Yesterday I joined a group on facebook called "Christians for Obama" Today I was looking at my profile and saw that someone had commented on that fact. They said they thought it was hypocritical as a Christian to vote for someone who was for abortion and homosexual rights.
Now first of all, I am not judging this person. He is an older teen in my church and 9 years ago, I was him. So I can no sooner judge him than judge myself. I understand why he believes what he does and why. However, I wholeheartedly disagree.
What I believe is hypocritical, is calling yourself a christian and then doing the exact opposite of what Jesus did while on earth. He deliberately avoided legislating morality. He was challenged all the time on questions that were highly important to the "moral" people of his day. They would be parallel in importance that Christians today give to homosexual rights and abortion. He refused to debate on that level. He always turned the conversation around to talk about what his Father thought was really important. He would talk about loving those who believed different than you, serving those less fortunate, feeding the poor, caring for the sick and so on. He said the world would know who we were by how we love not by how we vote. I am voting for Obama because he has a heart for those that Jesus spoke about, he has good ideas to help them, and they are a priority for him. McCain seems to have other priorities that I don't agree with. The war is a big one. I find it ironic (and hypocritical) that those that most vehemently oppose abortion generally approve of war. (Iraq in particular) Innocent lives are lost everyday in war. How is that different? If we call ourselves pro life we must truly be for life in all ways. Anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-war. I am pro-life. But the two issues I think can actually be changed in politics right now are not going to be changed with McCain in office. I like Obama's views on reducing abortions. I think that needs to happen before Roe V Wade is overturned. Think about it. What would happen in this country if it was overturned tomorrow. We would have the same number of pregnancies and instead of abortions we would have abandoned, drug addicted, or simply unwanted children. What kind of "life" are we giving those children? I'm not saying this makes it ok to kill them but let's focus on what we can change. Roe V Wade isn't going to get overturned tomorrow but we can love a poor, unwed mother who is struggling with a decision. We could consider adopting a child who's mother made the right decision and gave them up for adoption but no one wants them anymore because they have problems from growing up in an orphanage.
What is more Christian? Protesting outside an abortion clinic or volunteering at a crisis pregnancy center? Protesting at the gay pride parade or befriending a gay person on your block and loving them unconditionally? Which will change the heart of those we are trying to reach? Homosexuality will not go away if we outlaw homosexual unions. People will simply continue living a homosexual lifestyle (that is more turned off to God's message of love by the evangelical right's outright hatred) but they will experience heartaches of not being able to have rights to their loved ones in times of crisis like heterosexuals do. We will simply make hard time worse.
If Christians want to make a statement about the sanctity of marriage then we need to stop getting divorced at the same rate of non-Christians. What's "sacred" about that? When we start doing that, then we might have a platform to start talking about marriage being sacred.
Bottom line is, true change starts within. The only thing that can change the heart is Jesus' love. The only way to show that love is to simply love with no agenda.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Karl Marx had "good" ideas to help the "poor and down-trodden". Men like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong ran with these ideas, and millions of Americans died in the later half of the 20th to protect freedom from the forces of communism and socialism.
Do a little research on Barack Obama (and Karl Marx, socialism, communism, etc.). Like Marx, on the surface, his ideas sound good, but after pealing away the layers of rhetoric, he wants to take away freedoms in order to preserve the "greater good". Its called socialism, and he really hasn’t tried to hide it (i.e., his friends, his pursuits). It is the same "wealth redistribution" plan, or a strategy described in the words or Marx, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
To site Jesus' disregard for legislating morality, to reference His disengagement of politics, and then to say that Barack Obama is a good candidate because of his ideas to help the poor is quite an imbalance. Obama says he wants to "help" others. He argues that he will do so by using the engine of government. As Jesus carried out his ministry without government, wouldn't a more consistent action be to just go out and help the poor, the sick, etc. Why do you need Obama?
Obama wants to raise taxes. He wants to increase the size of government. How many more resources would Christians have to help those "in need", if the government kept its hands out of its citizens' pockets. Name one success government has had when it got involved. FDR tried to help Americans with retirement plans. Where is social security now? Medicare and Medicaid are in shambles. Government run businesses such as the Post Office and Amtrak are only huge money suckers that taxpayers are forced to subsidize. Why, in the name of all that is good, would Christians turn to government, to politicians to impact the world with the message of Christ. Why not just go out and impact the world with the message and love of Christ?
Thomas Jefferson sited three "inalienable" rights: "the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness". Millions of unborn babies are denied these rights every year when they are mutilated and murdered in their mother's wombs. What could be more Christian than to protect the most innocent and defenseless human beings, unborn babies? Which is more compassionate? To induce labor, impale the child's skull, suck out the brain matter, crush its bones, all so that it will not be "unwanted"; or to stand outside of an abortion clinic and protest this inhumane and grotesque practice? What would have happened had the world chosen to react to the Holocaust by "working around" the Nazis rather than demanding immediate change? Is there any difference especially when considering the genocidal numbers? Is fighting abortion really the legislation of morality?
Rachel, I received your response. I'm sorry that you are having trouble posting comments on your blog. I will help you and put it here for you so that I can respond (even though it will look like I am talking to myself, which wouldn't be the first time):
"I feel you are making some major leaps. But I really don't want to get into all that. You are entitled to your opinion. What I will say is I am not voting for Obama so only he can take care of the poor. I believe Christians should go and show the poor, downtrodden, down on their luck, sick (etc, etc) how much God has a crazy-deep love for them. We are supposed to serve others before ourselves, choose others welfare before our own. I just feel Obama's politics will set some systems in place that will make that a bit easier and if I'm wrong oh well. We can still serve others even if the government doesn't help. What I am totally against are Christian how try to force their "morality" on others and ignore their responsibility to love and serve those very people they are trying to control. Jesus said if we do anything, even "moral" things without love we are useless and annoying and do more harm than good which is proving true in our country. Ask a homosexual what they think of Christians and they won't say loving, friendly, and likable to be around. They will point to the "evangelical" right that protest at anything, even funerals, with such hatred. I can not vote for someone who says he is prolife and yet is for the death penalty and continuing a war that is taking innocent lives everyday. Bush hasn't stopped abortions or even decreased them, and neither will Mccain. So I'm going to vote for the two life issues that might actually change in the next 4-8 years.
And by the way, small government is not a christian value, it's a republican value. I find it ironic that republicians say they don't want government to make their laws. What they really mean is they don't want their FEDERAL govt to do it. They turn to their local/state govts to make their rules and laws where they have more control. It's a control issue. Local govt is still government!
I just reread your last comment and remembered I wanted to say this. No, I don't believe trying to outlaw abortion is legislating morality. However, the issue of gay rights, the "One nation UNDER GOD" fiasco, the example or Christians freaking out when the ten commandments were taken down, are all examples of Christians pushing their will with political power. I hope someday abortion will be done away with! I will probably cry and dance and anything else that makes me look crazy. However, the nation is not ready. Not ready in terms of no one is going to overturn it anytime soon and not ready to care for all those babies that will be born to unwilling mothers. That needs to be addressed first."
It is hard telling what Republicans believe now. When Ronald Reagan was in office, there was a strong conservative message (i.e., less government, more freedom). Since then, liberalism has infected the party and the term "moderate" has been born. John McCain is a moderate. It is ironic, yet expected, that some of the same liberals to whom he extended the "olive branch" to gain his moderate and "maverick" status are the same ones that are going for his throat now (i.e., Harry Reid).
I never said that "smaller government" was a Christian idea. Unfortunately, it is not even a Republican idea any more. It is a conservative idea. It was also an idea shared by the Founding Fathers of this country. Coming from the tyranny of England, it is well documented that they had an overwhelming distrust of government. It was the primary force behind the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights). For more info. on this subject, research materials such as the Federalist Papers.
Deferring power to the local and state governments instead of one all-powerful federal government is not a "control issue"; it is called Federalism. The theory behind it is that by sharing power between several smaller entities (i.e., states) with a larger uniting entity (i.e., the federal government), checks and balances will exist to prevent any one faction from becoming too powerful. It is a system that is meant to protect the rights of citizens.
I think you may misunderstand conservatism, which used to be a Republican philosophy. Conservatism says that the government (state, federal, etc.) should stay out of peoples lives. It is there to protect rights, not to take them away. If people want to engage in homosexuality, it should be of no concern to the government. Civil unions? Sure. I won't vote for them, but it is not our place to control other human beings. God gave us all free will; who are we to do any different. While not a direct democracy, the Founding Fathers set up a form of government that conceded that immorality could sometimes sometimes have the majority vote. To have freedom, we have to accept this (another conservative idea).
The argument does creep into the living room of the Church when people want to have homosexual marriages. The concept of marriage comes from Judeo/Christian history. We (human beings) did not invent marriage. It was ordained by God (that of "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"). This really exposes the folly of the whole subject. Why do homosexuals want to get married in the first place? They obviously aren't concerned about Judeo/Christian values; what then is the need to validate their relationship with a Judeo/Christian sacrament and tradition?
Often Christians are not trying to prevent homosexuality; instead, they are trying to protect the institution of marriage. As far as this Christian conservative is concerned, people could have sex with animal carcasses as long as others don't have to see it. It is not the Christian's job nor the government's to control them.
It is inaccurate to say that Christians do not protect the institution of marriage by citing divorce rates. Countless Christian ministries exist that aim to prevent divorce: Focus on The Family, America's Family Coaches, Real Relationships, Smalley Relationship Center, etc., etc. Numerous marriage support ministries exist in local church bodies. The Roman Catholic church does not even recognize divorce.
These are all successful organizations that help people without the help of government. Government should only exist to protect the rights of such organizations (and all citizens) to do what they do. To get involved as a participant only creates an unhealthy dependency that inevitably arrives at corruption (social programs for votes).
Unfortunately, there is not a conservative candidate in this election, one that wants to remove the obstacle of government to allow a free people to do good things. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain fit the bill. It is quite frustrating for those of us who still agree with the Founding Fathers...
Another REALLY good post.
The DNC has a "abortion reduction" plank in their platform. Unfortunately, Obama is currently ignoring it (according to Tony Campolo).
I personally think Christians should stop trying to outlaw abortion and instead work to take care of single moms so they don't feel like abortion is their only option. This is the approach Jesus would've taken. The Religious Right of Jesus' day (and ours) want to legislate morality while a Christ-follower works to serve those caught in sinful cycles.
I also agree on the war comment. Conservative Christians are blaspheming (I meant to use that word) the name of Jesus when they oppose abortion but blindly accept war. Our nation preseves our high standard of living by oppressing other nations (middle easter nations with oil) and most affluent Christians support these actions. I wonder what would happen if right-wing Christians started taking the Sermon on the Mount seriously? It would certainly affect some of their political views.
If you believe your faith is calling you to vote for Obama, then you don't need to answer to anyone.
I apologize for the cynicism but I'm so tired of the Religious Right right now I could puke...
Thanks for your comment. You're right. I can vote for whomever I please without having to answer to anyone. It's one of my rights. And yet those (the religious right) that say they fight for our religious "rights" get mad at me when I exercise that right because I don't "exercise" it the way they want me to.
In regards to the above comment, no kidding!!!
Check out my "politics" sermon on the front page of our website.
I did take a little heat for that, but not much because it fits the mindset of our church, which makes me LOVE my church!
Post a Comment