How do you bleed?
In light of some previous posts of mine, a recent blog discussion with Becky, and the book that I have mentioned on here a few times, I'd like to post some new thoughts.
The title of this post comes from the book just mentioned, The Myth of a Christian Nation, by Greg Boyd. In this chapter, titled "When Chief Sinners Become Moral Guardians," Boyd says many things that I might question, at least in part. But one thing that he says in particular I found to be particularly helpful. He tells a true story of an unmarried girl who gets pregnant at 18 and contemplates abortion as a result but is dissuaded by a typically pro-choice voting middle-aged divorcee. What was the basis of her argument?
She didn't go into a discussion about "reaping what you sow" or charges of infanticide (though both are applicable to the case in some sense). Rather, she offered to do whatever necessary to support this girl during this process, even to the extent of offering her a place to live after her Christian parents kicked her out of the house for getting pregnant, and doing whatever she could to help support financially her desire to go to college and become a veterinarian. Boyd's point is that this older woman was willing to do what was necessary to love the woman and the unborn; she even had to take out a second mortgage on her house in order to make it work, but she did it.
So, the question for those of us who call ourselves Christians must go beyond one of "which candidate is pro-life" to how can we individually and collectively "bleed in service" to anyone around us who is in a position of need? Further, should a pro-choice candidate come to public office, we need not fear some catastrophic rise in abortions if we will integrate ourselves more into the lives of those around us. We can reduce (even eliminate?) abortion without the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and as citizens of another country living in an alien world that is not submitted to the reign of Christ, we should expect to accomplish kingdom ends in no other way.
So, as Boyd asks in his book, I ask all of us: "how do you bleed?"
The title of this post comes from the book just mentioned, The Myth of a Christian Nation, by Greg Boyd. In this chapter, titled "When Chief Sinners Become Moral Guardians," Boyd says many things that I might question, at least in part. But one thing that he says in particular I found to be particularly helpful. He tells a true story of an unmarried girl who gets pregnant at 18 and contemplates abortion as a result but is dissuaded by a typically pro-choice voting middle-aged divorcee. What was the basis of her argument?
She didn't go into a discussion about "reaping what you sow" or charges of infanticide (though both are applicable to the case in some sense). Rather, she offered to do whatever necessary to support this girl during this process, even to the extent of offering her a place to live after her Christian parents kicked her out of the house for getting pregnant, and doing whatever she could to help support financially her desire to go to college and become a veterinarian. Boyd's point is that this older woman was willing to do what was necessary to love the woman and the unborn; she even had to take out a second mortgage on her house in order to make it work, but she did it.
So, the question for those of us who call ourselves Christians must go beyond one of "which candidate is pro-life" to how can we individually and collectively "bleed in service" to anyone around us who is in a position of need? Further, should a pro-choice candidate come to public office, we need not fear some catastrophic rise in abortions if we will integrate ourselves more into the lives of those around us. We can reduce (even eliminate?) abortion without the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and as citizens of another country living in an alien world that is not submitted to the reign of Christ, we should expect to accomplish kingdom ends in no other way.
So, as Boyd asks in his book, I ask all of us: "how do you bleed?"
Comments
If it acceptable to vote based upon who you think is the lesser of two evils, then it seems just as acceptable to choose between the lesser of two evils in voting or not voting.
Further, I don't think that voting for one of two candidates when you don't like either one can really be argued to be a true upholding of democracy. Take a more extreme example, and I think the point is proven: the Republican candidate was found to have been guilty of murder during his time in the military and the Democratic candidate supports an amendment that would permit actual infanticide. Is it truly ethical to vote for either candidate in this circumstance? Can you really argue that not voting doesn't do anything of value in this circumstance?
I'm not saying that either candidate is guilty of such crimes, but the point stands: there are times when neither candidate deserves to be supported and if so the proper democratic and ethical decision is to withhold your support.
You can't legislate morality; however, as Christians we have a duty to not encourage immorality.
God's things are accomplished in His ways and not socio/economic/political/wordly ways. Yet I feel it is unwise when the path to hell is wide, to allow individuals that will pass legislation to make it an easier and wider path to walk (I am namely speaking about abortion here).
Banning abortion won't stop abortion, but it would definitely decrease it. There is a battle for people's souls that is in Gods hands, but with some many people drifting along, why would we allow the currents of sin to become stronger when we one of the gifts of being in this country is our vote?
2. Our religious freedoms as Evangelical christians are at stake. It is the governments responsibility to allow our free religious practice. I give you the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Democrats are hostile to true evangelical, bible believing Christians. For example, I am sure you are aware of the Democratic sponsored "Hate Speech" bill (which will make preaching certain parts of the bible illegal; ie. "Homosexuality is a sin" = Hate Speech). This was not passed yet, but it will come back when the time is right. Let's consider the effects where sexual sin (one of the worst types of sin because it effects the body and mind) if our society is engulfed with it. And YES, I know there is wanton HETEROSEXUAL sin in this nation as well which has equally damaging effects, but people in fornication are not trying to limit my religious freedom.
In conclusion: Yes, I will happily take the "lesser of two evils" and vote republican. My faith for REAL CHANGE is in The Lord, but I feel it would be unwise NOT to stymy the proliferation of sin in this country when our votes determine the leadership.
Also noting but not addressing Palin, who I discern to be a legit evangelical, the possibility to be the VP and someday President? PTA mom to VP candidate in a couple years? Ester ... anyone?