Friday, November 07, 2008

The Abortion Issue

The year is 1993 and Bill Clinton recently won the 1992 presidential election. Clinton posted about 5 million more votes than incumbent president George H.W. Bush and easily won the electoral collage vote. Perhaps even more important was the fact that President Clinton entered the White House with majorities in both houses of congress.

It didn’t take long to for him to take his new mandate for a test drive and if I remember right made a few moves that immediately angered those conservatives who opposed him. The first was the passage of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ bill concerning homosexuals in the military. The second was his failed attempt to pass health care reform.

Why do I mention this? I wanted to highlight how President Clinton took steps to address issues that important to different aspects of his base even though those issues angered and eventually galvanized those who opposed him. Health care reform was a major part of President Clinton’s 1993 State of the Union speech and in that speech he indicated a plan to send congress major legislation on health care in the spring of that year.

Fast forward to 2005. Here George W. Bush has be re-elected and also leads the party that controls both houses of congress. He too seeks to utilize his electoral mandate to address an issue important to his base even though it might arouse the anger of his opponents. That issue was the reform of social security and it was a major aspect of his 2005 State of the Union speech. And though President Bush was a pro-life president the issue of abortion wasn’t really mentioned in the speech. He did speak of building a culture of life, but connected it with his desire to ensure that embryos wouldn’t be created for experimentation or to be used to supply human body parts. While that is an important part of building a culture of life it is not the same as proposing a ban on abortion.

Now lets take a snapshot of this past election. I watched the Republican National Convention and paid particular attention to the Gov. Pailin’s and Senator McCain’s acceptance speeches. I watched all four debates and living in Pennsylvania couldn’t get away from the onslaught of political adds even if I tried real hard.

I bring this up to begin a dialogue regarding an issue that’s important to all of us. I (and I’m sure you also) received dozens of emails and read dozens of blog posts explaining why those who claim to believe in Christ should not vote for Senator Obama. My aim in this post however is not to revisit that argument. Instead I would like to give those who wondered why any believer could even consider voting for President-elect Obama knowing where he stood regarding abortion.

That’s where the examples cited above come into play and where I need your help. Many of us who did vote for President-elect Obama never got a clear idea of what Sen. McCain would do to outlaw the practice of abortion. Moreover I’ve always wondered why President Bush didn’t make outlawing abortion more of an issue during the first few months of his second term. For example in his 2005 State of the Union Speech President Bush declared his support for a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage. Yet, apart from declaring that embryos should not be created for experiments or body parts there wasn’t any kind of legislative proposal having to do with abortion. I’m not sure why this was the case and would like to have the thoughts of those of my brothers and sisters who consider abortion the most significant issue that determines their vote. I want to know what were your thoughts when a self-described pro-life president who just won re-election with a majority in both houses of congress decided to make social security his primary focus? Please understand, my questions aren’t meant to provoke an argument but to gain a better understanding. Did you expect President Bush to address abortion through legislation or by simply appointing conservative justices? Beyond that what would have been the path to have Roe v. Wade revisited?

I’m asking these questions because I think it would be helpful to explain to those who didn’t vote for Senator McCain the pathway toward overturning Roe v.Wade and then eventually outlawing abortion. For many who voted for President-elect Obama it wasn’t enough to point out that he was pro-choice. And though I did receive dozens of emails and read dozens of blog post I can’t recall reading any that spelled out what Senator McCain would do to outlaw abortion. Following that line of thought I wonder why Senator McCain didn’t make outlawing abortion a more prominent part of his campaign. It barely came up in his acceptance speech and didn’t seem to be mentioned all that much in his campaign speeches. And when it was brought up during the third debate I was somewhat surprised to hear him say that he thought the issue should be decided by the states. Were any of you likewise surprised especially in light of the fact that pro-life ballot measures were defeated in South Dakota and Colorado? Many of the emails I received and the blog posts I read claimed that President-elect Obama was the most liberal, pro-abortion candidate ever. Despite this I never saw a McCain ad that brought this up. Did he run any ads in other states with a pro-life theme?

Let me reiterate that it’s not my intention to provoke an argument nor make light of an extremely important issue. But this election caused me to wonder why Senator McCain said so little about an issue that has apparently moved many of my brothers and sisters to become single issue voters. Had Senator McCain won the election what would you have expected of him? I think I understand the importance of appointing supreme court justices so perhaps I need to know if a pro-life president would be expected to do anything further to outlaw abortion. Please understand that this is a different question than what would he do to limit and curtail abortions. And even if he had the opportunity to appoint justices could they be as conservative as he would have liked given the new composition of the Senate? I’m not accusing or even suggesting that President Bush or Senator McCain merely used the pro-life issue to secure the evangelical vote. I believe both men are sincerely committed to overturning Roe v. Wade. I just want to know if there was a clear legislative path toward overturning ‘Roe’, what that path was and when and where was it articulated by either President Bush in the two times he ran for office or Senator McCain during this last campaign.

Finally, (or perhaps I should say for now) in light of the election what is the pathway toward ending abortion? If the political avenue is now closed what other avenues are there and what might be some of the more prudent ways to proceed? Before I close please forgive me if I’ve offended or hurt anyone by anything in this post because that certainly was not my intention. I do hope we can have a good and fruitful discussion about the wisest way to end abortion and genuinely protect the lives of all who are created in God’s image.

To Him Who Loves Us…

Pastor lance


shane said...

You said: "Yet, apart from declaring that embryos should not be created for experiments or body parts there wasn’t any kind of legislative proposal having to do with abortion. "

He also signed the born-alive bill; he also appointed pro-life judges.

Pastor Lance said...

thanks Shane,

let me ask you, did you expect President Bush to do more regarding outlawing abortion or did you expect him to do what he could to limit the amount and expansion of abortion?

also, what would have to occur to have those pro-life judges redress Roe v. Wade.

thanks again for your comment.

pastor lance

paul said...

The political avenue will not be over on the abortion issue until we no longer have any input in the political process. Nonetheless, I think it is good for us to think of both/and approaches that bring all ethical means to bear on eliminating abortion. Most fundamentally it will require a shift in our cultural ethos on the meaning and significance of human life. If the people as a whole wish to eliminate abortion, it will happen, through one political process or another.

Anonymous said...

In this historic election, we've witnessed a 'Gentile' being welcomed to the 'table' (Eph. 3:6; Gal. 2:11-14). This display of the gospel should cause ALL believers to rejoice!

As Whoopi Goldberg so profoundly stated: "[That] night I felt like I could put my suit case down finally."


Anonymous said...

Pastor Lance, I'm just amazed at the millions of babies that have been aborted BEFORE President-elect Obama won the election. I state that because many of our brothers and sisters in Christ act as though the GOPs have been looking out for those babies and now Obama is about to mess it up. It's easier for us to scream through bullhorns and on blogs than to get our hands dirty by attempting to minister to and aid those hurting females, who are considering having abortions, and the men who oftentimes encourage them to have abortions. If a young lady is considering having an abortion, would she even know where to turn to get info on adoption? Would she know where to turn to get counsel prior to making that huge decision? I think that's where the church can be a great resource. We can make sure that type of information is readily available. Also, as we minister to those hurting individuals, not only will we be able to show the love of Christ, but we will also be able to tell them the good news about all that was accomplished at the cross. That should happen no matter who is in office.


Pastor Lance said...

hey brother Marlon. I do believe that conservatives within the GOP were genuinely doing what they could to limit the number of abortions and all of God's people grieve this loss of life. and many of our brothers and sisters believe that President-elect Obama will only make the situation worse. beyond that many of them do make good attempt to contact young pregnant women and offer counsel. (i've seen advertisements on philly public transportation offering such services)

I like your idea idea of having the church become a resource for these things in our community and plan to write about that in a subsequent post.

thanks for checking in brother and let's keep the discussion going.


John Umland said...

Hi Pastor Lance
Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion ban each time it came to him. Bush signed it. Bush got two conservative Catholic brothers on the Supreme Court, who are, with a wink and a nod, presumably pro-life. He also tried to stack the lower courts with conservative judges but the Democrat congress wouldn't approve them.

Since the complaint of anti-Roe partisans is that the Court took away the democratic rights of the citizens by inventing a new right that trumped all state laws, even Justice Ginsburg recently said the court overstepped its bounds, they will not resort to a similar means. McCain promised only to nominate pro-life judges in the last debate. If Roe were challenged in the Supreme Court, as the Casey case did, to a degree, Roe could be overturned. If it is overturned then state laws resume authority, That's the game plan. Patient persuasion. One administration at a time. It's also patient prayer that our Father will soften the hearts of our nation, our justices, and our presidents.

The big difference is Obama thinks it is a right to kill babies and McCain didn't. If you replace "babies" with any other part of the population, you'd see why I can't ever vote for someone who is pro-abortion, especially to the degree Obama claims. His debate over the born alive bill in Illinois was repugnant. He refused to call a delivered alive baby, a "baby."

God is good

wwdunc said...

After this latest Presidential campaign, I've come to the conclusion that Evangelicals have, to a great extent, been duped by the Republican Party. The Republican Party knows they have the Evangelical vote locked up. All they have to do is talk the pro-life talk, and Evangelicals will vote for them, regardless of whether or not they actually do anything that brings about real change. It is exactly the same situation as that which exists between the Democrat Party and the greater part of the Black community. What has Black loyalty to the Democrat Party done for the Black community? Very little, if anything. That's exactly where the Evangelical community is right now with the Republican Party.

I've also become convinced that Evangelicals have been wrong to focus so intensely on abortion. Abortions are not the problem; abortions are but a symptom of the real problem: the spiritual condition of the United States. We Evangelicals work ourselves into a frenzy about Roe v Wade, when the fact of the matter is, if the gospel we proclaimed was really going out with power (see 1 Cor. 2:4), Roe v Wade would become a moot point. Few would want an abortion. There would be little demand for abortion. Those who support and promote abortion don't need the animosity and hatred of Evangelicals; they need the gospel. Those who are blinded by Satan don't need to be demonized by us; they need the gospel.

The way to end abortion is not through the exercise of political might. The way to end abortion is through the Spirit-empowered propogation of the gospel. In my opinion, the Evangelical politicking of the past 30 years (since the emergence of the "Moral Majority") has simply been a futile exercise in fighting spiritual battles with carnal weapons (see 2 Cor. 10:3-5).

The proof: Remember the powerful effect that the gospel had on 18th century society in England and the American Colonies in the days of Whitefield and the Wesleys? Cannot God do the same thing today?

Anonymous said...

WWDUNC, over the last few days, I have tried to communicate the very points you made, but you articulatd them better than I did :) In fact,I actually used the same example you used about democrats taking the Black vote for granted and Republicans taking the Evangelical vote for granted. As you indicated, the reasons that people have abortions will remain no matter who is in office, and we have the message that addresses those reasons. So we need to be involved in our particular communities and not just write about how wrong people are. People don't merely have abortions because the offices are accessible. Let's remember that sin was rampant even before Obama got elected. Again, good post.

Also, Lance thanks for the original post and thought-provoking questions.


John Umland said...

The other great human rights issue of our recent history, slavery, was not solved by revival but by laws. Wilberforce did it incrementally in England. Lincoln's platform was to prevent it's further expansion west, which would eventually leave slave holding states outnumbered in Congress, enabling more and more restrictive legislation. Those slaveholders, often Christians, often Presbyterian, revolted instead. Slavery was also a symptom. The source of both symptoms is sin. Sin is restrained in society by laws.
God is good

wwdunc said...

John Umland said,

"The other great human rights issue of our recent history, slavery, was not solved by revival but by laws."

Yes, slavery was outlawed but, in my opinion, it wasn't "solved". The human heart that saw no wrong in enslaving a fellow human being was of the same opinion even after slavery was outlawed. Hence, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws and continuing decades of racism, discrimination, prejudice, etc., even to the present time.

The crying need in our country is a spiritual revival/reformation within American Evangelicalism. A revival/reformation that issues forth in Spirit-filled proclamation of the gospel of Christ will do more to end abortion in this country than all our political action. Evangelicalism's embrace of Republican, conservative, political activism has only created an often angry, mean-spirited "Religious Right". "The anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God" (James 1:20).

I agree that laws help restrain sin. However, I would caution against putting my trust in the Republican Party. As I see it, they have proven they aren't really serious about outlawing abortion; they just want your vote.

John Umland said...

I don't care which party passes laws to restrain abortion, but i know the current democratic party leadership wants to get rid of any laws (FOCA), whereas the republicans have written and passed laws that do hinder or deter abortion, which is the only option till the Lord changes the heart of every person in our land.

one party supports killing babies one doesn't. perhaps you might appreciate the honor killing analogy i wrote about this morning.

God is good

Pastor Lance said...

good comments brothers, we need this kind of discussion. however, in light of the recent election it seems wise to begin focusing on non-political as well as political solutions. i say this for two reasons.
first, (and i really appreciate Jim's comments re: the game plan)it appears the pro-life strategy hinged on successive elections of pro-life presidents which in my view was iffy at best. the GOP knew or should have known by 06 that the next election would be a tough one.

second, even if Roe were overturned that would not have necessarily outlawed abortion, only put the question before the states. in my view this comes up short especially in light of the fact that two states rejected pro-life ballot initiatives.

to me it seems that regardless of who was in power abortion could have remained very much legal in all but a few states. granted the republican party may initiate legislation to curtail abortion but that's not the same as outlawing it.

at this point my goal here is not to argue which party can best address abortion. thankfully our brother Jim gave us the pro-life strategy which at least in some part depended on electing a pro-life as opposed to pro-choice president. since that didn't happen the issue is what do we do now.

thanks again brothers and thanks for showing respect to one another.


John Umland said...

Thank you for hosting this discussion, Pastor Lance. As long as there are laws promoting this atrocity,it will remain a political discussion, especially with those who do not share a relationship with our savior and Lord. when Clinton was president it was a political discussion as well.

but it has also always been about the gospel. that's why pro-life clinics like Carenet offer recovery groups to women who have had abortions. that's why every year there is a call for 40 days of prayer and fasting every year. it seems some believe that in the past 40 years pastors haven't been evangelizing and that they have only been working for political parties.

as i wrote the day after the election, the method has not changed, prayer and persuasion.

in prayer, i know my Father can change Obama's heart as well as Ginsburg's and Pelosi's. So we need to pray for them and for their repentance from this wickedness of american honor-killing. in the meantime, i will also try to persuade my friends and my political representatives.

God is good

Laura said...

Brother, here's my two cents:

We shouldn't be pouring all of our energies into repealing Roe. The only thing that happens with Roe is that the control of abortion returns to the state level. There's no real moral victory, just a bureaucratic, (little d) democratic victory.

I think we ought to do whatever we can to reduce abortions in this country. More education. More resources. More counseling. More ultrasounds. More protection for young women. More access to adoption resources. More health care assistance for the truly poor and destitute (who are far and away the most likely to get an abortion). More lobbying. More leverage. Literally any and every angle.

But I think it's suicidal to put all our eggs in the "Overturn Roe" basket.

Anonymous said...

Heard a good sermon Sunday before election concerning Evangelical "one issue-ism". Daniel, Paul, Jesus, others had many opportunities to be political in facing the government directly and each time all they did was preach the gospel. Judas and others wanted Jesus to be their "political" savior but his response was "My Kingdom is not of this world". Abortion, in reality, is already outlawed (First degree murder). If it was to be legislated, you would then have more "back-alley" abortions and mothers being more at risk. The gospel needs to change this and many other issues. I wonder what the percentage of evangelicals who evangelize are versus the the ones who are political activists !!!!!

FYI, McCain is fairly silent (although says he is pro-life) on the issue. Evangelicals were scratching their heads about what to do until he chose Palin. Obama's veep is pro-life also and has said many times that life starts at conception!

Pastor Lance - This is Troy from Miami (formerly Glendale if you remember me).

Anonymous said...

I agree with Laura. Speaking legally, abortion only returns to the state level if "Roe" is overturned. "Roe" is a case that should have never been heard by the SCOTUS. More than anything else the case should have been rejected outright. I must limit my response, cause I didn't vote, but ultimately, prayer is key. "unless the LORD builds the House, those who build labor in vain."

Jim Pemberton said...

The president is limited to making certain policies, signing law and appointing judges. He cannot legislate. An amendment nullifying Roe v Wade requires a certain amount of votes among our representatives in congress and we have not been able to muster those votes.

For genuine conservatives, returning to the state level is a good thing. We've lost a sense of personal responsibility when we rely on the federal government to do our moral work for us. We've outlawed slavery federally, but there are still people (whites, blacks and people of all "races") who are racists. We've outlawed hatred by placing a penalty on perceived "hate crimes", but there are no less people who hate. All law is the legislation of morality, but law doesn't prevent sinners from breaking the law. I can, however, prevent the righteous from calling people to repentance by giving us a false hope in the law.

Laws can be enforced from a behavioral standpoint, but the heart is a different matter. As the Body of Christ, we must proclaim the gospel and disciple people in the ways of Christ - and, we must leave changing the hearts of people to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Anonymous said...

just wondering if anybody got to read this. I'm black and was still challenged.

A Guest Post by Eric C. Redmond

Eric C. Redmond is the author of Where Are All the Brothers? Straight Answers to Men's Questions About the Church (Crossway, 2008). He most recently served as the 2007-2008 Second Vice-President of the Southern Baptist Convention. He has previously posted other thoughts on the election at his blog, A Man from Issachar. He and his wife, Pamela, are adoptive parents who have five children in their home and two children in heaven.

Let us then continue to honor the good appointment of God, which may be easily done, provided we impute to ourselves whatever evil may accompany it. Hence he teaches us here the end for which magistrates are instituted by the Lord; the happy effects of which would always appear, were not so noble and salutary an institution marred through our fault. At the same time, princes do never so far abuse their power, by harassing the good and innocent, that they do not retain in their tyranny some kind of just government: there can then be no tyranny which does not in some respects assist in consolidating the society of men.
John Calvin, commentary on Romans 13:3.
A Note of Thanks

First, allow me to express my thanks to Justin for inviting me to contribute to his blog on the day after what might go down in history as the most significant Presidential election in the United States in our lifetime. I have found Justin to be a kind and discerning brother, for whom I give many thanks. I also am grateful for his passion for demonstrating the mercy of Christ to the unborn and the orphan—a passion we share in experience.

My Post-Obama-Election Dilemma

I am not and never have been a fan of John McCain, his proposed policies, his inconsistent record on many issues, his poor choice for a running mate, his thoughtless economic plan, or of his very negative campaigning against Barak Obama. It was hard for me to bear the thought of voting for him. It was equally hard for me to bear the thought of siding with a campaign for "change" that would passively allow each state to choose whether it would change the definition and legal institution of marriage, and that would not actively seek to change (read "work for the overturning of") Roe. v. Wade. For me, neither candidate represented change or progress for the country, except on the issue of the country's readiness to be led by a candidate of color.
How I wish that the first time there was a probable opportunity for an African American candidate to reach the White House I could have cast my vote for such a candidate without any reservation. However, I am pro-life, and President-Elect Obama is the most anti-life senator to come to power in my lifetime. I also am pro-conservative justices (who limit legislating from the bench). I am pro-marriage— that is, pro-heterosexual marriage. In the end, I could not overlook these issues as I approached Election Day. But the temptation to justify voting for Obama was strong, for I did not want to be against the side of history—of an African American finally making it to the Oval Office.

However, if I have not learned anything else from the recent happenings at my (soon to be former) church, it is these two things: First, it is not virtuous to side with the majority because one does not wish to stand out among friends, or because one is unwilling to examine all information on an issue, or because one wants to dispense dislikes toward current leadership, in spite of righteous reasons to vote against the majority—in fact, under some circumstances, it can be a horrendous evil. Second, even if one is seeking to be consistent in humility and holiness individually, to abstain from voting on any matter is to allow the majority to speak for you. That same majority, with a victory, might make trouble for the greater populous by means of the evil(s) of which you sought to distance yourself by abstaining from voting.

So I made two very difficult choices: First, I chose to vote rather than stay home. Second, I voted for lives of the unborn rather than for approval from the vast majority of my own ethnic community. The latter choice took the risk of being reproached for the name of Christ, for I only voted for life because of the fear of my Lord (cf. Ex. 1:15-2:12). I know such a choice risks invoking the ire or dismissal of the overwhelming majority of the African American community. Yet, on a most historic Election Day, I could not allow my personal pro-life stance to crumble under the weight of being perceived as a traitor to the African American cause for victory, for that goes against all godly wisdom:

If you faint in the day of adversity,
your strength is small.
Rescue those who are being taken away to death;
hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.
If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,”
does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it,
and will he not repay man according to his work?
Prov. 24:10-12, ESVESV

I cast my vote in the hopes of rescuing those being taken to the slaughter. I could not vote in such a way that I would have ignored the blood flowing from fertility clinics, for I know that the Almighty would repay my cowardice. My hope in his word is that he will remember me and graciously and provide for my life, repaying me with mercy.

In contrast, I do not think a recession can be said to be taking people to death unjustly, especially when many in Maryland voted to throw their lots in with bringing slots to my state; (the correlation of the recession to the slots-vote should be obvious to the righteous). I think our soldiers voluntarily sign up to defend our freedom at the risk of their own lives. Lack of health insurance coverage for all makes life very hard for many, but it does not lead to a denial of all medical care for any one class of people. (N.B. I have two members in my home with medical pre-conditions, and I am about to begin paying health insurance out of pocket because we cannot afford a break in coverage when my current job ends. I understand the value of health insurance and the stress of keeping up with the rising costs of such coverage.) So the economy, the war in Iraq, and universal health insurance became secondary issues for me—albeit very important ones —because righteousness was not at stake. Even so, the righteous should not now overlook these issues while loving their fellow man.

My Duty to Christ and the King

The question for me at this time is this: Can I continue to live Soli Deo Gloria under a President whose moral judgment already is questionable before he takes the oath of office? Yes I can, for I can be obedient to Scripture, praying for the one in authority (I Tim. 2:1-8), honoring the one in authority (1 Pet. 2:13-18), submitting to the one in authority (Rom. 13:1-7; Tit. 3:1), and seeking righteousness for the entire citizenry (Prov. 14:34). These I will seek to do by grace. I will "honor the good appointment of God."

Moreover, I can follow the admonition and example of Calvin, who, in the quote above, preached that believers should impute to themselves the ills of government and recognize the common grace given to mankind through human governing authorities. For example, in our day, it is not the governmental regulation that slaughters the innocent; it is the people who chose to end the lives of their children, and the willing executioners who kill for the sake of the monetary gain afforded by the abortion industry. The government only allows this sin to receive legal permission and protection. Nevertheless, that same government provides many laws that allow me to worship in freedom, preach the Gospel freely, vote in an election, and write blog posts like this one without fear of censorship or death. I readily can recognize the retention of "some kind of just government" under President Obama's rule.

My Dilemma Resolved

My humble proposal of an attempt to be Christocentric rather than Afrocentric will not be received with approval by many African Americans that I know. I hope to live long enough to witness another African American become a candidate for President of the United States of America—a candidate who is pro-life and pro-righteousness. Yet my hope may ring hollow to many other African Americans who are celebrating a Democratic victory that happens to seem pro-African American. To the celebrants, I might be labeled as sore loser seeking to justify his reasons for siding with conservative white America rather than with Black America.
In writing elsewhere about "how I have wrestled through the Christian version of the Uncle Tom epithet" (with respect to my embracing of Reformed Theology), I have penned this thought:
If a person would allow himself to be pigeonholed into becoming a person of a nationalistic or ethno-centric thought out of the fear of being viewed as an Oreo or Uncle Tom, then Reformed Theology is not for that person. But neither is the Gospel, for the Gospel calls each of us to stand against an ethnic-centered philosophy of one's own race, for such a philosophy is naturally conformed to this present world and is in need of redemption. If you cannot stand against your own culture where it does not square with the Scriptures, you are the one who is ashamed of Christ, and such shame has nothing to with philosophical or ontological Blackness; it only has to do with your view of the majesty of the God who calls you to deny yourself in order to follow Christ. ("Sovereign in a Sweet Home, Schooling, and Solace," in Glory Road: Our Journey Into Reformed Christianity, ed. Anthony Carter [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, Wheaton, forthcoming])
I am fairly certain that if J. C. Watts had been the Republican nominee for President, and if he had been running against Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, the great majority of African Americans would have found reason to vote for the wife of the "first Black President" and her liberal ideals rather than for Watts and his conservative ideals. In doing so, such a vote would indicate that the great majority of African Americans have feelings about the type of African American who would be deemed worthy their votes for the seat at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue—who would be worthy of African Americans' approval as their choice for their representative in the White House. Seemingly, for the Black Nationalist and the liberal, not every African American would qualify to wear an honor for which our ancestors were stolen, enslaved, whipped, lynched, dehumanized, and killed. Likewise, it is my opinion that my ancestors experienced such suffering and injustices so that it would be possible for any African American to reach the Oval Office, but not so that every African American, regardless of qualifications, could reach the Oval Office. Those who fought for civil rights for African Americans were doing so out of a moral impetus to see African Americans treated humanely—as human beings rather than like chattel or as 3/5ths-human. I think the best way to honor their work and lives when the office of Commander in Chief is within reach would be to continue that moral quest. That quest is continued by finding a candidate who seeks to see African Americans, even those in the womb, treated humanely—as people rather than as cattle for our labor and experimentation or as a 3/5th-human fetus.

John Umland said...

There is one way for abortion to be ended by judicial fiat. If the court finds that abortion violates the 5th amendment rights of children in utero then abortion would not be able to proceed without due process of the law for each child.
We can only hope and pray.
God is good

Jim Pemberton said...

Anonymous, regarding Eric Redmond's guest post on Justin Taylor's blog:

I read it the other day. It should be challenging to all of us. When he writes, "My humble proposal of an attempt to be Christocentric rather than Afrocentric will not be received with approval by many African Americans that I know," this could apply to anybody. You could replace "Afrocentric" and "African Americans" with any other group of people and it would be just as true. We Christians are to be first and foremost Christian. Any other self-identifier should be no closer than an exceptionally distant second.

On a side note: the Minister of Outreach at my church, Brian Burgess, just got censured from Facebook for uploading an image of a baby burned to death by saline from an abortion. This is in a place where teenage girls post half-naked photos of themselves with impunity. My point with this is that there is an effort to keep the truth from propagating in order to influence public opinion. The more people who assent to abortion, the less likely a president will be able to influence congress to enact legislation according to his agenda. This is why it is important to communicate our desires to our representatives in congress.

Pastor Lance said...

he all, I was away for much of this week so i'm catching up on commenting on the comments.
first off i really appreciate how we've discussed the issue despite some differences we have.

re: my brother Eric's article. I really appreciate my brother's perspective even though i don't think most black folks voted for Obama just because he was black.(yes that was added incentive but not the sole reason) They did so because black folks (for reasons I may get into if i ever have the time) overwhelmingly vote democratic. Brother Eric recognized that by stating that most black folks would have voted for Sen. Clinton even if she opposed J.C. Watts.
to put it another way I don't think it was strictly a black thing as much as it was a democrat thing.

but now the time has come for more concrete solutions. in light of our present political situation what are some concrete ways white evangelicals could work with bible believing blacks to reduce abortions?