Ignorant Historian

This is the third and final post of this series. The first two posts are:

Point: A practicing Christian can, and sometimes should, vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Counterpoint: A practicing Christian cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Now that I’ve given what I hope to be a fair accounting of this issue, I’ll let you know that I’m firmly in the “counterpoint” camp: a practicing Christian should not vote for a pro-choice candidate. It’s not that I have everything figured out; I don’t. My position on this issue has changed greatly in the last 8 years or so (initially, I was pro-choice, then I was pro-life with no exceptions, while now I recognize an exception for eminent death of mother and child).

I know that this view alienates many of my readers. While I’m willing to listen to other views with the idea that I don’t have it all figured out, and I will not attempt to force you to agree with me, this is something that I feel strongly about. Once I’ve accepted abortion as murder, I don’t know how I can tolerate it nor vote for someone who will tolerate it. Even now the thought of the innocent dying unnecessarily, in many cases because of the simple matter of convenience, it brings queasiness to my stomach and a tear to my eye.

I’ve been accused (not specifically, but generally) of being a one-issue voter. I wrote about this back in February, but I’ll say it again: if this is what it means to be a one-issue voter than I’ll proudly bear the title.

That said, a candidate’s stance on abortion is absolutely not the only thing I care about. It is the first thing I look for, because once I’ve determined that a candidate is pro-choice, that ends the discussion. I will not vote for them. But after I have learned that a candidate is pro-life, I will continue to research and vet him, seeking to determine if he indeed is a candidate I can vote for, or if I should choose someone else or simply abstain from voting for that office (I must admit, I haven’t done this last one yet, but I imagine that the time will come when I will do that).

To answer the charge that Christians should follow the lead of their Savior and be concerned with the poor, I most heartily agree. But I don’t believe that the government is the means to do it. Rather, I’m much more concerned with the church reaching out and caring for the poor.

So yeah, I do tend to vote Republican. It’s not because I think that the Republican party is right (okay it is “right,” but now isn’t really the place for a pun, is it?). The amount that Republicans have increased the government spending and federal control sickens me.

I thank you for your respectful comments and hearing me out on this one. If you are a Christian considering voting for a pro-choice candidate, I urge you to think this issue through. I can’t change your mind, but I can pray that God will lead you to do so.

I’ll leave you with a couple of comments that I feel are particularly helpful:

Vicki wrote in response to the first post (in support of Christians voting pro-choice):

I’m not so sure I agree. You write: “they must realize that God judges morality, not the state.” I disagree with that because God judged Israel and Judah as a whole when their citizens began to fall away from Him. The whole nations were taken into captivity, even though certainly there were a few who still loved and obeyed God. I fully expect God to punish America (and perhaps He already has–I’m not speaking of specific instances here) for the way that we are abandoning Him and His morals.

You also wrote: “We shouldn’t expect or want a government body that regulates morality” I disagree with this as well. I want my government to regulate morality from a Judeo-Christian standpoint. I realize this is slowly slipping away in America, and in the rest of the world. But wouldn’t this be how God would want us to govern? No, we can’t force people to like the morality of the laws, but we do it for the sake of citizens and communities as a whole. If we were to reject government regulation of morality then we would reject punishment for murder or lesser crimes. After all, who is to say that what the criminal did wasn’t moral to them? This begins to slide down the slope of whatever is moral for you is fine and whatever is moral for me is fine. It’s secular humanism. A government will regulate morality…if they choose to allow abortion they are taking a loose stance on it. Just because they’re not taking a stance that abortion is wrong doesn’t mean they aren’t judging its morality. So since a goverment is always going to regulate morality, I want it done on God’s side.

I’m probably rambling a bit. What I’m afraid of is Christians not standing up for what God would see to be completely wrong. Are we rationalizing our vote because a pro-abortion candidate seems to have better ideas about other issues? How does a Christian reconcile that? What is more important: life? the housing crisis? health care?

Blog Stalker wrote in response to the second post (against Christians voting pro-choice):

I could not agree with you more. It is a black and white issue. You are either for it or against it. and as far as jennifers comment goes….as a society….we will always do what is best for a patient! mother or baby……that does not mean if they feel they can’t handle it mentally that they get to abort the child. There are millions of loving couples who would like the chance to adopt….and love a baby.

This is the second post of the series. The first post can be found here:

Point: A practicing Christian can, and sometimes should, vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Tomorrow I’ll wrap up this series with a conclusion, giving you my take on the issue. Thanks for your grace; this may very well be the hardest posts I’ve ever written.

Counterpoint: A practicing Christian cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate.

It has been assumed by many that if one is pro-life he must vote for one party over the other. However, choosing to be pro-life is not the same as choosing to be a Republican. A Christian may choose to not vote for a pro-life candidate because of other issues, but the point at hand is that they cannot rightfully choose to vote for a pro-choice candidate (regardless of the candidate’s political party).

Assumed in our discussion here is that abortion is wrong according to the standards laid out in the Bible. Briefly, abortion is murder because it is killing and unjustly taking another life. The baby growing inside of the woman is not an extension of the woman, but another growing, human, living being created in the image of God with its own DNA and more importantly, soul. Just like other types of murder, abortion can and should be legislated by the state.

Most certainly we are all held accountable for our decisions by a holy, sovereign God, but that does not mean that there should not be some judgment and punishment here on earth. As a society we have rules, some of them are of a moral nature (ex: one cannot lie in the courtroom or about someone in the press, nor can one steal or defraud – the 9th and 8th commandments, respectively). Laws against murder are moral in nature, yet no one is crying out that it should not be punished. Human beings inherently know that life is sacred and it cannot and should not be taken from one individual by another. Proposed or existing laws cannot be deemed unworthy simply because they have a moral component.

The argument that one can be personally against abortion but yet pro-choice (or voting pro-choice) is a weak one. Either abortion is wrong, or it is not.* Right and wrong are moral absolutes (though this is debated in postmodern culture, remember here that we are talking about a Christian who has already agreed to the moral standards set forth by his God in the Bible). If one would not choose to have an abortion because they believe it to be wrong, they should not willingly allow (and complicitly approve) another to do the same.

Another factor to consider is that the victim of an abortion, the baby, has no voice of his own. Abortion is a type of oppression as the the more powerful gets her way simply because she is stronger and more able to assert her will over the dependent child within her that looks to her for all his nutrition and protection. Not sticking up for the voiceless victim is either an issue of ignorance, inability, laziness, or selfishness.

A Christian’s responsibility in voting does not end by simply determining which (if either) candidate is pro-life. This is not the only issue that matters. Many other issues should be considered when determining whether to vote for a candidate or not. However, the candidate’s pro-choice stance on abortion should be a dealbreaker for a Christian because supporting/allowing abortion is agreeing to the taking of innocent human lives created by and in the likeness of God.

*There can be a reasonable exception in cases such as ectopic pregnancy which, if allowed to continue, would kill both mother and child.

The concluding post in this series can be found here.

This is it, the controversial subject that I’ve mentioned for weeks. Sorry for all the suspense. It’s not an easy thing to talk about so I didn’t want to treat it superficially. I’d love to hear comments, but I ask that you be civil and respectful, as you always are.

Other point/counterpoint discussions can be found here, and my original post about these series can be found here. Tune in tomorrow for the counterpoint view.

Point: A practicing Christian can, and sometimes should, vote for a pro-choice candidate.

There are several reasons why Christians should not be so quick to condemn pro-choice candidates for local, state, and national offices. The issue of stopping abortion has been so associated with Christianity in recent times that it can be hard to seperate the faith from the issue, but it is necessary to do so.

First of all, Christians limit their potential impact on an election if they simply choose a pro-life candidate for that reason exclusively, regardless of the other issues. This is further compounded when they exclusively vote along party lines. Neither political party corresponds directly to Christian values as laid out in the Bible.

A major point to consider is that while Christians should not be pro-abortion, they must realize that God judges morality, not the state. We shouldn’t expect or want a government body that regulates morality. This means that the Christian should not be willing to have an abortion herself but should allow others to stand before God for their choices rather than judge them here on earth. It is a matter of personal choice, but that does not mean that choosing to have an abortion and choosing not to have an abortion carry the same moral value before God.

This means that rather than focusing so much time on issues like abortion and gay marriage, Christians should fight for other issues that are also thoroughly biblical like justice and helping the poor. In these things they can be like the one they claim to follow, Jesus Christ. If Christians spend too much time fighting against abortions and changes to the understanding of marriage, they will neglect the serious issues that Jesus attended to.

For these reasons, a Christian should judge a candidate not exclusively on the issue of abortion, but take the candidate as a whole. There can and will be times where the pro-choice candidate will be the proper and more Christian choice.

The counterpoint and second post on this subject can be found here.

Point: I can be a Christian without the local church.
Counterpoint: I cannot be a Christian without a local church.

Conclusion: While I can be a Christian apart from the local church, I do so in disobedience to the one I call Lord.

You may have been wondering where I actually stood on this issue. Unlike the blogging issue, this one isn’t as clear cut. I mean, you could have figured out before that I’m pro-blogging since I’m posting this on a blog.

It was incredibly difficult to write the posts for and against the proposition when I don’t entirely agree with either side. While I lean more towards the counterpoint position, I feel this lends itself to wrongly basing salvation upon church membership.

I don’t feel that the growing trend of professing Christians living life on their own is healthy for any in the body of Christ, the Church. Not only is it not healthy, it’s sinful (Hebrews 10:25). Read Romans 12. We’ve all been given different gifts, but we can’t use them to build up the church if we don’t associate with it. So whether I realize it or not, I hurt other believers if I refuse to be actively involved in a local church. I think that someone who calls themselves a Christian yet doesn’t participate in a local church should seriously consider whether they are truly a believer or not (as should those who are sitting in the pews each week).

My identity in Christ is not based on my identity with my church. I can be baptized, confirmed, and preached at all I want and even participate in all the Lord’s Suppers and revival services I could ever care to, but none of these activities will save me. Christ and His work on the cross saves me, through utter trust in Him alone for rescue from my sin and the just penalty for my sin, eternal death in hell.

Unfortunately, the church has gotten stereotyped as a group of hypocrites. Yes, there are those who do not practice their beliefs as they ought. I have done this. But that doesn’t keep me from seeking forgiveness and trying again. Just like any other organization, the church is a group of sinners. The only difference is we have been redeemed by Jesus Christ, but even we have not yet been made perfect. We will still sin against one another.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t add that I love my local church. My care group really is like my family. I love getting time with other believers, whether young or old. I love hearing challenging messages from our pastor and seeking to work them out in my life alongside my fellow church members. I love the bunches and bunches of kids (our church is about 1/3 children!) and the opportunities I get to teach them and encourage them, sometimes being encouraged by them. Not everyone’s experiences with the local church are this rosy, I get that, but I know that I’d be missing out if I decided not to get involved, even if I could have avoided some hurt that I’ve gotten along the way. I regret the day that I may have to leave this church for any other place than my heavenly home.

So, this is where I stand right now. I know that I don’t have everything exactly right. I’m all about growing in my understanding of these things. What’s your take on this?

Point: I can be a Christian without the local church.

Counterpoint: I cannot be a Christian without the local church.

Yes, a Christian is essentially a follower of Christ. Such a follower cannot pick and choose the areas they will follow Christ in. That means they cannot forsake the assembling with believers (Hebrews 10:25) as is commanded in Christ’s Scriptures.

As soon as a person unites with Christ in salvation, they are united with the universal Church. While the universal Church, the body of Christ, is not the same thing as the local church, they are related. Every member of Christ’s body should participate in the local manifestation of Christ’s body.

While the local church did not officially exist in the day of Christ, this is not because Christ does not fully support the church. In fact, He calls it His church (Matthew 16:18). We see the building of His church in the first century especially in the book of Acts. Within a matter of decades there were numerous churches to be found throughout much of Asia, reaching into Africa and Europe as well.

Without the local church, a Christian is not allowing God to use them as He desires in the lives of other believers. Meeting with other believers in small groups or one-on-one with other believers is great, but it cannot be a substitute for the meeting of the local church. These activities should be done through the general congregation, not instead of the general gathering of like-minded believers.

A disobedient Christian is one who is not right with their Master. If they are not following Christ, they have no right to be called a follower of Christ.

Tomorrow I’ll post the conclusion to this series, and you’ll know what I REALLY think!

I’m loving the questions you all posed to me on the last post! If you haven’t done so yet (or if you want to again) feel free to leave a question or two there. I’ll be getting around to posting the answers soon!

Wondering what’s up with this post? Check here to see my explanation of the point/counterpoint, or just wait a couple of days and see what my conclusion will be!

Point: I can be a Christian without the local church.

For the sake of discussion, I will use the term “Christian” to indicate a follower of Christ, someone who has made the choice to repent of their sins, trusting in Christ alone (and His work on the cross) for salvation from a just eternal death in hell, and seeks to live their life in accordance to the commands found in God’s Word, the Bible, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Did you see anything in that definition that mentions the local church? No. A Christian is not a Christian because they are a member of a local church. They are a Christian because of the reasons mentioned above. In fact, a Christian doesn’t even have to attend a local church. This is an option available to them, and most certainly encouraged, but not necessary.

Finding a local church that is worth attending is hard. Most don’t practice what they preach. Others turn out to be mere social gatherings. Some ask for money all the time.

Even Jesus didn’t attend a church. He didn’t ask his followers to, either. He’s famous for saying, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, He must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me.” (Mark 8:34, NASU) He told the rich young ruler to sell all his possessions and follow Him. These things are required of a believer, attending a local church is not.

Update: Claification on the way I’m using “local church.” I define this term to mean a physical gathering of believers into a congregation that calls themselves a church. While there is much more that could go into the definition, that’s good enough for this discussion.

Point: Blogging is a worthwhile activity.
Counterpoint: Blogging is not a worthwhile activity.

Conclusion: Blogging is a worthwhile activity, within reason.

I agree with pretty much everything I said in the point. That is why I blog. Now, I need to answer the criticisms of blogging.

First of all, as a blogger I have to be careful that blogging doesn’t replace real-life social interactions. For me, I haven’t really found this to be a problem, as I don’t spend a whole lot of time with people in real-life regardless. I’m sorta a hermitess. I do have to force myself to go to gatherings and parties every once in a while (sometimes I need friends’ prompting on this), but I struggled with this before I got into blogging. Regardless, it is something the blogger has to be on the look out for. Besides, if you’re never in the real world, what are you going to blog about?

I do have to be careful that I spend time with my closer friends and interact with them about what I’m thinking. I don’t want the blog to be the only place that I’m sorting through my inner thoughts. Besides, there are things that I need to think through that aren’t blogable, and who better to do that with a friend face-to-face? This is necessary not only for my own health, but for theirs as well. I need them, but I also need to be there for them.

Sure, blogging can seem like you’re just adding to the noise, but the hits on your website are real people reading (or at least glancing at) what you’ve written. If you have something important to say, maybe the just-right person will see it. That’s what gives me hope about blogging. I blog for me, but I also blog for those that may read it.

The biggest struggle I have with blogging is becoming self-focused and prideful. This is something that I have to constantly take to the Lord, seeking forgiveness and help. As a Christian, I feel it is important to remember that it is not about me, but about Him. Even blogging I do for Him, but I can’t do that if I just use my blog to rant about what frusterates me or get driven to have more readers thus glorifying myself.

For me, blogging is a beloved hobby. Sure I have other hobbies: reading, photography (to a certain extent, I’m not really good, I just enjoy taking pictures), and swimming, but blogging is one that I really enjoy. Could I go without it? Of course. But I choose not to. When I weigh out the pros and cons, I still feel like it is worth the time it takes each day as I become a better writer, gain more insight into what others believe, and get to spread the message that I find so important. Besides, I happen to like you, my bloggy friends. It’s like the old song: “Make new friends, but keep the old…” I like making bloggy friends, but I’m going to keep my real-life friends too.

So, what about you? Why do you blog? What struggles do you have with blogging?

This is the second post of 3 on blogging. I discussed the original argument, “Blogging is a worthwhile activity” yesterday. If you’re confused about why I would write against blogging on a blog, see my explanation on the top of the last post.

Counterpoint: Blogging is not a worthwhile activity.

The act of blogging has risen to popularity in recent years, turning the art of journaling into a public affair. Like all technology, it has the capacity to be harmful and unhelpful.

As an addicting hobby, blogging can draw people away from real-life relationships. Activities such as blogging are particularly susceptable to this as they are inherently social, allowing the writers and readers of the blog to feel connected when they are in fact connected merely by the flimsy lines of Internet communication.

Further, real-life relationships can be damaged by blogging when the author takes the opportunity of writing for an audience to list all the faults of his loved ones or to detail their latest argument. He may use blogging to say the things that he really should be saying and processing with those around him.

There are millions if not billions of webpages out there, and blogging is adding to that noise. Today’s culture is obsessed with information, but not necessarily with actually learning knowledge and wisdom. There is little purpose to adding one more page to the already chaotic web.

Because the author of a blog writes what he wants, when he wants, there can be a tendency to be quite self-absorbed and prideful. Though many bloggers open their posts for comments, even then they can choose to delete comments they don’t want. The blogger has complete control of what is said on his blog, offering him an amount of power that is rarely found in everyday conversations among average people. This can lead to pride and arrogance as well, especially when the author sees a growing number of people reading his blog. It is easy to become emotionally attached to the results of one’s blog, feeling depressed when numbers are down and prideful when numbers are up.

Blogging takes time away from other worthwhile activities. If one is writing and reading blog posts frequently, there may be a lesser tendency to read literature and newspapers.

Overall, these concerns show that blogging is not worth the time it takes to write a post.

Conclusion: Blogging is a worthwhile activity, within reason.