A recent internet dust-up between two pastors on the issue of Christian voting bothers me. The media always has a field day enjoying the division and the conflict in the Body of Christ. I love both these men: One is a trusted exegete- the kind of pastor who displays a savage loyalty to scripture that I admire and wish to emulate. The other pastor is known for his theological depth and social application, also traits that I admire and wish to emulate. May the tribe of both these men increase!
Pastor A says no Christian should vote for a candidate who supports abortion. Pastor B says voting is a matter of personal conscience. Both are right, so we must explain ourselves in order to be clear. Here’s my take:
1. Voting is a matter of freedom and conscience. Issues such as social policy, foreign and domestic policy, issues of security and redressing grievances, are matters about which serious Christians can disagree. Churches ought to lay the biblical groundwork for decision-making (like the creation ordinances) but never exercise discipline or infringe on the right of members to vote their consciences.
2. While we may disagree, it does not mean the church should be indifferent. We may disagree, but that does not mean, ultimately and finally, that it doesn’t matter. Never stop the task of reading and applying scripture to the issues of our day. The arena of adiophora, the things indifferent, is never as wide or as deep as we think.
3. In the battles over politics and social policy, Christ must have a voice. The church must not accept the sacred/secular dichotomy worshipped in our generation. It has been used to marginalize moral influence. Abraham Kuyper is right: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!”
Now to the issue of abortion: It is not an area of things indifferent. The original setting in which man was created set apart the life of man as sacred. Man is made in the image of God, the only being in the created world described in this way. The image of God is the justification for our dominion. It is the justification for the protection of life (Genesis 9:6). Abortion denies the laws of creation which predate Moses.
If a politician supports abortion, will he respect the other creation ordinances? Will he respect law grounded in the character of God? Will he respect marriage and sexuality as God has created it as well as the boundaries God has set? Will he respect work and rest as God has ordained? The issue of abortion is the touchstone for evaluating a moral worldview.
Life, Law, Marriage, Work and Rest are designed in the moral fabric of man by a gracious God and they stand or fall together. The contrasts are clear:
Absolute protection of life vs. a relative value of lives worthy to be lived
· Absolute view of law vs. relative law, enforced only by consensus or coercion.
· Absolute view of Marriage vs. blank slate sexual and gender freedom
· View of work as a necessary role of man, conferring dignity and respect, as he provides for himself and his family vs. the various views of socialism and communism which attempt to remove that responsibility from man
· View of rest as an essential feature of man’s week. Sabbath rest is necessary for our physical and spiritual health vs. an ever-present material bottom line.
A politician who objects to the sanctity of life is likely to object to all of the creation ordinances. A supporter of life is more likely at least to support the other parts of our moral design. As leaders in the church, we must not let the media pit us against each other when we are really talking past each other. May we find joy, satisfaction, and guidance as we faithfully search scripture and stand firmly with what we find.
