Crossroads Fellowship: I Don't Think Jesus Would Vote Pro-Life!

Monday, June 18, 2007

I Don't Think Jesus Would Vote Pro-Life!

Something I have been thinking a lot about lately is the church's involvement in political agendas and affairs. It seems the more certain factions in the church in America push for Christians to go out and vote, and lobby, and sign petitions the more other factions push for us to not get involved. I seem to have been on the fence on this issue for quite some time. Should we be involved - or should we stay out of it? I guess that I have finally figured out where I stand and it really hits home when we look at abortion rights. Let me first explain how I think the Lord Jesus would handle this situation, then I will tell you what I am going to do.

Christian conservatives, which I think I am one of, push for anti-abortion laws because of the sanctity of life, liberals, which I get accused of being one of, often push for pro-choice. I think that if Jesus were walking the earth today he would teach people about the sanctity of life. I think he would speak to them and that his words would try to open their hearts to the truth of how precious each life is. But then I think he would also allow them free will to either chose to sin, or chose to not sin. So by my belief abortion is sin, but I think that Jesus would allow people to sin that way if they wanted to. I believe that we would never see him signing a petition or trying to lobby for another law, actually I think we would see him criticizing, with scalding words of reproach, those who tried to write more laws. That was precisely his issue with many of the religious sects of his days is their extreme legalistic, law writing, scripture twisting ways. Jesus did not try to change the world around him by controlling the laws of the land. He tried to change the world around him by changing one heart at a time. So basically I think Jesus would have totally stayed out of the political side of things. I think Jesus was and is pro-life but also pro-choice. He wants that all should chose life, but he won't force anyone. So here is what I am going to do.

I think abortion laws are totally irrelevant. I think drinking laws, and drug laws are as well. We can not legislate morals. I can lobby, and push for all the great moral laws I want to, but instead I am going to try to change the hearts of the people as I teach them about the Lord Jesus Christ, and what he has done for each and everyone of us. If the whole country were to become born again Spirit filled believers it would not matter what the laws said, abortions would stop because no one would want to. Some of you may think I am a dreamer and a little idealistic. Oh well, I think Jesus was to. I mean he really believed he could change the whole world by dying and being raised again. So when it comes time to vote I am gonna vote for candidates that will use my tax money well, who will govern well, and I am going to do my best to ignore their stance on moral issues because I think it is the churches job to teach people morals not the governments. Please post a reply, I want to know what you think. And please leave your name on it. I am brave enough to attach my name so be brave enough to attach yours even if you don't agree with me.

Labels: Controversial

23 Comments:

Along similar lines, I heard this in a podcast I listened tolast week:
Jesus said “my kingdom is not of this world.” He’s saying I’m not about coercion, manipulation, forcing my way onto others…This why the Christian religious right will continue in America to fail miserably and in the process turn millions of people away from Jesus… Individual Christians who run for office at a local level, at a national level-- grassroots activism people doing their part to make the world better-- brilliant! But when large groups of Christians say “If we could just get enough political power -- all of us together -- we could force people to live how we want them to live.” Not the way of Jesus. His exousia is an upside-down kind of authority that comes from giving voice to those who have no voice, not from trying to make your voice louder. His authority is the kind of authority that comes not from seeing how much you can push people around but who’s been pushed around who needs help getting back on their feet.---Rob Bell, Mars Hill Bible Church, title: We Already Are (Matthew 28)

By Mark, at 7:59 AM
Rob Bell is wrong. Jesus said All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. His authority came from being God, and being fully God and fully man he taught with authority because He taught the truth. His authority was not to be used for political power, whether from those with no voice or a loud voice. His authority given to us was to make disciples, by going, baptizing, and teaching. Therefore, though I am a right wing political nut and I do vote based upon the moral stances as well as qualifications to govern, I think we can only change laws-and we can force obedience- but the one true way to change this country is to change hearts.

Also, Mr. Bell is wrong by saying that the Christian religious right turns people off to Jesus. People are naturally turned off to Jesus because we are in our sins, and we choose to not see God, we choose to worship the creature rather than the creator. For this reason, we do need to be bold and vocal in our witness of Christ. Rob Bell would be against this (see Nooma 'Bullhorn Guy')but Jesus in this same passion speaks nothing about giving voice to the voiceless, only that we should use our voice to make disciples and teach them all things that Jesus teaches us in His word.

Jerry, check out www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
I think you'll appreciate it.

By pastorboy, at 8:35 AM
I would say that passing just laws is one of the Bible's clear injunctions to kings and those in authority, and that citizens of a representative democracy (like that of the United States) share in some measure in the governance of their nation. Specifically, citizens have the right (and responsibility) to elect their representatives. So, it is the responsibility of citizens to elect representatives who will enact just laws.

I find the statement "you can't legislate morality" to be a silly one, though it's said all the time. Morality - questions of right and wrong - is the ONLY THING you can legislate. You can't pass a law about what's going on in a person's heart, but a significant part of morality involves how we interact with others.

The question of whether Jesus would vote for this piece of legislation or that piece of legislation is impossible to definitively answer. Jesus did not have a vote in his culture, and neither did Paul. Paul did make full use of his rights as a Roman citizen - that's what drives the plot of the last part of Acts! We can be certain that Jesus would weigh every piece of legislation that he voted on through the eyes of justice or injustice. Beyond that...?

I think there is room for Christian liberty on this question. Would Jesus be a Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, or Democrat? Please. That's so difficult to answer that dogmatism on the question is foolishness. Christians must exercise their responsibility as citizens. Christians must weigh the concerns of justice and injustice. Christians must seek God for direction. And Christians must walk in humility, recognizing that on questions as murky as politics, grace must be extended to all of our brothers and sisters.

By CrimsonLine, at 3:29 PM
I'm with Crimson on this one.

Every law legislates morality. The law not to run a stop sign is a pro-life law. It legislates the moral choice of stopping your car and taking turns about who gets to go first. It legislates duty over convenience.

It's great to think about heart issues over rules but that does not mean we abandon the process of Godly lawmaking. PLEASE don't subscribe to the thoughtless lie that you cannot legislate morality. If you've ever voted on any issue, you already have.

By Beth, at 5:25 PM
Wow Jerry, I've never looked at the issue quite like that. That was a refreshing post. Thank you.

I agree that Jesus wouldn't make voting pro-life/pro-choice a political issue. He would go for people's hearts. It's interesting that we have a "Pro-Life" president and a recent report says that abortions are on the rise.

That said, I am Pro-Life, I believe Jesus was too. Whether Jesus was for the politics of it (I think not) or not, I believe that Jesus' primary way of changing the culture of his time was through spiritual transformation.

For taking this stance Jerry you will be called many nasty things by many well intentioned people, but I think you're on to something. God and politics don't mix well because you have to very different Kingdoms colliding. Jesus stayed out of the political debates of his day, but he made political statements. He walked a fine line and sought to minister to people through personal interaction and not power and control.

Jesus' Kingdom rules through serving others. The worldly system rules through legislation, power, and control. I vote for Jesus' Kingdom. And (when it works out) I vote Pro-Life.

A pastor I once heard said something once I'll never forget. The political parties of our day have hijacked portions of our Christian faith - one party has taken on some causes (the poor, our environment, equality) and the other has taken on other causes (abortion, marriage rights). The only reason Christians identify with either party is because these parties are using Jesus to get ahead politically.

I'll vote for the best candidate. If they have my morality, great! But if I have to decide between a corrupt or bad governing Christian who is Pro-Life and a wise good governing atheist who is Pro-Choice, I'll vote for the atheist.

By Erik, at 9:11 AM
I think this a wise outlook. I love debating politics, and one of my stances is that this country is not like the kingdom of David, it is like the Roman Empire. Cultures living within the country should made stands on pro-life/ pro-choice as well as others.

We disproportionalize the issue so greatly that we forget about things that actually matter, like foreign affairs, government funding, inflation, and military policy...

In a country that is no longer monoreligious, that is what the government needs to focus on.

by the way jerry have not talked to you in a while how's it going?

By Rachel Pody, at 9:34 AM
Jerry - I have to agree with Crimsonline on this one, too. I think you are thinking well - Jesus does not appear to be a politically involved person in what we see recorded in the New Testament. However, because we wholeheartedly accept all of Scripture as inspired, including the Old Testament, we see that politics - how a country was governend - was very important to God/Jesus and needs to be important to us. However, I do agree that we shouldn't be politicizing Christianity - and I do think we have done way too much of that. I don't agree that we should let just one issue decide how we vote - but those important moral issues should have a high priority as we decide our vote. And I do believe we should be voting. If we choose not to vote we often are allowing those with very different moral stands to decide what is "correct" in our society. Maybe we can't dictate morality - but when anti-God people rule, it affects the whole nation. If you study the Old Testament, it seems clear that as the ruler went, so went the nation.
When society accepts sin as normal, when it legislates that sin is right and biblical morality is wrong [as has happened in many nations - and America seems headed that way] the church is seen as irrelevant and unnecessary. At the same time, I believe that much of what we see happening is happening because the church first lost it's relevancy. [To be relvant, we must practice both the Great Commission and the Great Commandment].
In the Gospels Jesus condemned both the conservatives [Pharisees] and the liberals [Sadduccees]. These were leaders who were involved both religiously and politically. He didn't condemn them for their political involvement, but for their hypocrisy. It is the heart that is important to Him, and we must focus on changing people from the inside out. But that does not mean we should ignore the importance of strong leadership who stand for Judeo-Christian principles. This great country was founded by strong leaders who stood for right things - their principles are what made this country great for almost 225 years. We need a proper balance, but it is going too far to say that we should not vote pro-life. Yes - if I have to make a choice between a terrible leader who is pro-life and a great leader with many moral stands who is pro-choice [that's a bad title] I will probably choose the great leader. Certainly, if I only have a real choice between someone who is against most things I believe in and pro-choice and another person who supports most of what I believe in and is also pro-choice, I do not think I would stay away from the polls - I would vote for the person whose views are MUCH closer to mine.
I do think Jesus would vote Pro-life - perhaps not to the extreme that many today have taken that - but still I believe He would take a stand on that issue.

Thanks for making me think
Frank Smith

By Anonymous, at 1:38 PM
These statement makes me very curious:

"Jesus stayed out of the political debates of his day, but he made political statements."

Erik, what were the political debates of Jesus' day? I don't mean to sound offensive, but do you have any idea? What were the issues he avoided commenting on? Or this:

"The only reason Christians identify with either party is because these parties are using Jesus to get ahead politically."

That's a VERY broad statement. Do you really mean that no Christian identifies themselves with any political party for any noble, selfless reason? That no Christian believes that one party pursues justice more accurately, and supports them for that reason? The only Christians faithfully following Jesus are those with no party affiliation at all? Perhaps your knowledge of people's hearts is more acute than mine, but I could never make so piercing a statement.

And finally, "a wise good governing atheist who is Pro-Choice..." From my perspective, and you can take it for what it's worth, wisdom includes the desire to protect innocent life from slaughter. Good governance at the very least means protecting the powerless against the powerful who seek to harm them in order to advance their own powerful interests. Wisdom and good governance (to me) have to start with a respect for life. I have a hard time reconciling the phrase, "a wise good governing atheist who is Pro-Choice..."

By CrimsonLine, at 1:38 PM
Urgh.

"These statement makes me very curious:"

Those word is sometime confusing!

By CrimsonLine, at 1:40 PM
Ok Crimsonline, I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my knowledge.

Political debates of Jesus' day: I'll give an example from scripture: Matthew 22:15-22 where Jesus says to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus in one of the political debates of his day: paying taxes.

I can find other instances if you would like. We (I) don't know all of the political debates of Jesus' day, but we do know some and we can see from what Jesus taught- how his teachings were often on a level above these political and religious debates.

I didn't mean to blanket-state that all Christians are being co-opted by a political party. What I was trying to say is that there are issues in each party that are not issues of politic, but are things that we are told to follow and believe as Christians. The biting statement I made about this subject doesn't come from my opinion really, but from non-Christians (I've talked with) observing how Christians seem to buy into certain political causes (often) blindly. I can give an example of that if you want me to.

As for the Pro-Choice wise governing politician: I don't feel like I need to defend myself on that one. There are tons of unbelievers in government. Just because a government official is a believer doesn't mean they do a good job. Sure the wisest people will follow God and the Bible - but then again, are you saying you are a more wise governor just because you have a relationship with God?

I am disappointed at how much of the Church in America is engaging the political landscape. While God's way to live is the best way, I don't believe politics to be the solution to the problem. If the Church where doing her job, our government wouldn't have to be so large (to take care of the poor), people would be coming to Christ and being transformed from the inside out and the moral issues would be taken care of for the most part.

Do you really think Jesus would be as politically involved as someone such as...lets say- James Dobson?

Can you site anytime in the history of the church that the mixture of Christianity and politics ever ended well for a nation?

My gut's telling me no.

By Erik, at 2:50 PM
Erik, thank you for intelligently engaging in my questions, rather than taking them as attacks. That is so rare on the internet as to be magnificently praiseworthy. So, mega-kudos to you.

On the question of whether or not Jesus avoided the political debates of His day, I don't think that Matthew 22:15-22 helps your argument, as in it Jesus seems to definitively answer the question posed by the disciples of the Pharisees, rather than evading the question. So much so, that it is impossible for a Christian to teach intelligently on the relationship between the Christian and government without looking carefully at this passage.

Some Christians do certainly follow political parties blindly, and place party politics above even the leading of Scripture in their opinion-making. No need to give examples, we all know folks like that. Saying so is different from your original comment, but I accept your restatement. Certainly, we all need to issue clarifying statements from time to time.

But I'd appreciate it if you'd re-read my comments on "wise good governing atheist who [are] Pro-Choice," because you seem to have misread me. I in no way commented on the "atheist" part, but on whether one can be "wise" or a "good-governing" politician if one is "Pro-Choice." Certainly there are atheists and people of other faiths who do good jobs at all levels of government. But I would submit that there is a basic set of principles that any ruler needs to adhere to in order to be considered wise or a good governor. Among those principles certainly has to be the willingness to defend the innocent and powerless against the greedy and powerful. If this is not a bedrock principle of good government, what is? Certainly a commitment to protecting innocents from slaughter is also a fundamental dictum for a wise ruler. No?

Would you willingly elect an official who publicly proclaimed that he or she wanted to pass laws to allow the mentally handicapped to be euthanized by their caretakers if they became too much of a burden? No? What if they were good on every other issue?

If there was a politician who said that he or she wanted big corporations to be able to forcibly withdraw money from the checking accounts of the poorest people in society, would you call that person wise or a good governor? I doubt it, regardless of what that person's other positions were. There are some things that are just basic to wise governance. I would argue that the Pro-Choice position is diametrically opposed to those basic, fundamental principles of good government.

By CrimsonLine, at 3:59 PM
Jerry, by your stating that we as Christians should not be involved in a getting laws past, you are either condoning Roe v Wade or you are putting your head in the sand and hoping abortion goes away.

By any rate, you are implicating a moral action by stating that you are not willing to act.

I am glad that as an apologist I am not a member of your church for I could no longer support your view on life. Neither would I want to have you counsel me on matters of life.

Either you are pro life or you are not. That is not just in thought but it is also in action.

By Anonymous, at 4:05 PM
Rob, I don't think that's a fair reaction to Jerry's post. Jerry seems to have been speaking as a question of Biblical priorities. In Jerry's mind, the priority of evangelism far outstrips the priority of passing laws.

I disagree with Jerry - I think that both are high priorities, that God speaks throughout Scripture about the need for Godly rulers, and justice. But it's not fair to say that Jerry is not pro-life. And it's not right to draw a line in the sand and say that Jerry is an unfit pastor because he disagrees on the relative priority of political action.

Hey - I'm heading off for a week of internet-free vacation. May the Lord bless you all!

By CrimsonLine, at 5:38 PM
I do not know who crimsonline is, but I agree with them. The statement that "you can not legislate morality" is an oxymoron. We legislate morality all the time. That is the main purpose for all of our laws. Without those laws (starting with the Ten Commandments!), we would be living in anarchy!! This is the same phoney argument by people who do not want to be told what is right or wrong. They argue that they should not be judged because The Bible says we should not judge. The Bible also says that "by their fruits you shall know them". A good and wise leader will be Pro-Life. A Pro-Abortion leader (not Pro-Choice since they allow only for the choice to end life) by definition and action cares nothing for the helpless and needy. I always vote for my personal values and so does everyone else!! By their fruits you shall know them!! A person who refuses to take a stand condones the action by their inaction.!!!

By Anonymous, at 6:10 PM
Rob,
Thanks for attaching your name to the comment. Personally I am pro-life HOWEVER I am not going to teach other people or force other people to be pro-life by voting for a law.

If abortions were illegal they would still happen. Drinking was outlawed in the country at one point but it kept happening. The number one main point I am trying to make is that we as Christians are working so hard to change the world by legislating morality and we are missing the true point that real change comes when Revival breaks out. If we want to change our country let's reach the people for Christ.

Beth,
Thanks for your input as well as that of all the others. I DO subscribe to the belief that we can not legislate morality. We can try but the fact that our prisons are so overcrowded that we are letting serious criminals go free on parole or probation to hold more dangerous ones in is proof that writing more laws won't fix the problem. The 10 Commandments that my brother and very good friend Jerry Nass mentioned were never intended to make men righteous, they were intended to show us how guilty we are and how badly we needed a Savior. A quick study of the N.T. will show this is what the law was for, and here are some examples:

Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Rom 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

Rom 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian (or schoolmaster depending on your translation) until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

1Ti 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,

Jas 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

So the point is this. We have enough law already in the scriptures, they are good and holy laws, and they should be followed not as a means to righteousness, but because we love the law giver, God, who gave them. But we, like the Pharisees, have engaged in more and more law writing trying to change the world.

So again I say with love to everyone, the point I am trying to make is this. Writing new laws won't change the world, winning people to Christ is what will change the world. It is the job of the church to take the life changing message of the Gospel to the people, and bring Godly moral teaching, and it is not a duty that Christ gave us permission to delegate to our government.

By Pastor Jerry, at 9:34 PM
Rachel,

It is going good. Sorry I didn't reply to your question about how it is going earlier.

By Pastor Jerry, at 9:53 PM
Jerry, please forgive the spirit in which I presented my first response. Though my convictions remain the same, I do have a tendency to be a machine gun for the truth. I do look forward to dialoguing with you brother on the email and then perhaps we might be able to post this dialogue somewhere on the web.

By Anonymous, at 6:42 AM
I think another point that has been missed about the Christian's responsibility within the government is to pray for those who are in authority over us. I agree with Pastor Jerry to this point only: That without a change in heart, change in government and laws will be ineffectual. What Christians should be involved in first and formost is to see that people hear the Gospel, for this is the only hope for people to be changed. It is also our primary purpose for the church.

For those who are protesting abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and are very engaged in the political process to change the world, but are not engaged in personal evangelism, they are being disobedient and are not doing what Jesus has called them to do. This is true of many emergents, who are more concerned with feeding and clothing the world and curing aids, which is very nice and admirable, but it is not the primary call of the church and is disobedience to the call God has called them to, which is changing the world by making disciples.

By pastorboy, at 5:48 PM
My friend Dale Crank wrote this reply and sent it via email.

Hi Jerry,

I normally don’t respond to blogs, but the subject of abortion is too provocative for me to pass up.

Most of us Evangelicals pray regularly and earnestly for revival. But it is fascinating to note that Revivals mostly came to ancient Israel and Judah when a king came along who was willing to stand against the idolatry of his day. Often just as in our Twenty-first Century that idolatry was expressed through human sacrifice. The ancient people would sacrifice their children to appease their gods in hopes that they would receive favorable crops (i.e., material prosperity) or some other benefit; people today sacrifice their children so that they would not experience financial hardship. It’s a different twist in reasoning but essentially the same argument.

Yes, Christians today should work with all their hearts at ending abortion. (It must not be the litmus test for regeneration, but neither should we back down from standing for the things that God stands for.) When the political winds blow in such a way that the Roe v. Wade decision is reversed, there will be tremendous upheaval in America, and the Church will take the brunt of it. But it will also cause people to get off of the spiritual fence and declare their allegiance to either Jesus or the World. Personally I look forward to that day, for that will be the setting in which real Revival can come.

Dale Crank
Oak Ridge Alliance Church

By Pastor Jerry, at 10:46 AM
Wow there have definitely been a lot of comments already. Well here is my two cents. I think that what Jerry is saying is absolutely correct and has been my stance on the issue for a while. I think that Jesus would not care about the laws that were being laid out by man but about the hearts that are creating the laws and the hearts of every man, woman, child... all people.

That's my opinion. Haha, it's not nearly as long as the other 19 but eh, simple is sometimes the best.

By Intuxas, at 1:09 PM
Jerry,

I fully agree that the only way to change peoples' hearts is through Jesus Christ. No argument there.

And yet the Bible still commands the passage of good laws! Why? For a variety of reasons, but the most pressing of them is establishing JUSTICE in the land. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, but also to demonstrate His rule and reign. Jesus is King. Are you advocating that we DISOBEY part of the Bible in order to obey another part?

You posit an "either/or" choice where none exists. "Writing new laws won't change the world, winning people to Christ is what will change the world." Writing good laws WILL impact the world, AND so will winning people to Christ.

"If abortions were illegal they would still happen." Yes, and so? If abortions were illegal, they would almost certainly become much rarer, saving innocent lives. If abortions were illegal, they would carry more of a social stigma, as the society marks out killing an innocent as "wrong." To admit that they would still happen does not then prove that making abortion illegal would have no positive effect.

By CrimsonLine, at 6:49 AM
Maybe I have missed this so far, and maybe someone wrote it already but where does it say in scripture to pass laws? I know that the scriptures say we are to obey the authorities etc., but I am not sure where there is a place in the bible that a plain reading of the text would tell us to pass laws. Passing legislation sounds like a good idea to control morality, it sounds appealing, but is it really biblical?

By Pastor Jerry, at 8:20 AM
Jerry,

I'll dig it up for you on Monday. There's no direct command, "Christians shall pass laws," but the Biblical argument hinges on the responsibility of rulers to make just laws (which IS commanded in the Bible) and establish justice (which IS commanded in the Bible) and to protect the innocent and helpless (again, directly commanded). Take those commands, and then realize that in America, you have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" (to use Lincoln's description) and you have a powerful argument that American citizens have a share in governmental responsibilities.

By CrimsonLine, at 6:20 PM

Crossroads Fellowship

Monday, June 18, 2007

I Don't Think Jesus Would Vote Pro-Life!

23 Comments:

About

About Me

Previous