1992, no states had banned or restricted partial-birth abortion; by 2000, twelve states had bans or restrictions in effect.
- In 1992, only 20 states were enforcing parental-involvement statutes; by 2000, 32 states were enforcing these laws.
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence which suggests that these and other types of pro-life legislation have been effective at reducing the incidence of abortion.”

ChrisB
Your comments are worth hearing and discussing. However the virulent tone of your post lacks charity and respect for those who may disagree with you. Why should someone who voted for Obama listen to your arguments when you unfairly reduce their vote to “sillyness”? Put away the hammer.

RJS,
Too true. But we’re not talking about them today

ChrisB
You have comments and viewpoints worth listening to. However, the virulent tone of your posts lack charity and respect for those who disagree with you. Why should someone who voted for Obama listen to your arguments when you unfairly reduce their vote to mere “sillyness”? I know this is a contentious issue, but your comments tend to generate more heat than light. Put away the hammer.

Nicholas, I usually try to be nice, but sometimes a hammer is necessary — especially when you’re trying to “break” though congnitive dissonance.

ChrisB,
I cannot believe your comments are allowed here. Who made you the judge of everyone who voted for Obama? You are so wise to discern the motives of everyone’s hearts? You are wiser and more knowing than all the other voices in this conversation? You are not contributing to this conversation–you are using it as a platform to voice your contempt for everyone who disagrees with you. It doesn’t fit the Jesus Creed.

Scot,
To say the least I am disappointed in your response. Your friends letter was not about his vote or the issues of the campaign. It was about a congregation that abandoned their church and were rude enough to ignore their pastor. As he presented the story many of them left simply over a rumor abut how he voted. This is a sad – yet very real – commentary on many people’s sense of “church”. In a consumer driven culture the concept of relationship is lost in the mist of “meet-my-needs”. If this is all it took for them to leave, I believe he may have, as I suggested in my response to him, scattered his weeds on poor soil. A vote is as private as a person’s faith. Sharing political choices is risky (and I do not with my congregation) thing and not worth the return. We are not called to be prohpets as much as we are to be pastors. I wonder if these disaffected defecting folks would do the same with their family members? I disagree on many things with my family, but I do not let that get in the way of bigger, more important concerns.
I hope your private counsel with your friend does not focus on political stands, campaign winners (losers), or anything as objective and objectionable as that. He is in need of care, not lectures. Listen with yur heart, and not merely to some of the text.
Peace to him and to you.

Ah, the delight of typos. In my previous posting of just a few minutes ago I keyed “weeds” when I intended to key “seeds”. Alas he was sowing sermonic seeds among weeds, and pastoral seed on rocky soil too. And now he feels trampled and choked. I am sad for him and hope his ministry will be deepened and broadened after this incident.

ChrisB –
Just as you are wrong if you believe you are being “pro-life” by voting McCain.

Scot, I wish I was surprised, but sadly, no. You voiced your thoughts regarding many who are approaching the abortion question in a “new” way.
Others have shared their opinions; some on topic, some not. However, whenever the true impact of abortion is brought home all too many want to complain about “tone” and “judgement” and how it was presented. Why can the focus not remain on the issue at hand?
Again, let’s all agree that no political party will redeem us or this nation. McCain was no pageant winner. Obama even less so. With all it takes to be a politician maybe this can never be.
The reason abortion is so important as an issue is that it is foundational. If we as a society will not protect the most helpless, the most innocent … then all other considerations are fundamentally affected. These are truly Life and Death decisions. Some may be hurt and offended due to having succumbed to the lie that abortion was morally acceptable, suffering the realities and regrets post abortion. What a horrible thing to face! But, Jesus already covered this for us all. It is done, past and over.
I do not know the details, you do. Did this Pastor you mention truly have his congregation leave due to his choice? Who can say that this was not a good thing? This man was the leader of this church. His choices in these matters expose the principles which guide his life. Relationships are indeed important, yet our relationship with Jesus overrides all others. “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.” Luke 12 (read the entire chapter). It was asked, “If this is all it took for them to leave”? Ask yourself what assumptions live in this question?
We cannot stand still as others have that decision in still front of them. The Church is becoming so relevant to the world that we can no longer tell the difference.
Yet, there is hope. God is still God.
Although, culture has declined: we can reclaim it. Laws have been created: we can re-create them.
We must wake up to ourselves and see through our selfishness.

Just when I said I wasn’t going to comment on this anymore…
Sue,
I can’t believe you can’t believe my comments are “allowed” here. I hope that was just poor choice of words. Scot knows the emotion this topic generates, and I doubt he posted on this without considering the possibilities. And even with my attempt to bludgeon my way through the fog, things here have remained far more civil than they do anywhere else.
As for me, I have offered contempt for no one — just their voting habits.

ChrisB, I can’t recall whether you’re a long time JesusCreed poster or not, but one of the things valued within the JesusCreed community is the ability to disagree with one another without being disagreeable toward one another. You are being disagreeable toward the people with whom you disagree, and those of us who value the tone of discourse that Scot has set on this site, don’t appreciate it.
I write the above as someone who, like Nicholas K. above, believes you have things to say that are worth hearing and discussing. I’d actually like to read how some of the folks who voted for Obama respond substantively to the points you made. But the way in which you are posting pretty much guarantees that isnt’ going to happen.

Chris B.
You are showing contempt for the reasons that people give for voting for Obama. Therefore you are judging people’s motives for voting, and therefore you are judging hearts–people, not actions.

I’ve been tied up with some pastors from South Africa — a delightful time, so I’ve not been able to monitor some of this.
We do well at monitoring one another’s tone but there is too much strong language right now. ChrisB said some strong things and some strong things were said back … OK. Let cooler heads prevail.
jestrfyl,
Your comment is fair and I should explain myself. After Monday’s post I thought plenty had been said to the pastor and I had little to add. What I thought I could say was to provide for him how to address the folks who are leaving and to give him some words — if he even needed them — for how to explain what is happening in the election.
I agree that the shift for some to the Democrat side this time was a huge risk, and I think the reasons I gave above were at the heart of what many were thinking. The abortion issue cannot be dismissed as “just one more life issue”. It’s a serious issue but I do believe many think the obsession with the overturning of Roe v. Wade is not enough — and I would not be saying that Repubs or cons evangelicals are only focused on that, but the rhetoric of electing a Pres who appoint conservative justices is central to the platform. I doubt anyone would disagree; and I think most would agree that reducing abortions by altering conditions is not central to the Repub side of the platform. I want there to be nuanced here and not simplify.

I went democratic because I cannot stand the Republicans screaming about the rights of the unborn and then sanction torture at Gitmo.
What is needed is a consistant ethic approaching life no abortion, no torture, no death penalty, give me someone like and I will vote for them no matter what party they are.

Scot you say: “the rhetoric of electing a Pres who appoint conservative justices is central to the [Republican] platform” and that this is tied to an “obsession with overturning Roe v. Wade.”____I would say that appointment of supreme court justices who may eventually overrule Roe v. Wade is one of the ways in which a Republican president would/could affect the abortion issue. But I wouldn’t focus solely or even primarily on that aspect, as if dismissing it as unrealistic or too narrowly focused settles the issue. ____Equally important would be the administration’s stance (and the future rulings of administration-appointed federal judges and future supreme court justices) on state-enacted laws that place reasonable restrictions on abortion. A republican admin and republican appointed judges would tend to favor those laws and/or find they are constitutional if they are well crafted. Obama will sign the freedom of choice act to get rid of virtually all such laws that have already been passed by the states, and to prevent any more from being enacted. And the judges/justices he appoints will be prone to find any new such laws that are passed, to violate either the constitution or the FOCA, no matter how carefully crafted. ____Those are the sticking points for me and the main reasons I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Obama even though part of me wanted to – not whether Roe v. Wade will be overturned (not that I wouldn’t like to see it but I just don’t think it’s likely). But it seems like they keep being sidestepped in the discussion, in favor of the accusation that “conservative evangelicals are obsessed with overturning Roe v. Wade.”

I’ve been listening in all day …
And the only thing I’ll say is that some of the comments made here today demonstrate the general tone with which Christians tend to “discuss” this issue. Until we are able to navigate this with some shred of human kindness and willingness to simply listen to those who think differently, we will demonstrate nothing of the Kingdom of God to a watching, and increasingly impatient, world.
The angry, patronizing tone detracts from solution-based thinking. And, I believe it is becoming wearisome to so many, including non-religious Republicans. Sad article by Kathleen Parker today claiming that the Republican party will only come back from the dead if it distances itself from the “culture war” (we know what that means) and religious conservatives.
Sad.
I picture a day when liberal and conservative Christians decide to work together to bring God’s shalom and justice to the issue of unwanted pregnancy, irresponsible male sexuality, and abortion … Until then, we diminish the possibility of a credible witness.

Jennifer #29
You state:
“Isnt it also the sin of fathers who would not be there if the child was born?”
And I must concur. Though this does not lift the individual responsibility of the mother, just as the father is not off the hook even if he had nothing to do with the decision. I might also add, that the decisions of the mother and/or father do not lift the responsibility of the one who performs the murder. Sin is sin, and it’s never justifiable.
You also state:
“Isnt [sic] it also the sin of a society who refuses to value children after they are born? ”
This question requires much more thought and space than is available here. I suppose two questions…or thoughts…come to mind. 1. Not everyone within a society (no matter how good or bad) is responsible for society. 2. Did Christ die for the sins of individuals? or societies? I think one of the (American) church’s greatest faults in this issue may be focusing too much on the “society” and too little on the the individual. Not that they shouldn’t be transforming society and influencing government, but the churches primary concern should be individuals. How many hurting mothers, whether before or after the death of their baby, have been tossed under the bus? How many children have gone un-adopted or unloved after a mother has been convinced to give birth?

Scot, when I read this pastor’s letter, I considered it from a different perspective than that of the political. Though the catalytic issue was political, to me the major concern arising from our friend’s lament is the nature of the church. What does this brother’s experience say to us about the evangelical church in America and its mission? About the nature of church membership? About pastoral ministry and authority? About how to teach and preach about political matters? About the relationship of the church to culture and political involvement, and who sets the agenda for the church? About the nature of relationships of pastoral leaders with parishioners? About the importance of confidentiality and the sins of gossip and talebearing within the church? About church discipline? People may think this pastor has a political problem, but what he and his congregation really have is a church problem. How should that be handled?

Been listening in on comments too.
Don’t know if this is what you’re looking for Scot… but here’s the deal.
I voted for Obama because:
1. He’s a good leader… and could be great.
You see this in the way he communicates (yes, this is important folks), but also in the way he’s lived his life, co-led his family, and his leadership in public life. Calm, cool, very focused and engaged.
2. He’s a different kind of leader.
This came out especially in the campaign… I have yet to see a more bottom-up, empowering style in modern politics. He leads as a community organizer… give people the inspiration and tools they need to create change from a grassroots level. By the way… I think this is VERY Christlike leadership.
3. His values resonated with me.
Maybe this is partially a generational thing… but I’ve watched as leaders on BOTH sides just rehash the arguments of the 60s and 70s (even some comments here). Evangelicals have too just played into the ‘culture wars.’ For me… they’re over, and irrelevant.
Poverty and the economy matter, education matters, the health care crisis in this country matters, global environmental issues matter, being leaders for peace on the world stage matters… And these are biblical issues to me as a young(er) follower of Christ and minister.
The government can’t solve every problem, but should take leadership on these issues… and Obama has said as much.
As far as abortion… Scot said it well. But I would also add that this is not new for the Dems. Pres Clinton had a policy of “safe, legal, and RARE,” and tried to do that in the 90s… it worked, abortion went down. Obama has said he would do the same.
AND… Obama is a Christian. This is not the main thing that I consider… but I do like it. There’s more I can say, but this is already too long!

matt r … I like it … all. More and more of us need to come out from the trenches and be willing to speak clearly and without rancor about why we voted the way we did. I appreciated (and agreed with!) every single one of your thoughts.
If people keep trying to pull the old culture war out of the box, they will become more and more irrelevant, I’m afraid. Collaboration, and pulling together to solve problems is the name of the game.

Oh… one more thing.
I think Scot is on the right track.
It’s important for those of us in public ministry/teaching to, not necessarily say WHO we are voting for, or what party, but the WHY.
Elections can be teachable moments about what and why Christians find certain issues important.
I think this particular election has really brought this out. And there are those (like the people who walked out on the pastor in the first letter.. and we’re praying for all involved!) who have for too long just went with a party line… discipleship demands that we think these things through in a deeper way!

Could someone explain to me how the early Christians ever were able to have an impact on Roman culture without ever forming a political party or having a vote in the Roman Senate on Roman laws?
We are barking up the wrong tree.

I didn’t read all the comments, but the issue I see is that while abortion is a hugely polarizing issue, it is not the main thing that government does. The spectrum of liberal v conservative with regard to government?s primary purposes is not as black and white, or Christian v non Christian, as we would like to think. I am generally a conservative person on economic issues, but have grown more moderate in my social issues over the recent years. While I find myself squarely in the anti-abortion camp, I don?t? see how to color the whole of my politics with it. I would have been happy to vote for Giuliani or a less definite McCain as far as abortion is concerned.____I go to a church that is mostly conservative, but no homogenously so. Our pastor was wise enough to not even make a joke about who ought to be president.____But more than that, I find the tone of the anti-abortion crowd (of which I am a part) sounding less like people who love and would like to see something improved, and more like Pharisees that just want to make everyone into social Christians even if they despise the thought of any kind of god. Let?s admit that the US will never be the kingdom of God. Push for changes in laws. Push for less and less public funding of abortion. Take a stand, but respectfully. Some of our opponents are our brothers. The rest are people that we are charged to love.__

#26 — I’m not sure it’s helpful to throw out comparative numbers like this. The point is that poverty is a cause of abortion. Start to solve the problem of poverty, and you will also reduce abortions. We should see these not as competing priorities but as together part of an ethic that values life.

As a Canadian watching with interest from a distance there are a few things that I notice which may or may not be valuable.
1. American politics is very, very partisan and polarized often to the point where for many people reason and logic often don?t matter much any more (present company excluded).
2. Electing a president is about confidence in that person?s ability to lead. That?s why Obama won. McCain did not show very well throughout the whole campaign ? even on his good days.
3. I think McCain was too liberal for many Republicans and muddied the option of a clear ideological choice.
4. Even with Obama, you need to consider yourselves fortunate that you have a president who is more much more politically conservative than the Canadian Democrat equivalent (our Liberal party). Obama probably lines up more with our moderate conservatives than with the far left here.
5. As a number of people have already said, no election can be about one issue and that 24 years of Republican presidents have not really stemmed the tide or overturned Roe v Wade. Would four more years of a decidedly liberal Republican president have made such a difference?
Having said that, if I could have voted I?m not sure how I would have voted. It really would have been a soul searching choice.

Well, there is no grey area here. Either you believe that which the bible teaches about doing God`s work for him, “…not my will buy thy will be done.” or to put it a little clearer, “though shall not kill” or you do not adheare to the teachings of God and the bible. No one can just be sitting on the fence with this issue.

Chris (#58) — It’s “do not commit murder”, not “thou shalt not kill.” The debate, of course, is precisely whether abortion is akin to “murder,” which is not a black-and-white question because the Bible nowhere directly addresses the moral status of a fetus. And even if, as I do, you believe a fetus is a “human being,” it’s not a black-and-white question concerning what the secular civil law must say about that. We might argue, as I would, that the case for civil laws against abortion is very, very strong, but this is not just a matter of “what the Bible teaches.”

I am an evangelical pastor and have never voted for a democrat, until this election. I think if my people knew they would flip. I did not believe in Palin’s abilities and felt McCain lost what attracted me to him in the past. I agree he “did not show well.” I am very much prolife, yet I did not believe in the republican ticket.

I actually voted for McCain, although it was a hard choice to come to. That said, I do feel compelled to address my brothers and sisters who just cannot fathom Christians voting for Obama. The simple reality is that people who voted for Obama almost certainly didn’t do it because they thought he was better on the abortion issue (if they did, then yes, I agree that they are probably delusional). It wasn’t even that they thought other issues were more important than abortion in all likelihood. I think it really came down to the simple fact that if they looked at the top 40 issues that the president will be able to have a substantial impact on, abortion probably doesn’t even make the list. Yes, if Obama is foolish enough to try and get the FOCA passed, he may have some very limited impact on the matter. However, the simple fact is that voting based on a politician’s position on abortion – on the national level at least – doesn’t do one single thing to change the reality of abortion on the ground. (Oh – if only it were that easy!) In light of that, it is not an unreasonable position for the pro-life believer to commit to working on the ground to make things better and then look at the dozens of OTHER issues which the president can/ actually affect to decide who will best lead.
In the end it is uncharitable, intellectually dishonest and unfair to try and paint Christians who voted for Obama as less committed to pro-life causes than someone like yourself. I can pretty much guarantee you that if there had been a candidate who could have put an end to the scourge of abortion and inculcate in our society a joyous, welcoming attitude towards all pregnancies, virtually every pro-life person would have voted for them, including those who voted for Obama. Even if they disagreed on the substance of all of the other candidate’s positions, no one would have turned down the chance to bring this holocaust to an end. Unfortunately, that just wasn’t the choice we were faced with.

Rebeccat
Good thoughts, I will reply with more in a moment, but, actually it was exactly the choice we were offered. In the case of the courts. Obama will most likely seat two, maybe 3 justices in just the next four years. We will all live with these selections for the next twenty to 50 years. This will completely color and overwhelm whatever actions we take “on the ground”.

Loosely, the original question posed seems to be, why did many Christians vote for Obama (and a Democrat Party ticket) and seemingly abandon the fight against abortion? Are many moving to a new approach to instead “reduce” abortion?
Some have said that this is not a question of law but of culture. In this country, this and all elections, although a reflection of culture, specifically represents the CREATION, INTERPRETATION and EXECUTION of LAWS. They determine the direction law will take and if and how laws will be enforced.
Most of the comments here mention that a particular person “did not show well”, or “is a good/great leader” because of the “way he communicates” and is “calm, cool, focused and engaged”. These are all issues of how someone appears as opposed to what someone has done and might do. On the other hand, only a few commenters mention principles.
Someone said that the differing opinions might be a “generational” difference. Maybe so. People throughout time have been susceptible to the well-turned phrase and the attractive proposition. It has been suggested that many just want to “rehash the arguments of the 60s and 70s” and “culture wars” and that “they’re over, and irrelevant”. These comments describe a generation even more concerned with the appearance of action instead of the content of the action. With the idea that “new” is better. How can doing the right thing ever be out-dated?
Again, to me, it seems that we are seeing the result of a church that has catered so much to the culture around it that it can’t even recognize itself as having moved away from principle and scripture.

Ron, actually that wasn’t the choice we had. Realistically a couple of the liberal judges with retire during an Obama administration and be replaced by a couple of liberal judges, leaving the current balance intact. Unless,God forbid, one of the conservative judges gets hit by a bus or something, there’s no way one of them will retire, so their positions are safe. If McCain had won, the liberal judges would have held on in hopes of a liberal administration down the line just like they did during the Bush years. Barring death, it is unlikely that McCain would have had the chance to appoint a judge. And given the democratically controlled house and senate it is likely he would have gone for the same sort of highly qualified juror that GHW Bush and Reagan went for. Given that this is how we got people like Souter and O’Conner, so there would be no promises anyhow. Practically speaking, the issue just didn’t have the force it did in 2000 or 2004. Again, if only it were as easy as voting the “right way”, this wouldn’t even be a discussion. But it just isn’t.

One of the Conservative justices might not have to get hit by a bus, assuming a likely reelection of Obama in 2012, Justice Stevens will be 95 in 7 years, Scalia will be 79, Kennedy will be 79, and Souter will be 76, with Ginsberg and Breyer likely to willingly retire. Those ages cannot be denied. And to the orginal argument, against “reckless” abortion. I challenge you to find one person who says that they wish to have a “reckless” abortion. Regardless of circumstance, a very, very slim amount of women find out they are pregnant and are at the abortion clinic banging on the door without first considering all other options. To believe that means one of two things, you are ignorant, or you are a man making a woman’s choice, in a land that was founded on a principle of seperation of church and state.

I am one of those who voted for Obama particularly because I expected him to act exactly as he was expected to do. For example, to cut corporate welfare and to legislate universal healthcare; to increase programs to help the poor and needy, rather than “trickle down” nonsense of the Republican Gospel of Greed; and to support liberty and privacy rights of individuals as opposed to the Republican “Department of Decency” as begun by Bush’s first Attorney General when his first act was to install a curtain to cover the breasts of the statue of Justice. Thank God that those 8 years of vindictive stupidity are over. Yes, I am a Christian, and yes, I voted for Obama. Yes we can!