Leading up to Election Day on November 8, iAt will be sharing more articles providing different perspectives on specific presidential candidates, as well as thoughts on voting for the first time and why one contributor has decided not to vote for a presidential candidate. Come back to iAt regularly for more insights on exploring the implications of Christ’s presence in all facets of life.
As Donald Trump has demonstrated that he’s unqualified even to teach a Sunday School class, millions of those who want their Christian faith to guide their political choices are wondering if they should vote for Hillary Clinton. I’m a Christian and a pastor, also privileged to have served as General Secretary of my denomination, the Reformed Church in America, for 17 years. Before becoming a pastor, I worked as the Legislative Assistant to Senator Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon, an evangelical Republican. And I’m voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Here’s why.
For many Christians, especially several of my evangelical and Catholic friends, this discussion begins and abruptly ends over the question of abortion. So, let’s start there. The inflamed rhetoric of “pro-life vs. pro-choice” has replaced the serious issues involved with simplistic slogans on both sides. The basic question is this: at what exact point does a fertilized egg have the full status of independent personhood, deserving complete legal protection, apart from the life of the mother?
We have no social, political, or even theological consensus in our society over the answer to that question. Given that reality, one can hold to his or her personal convictions as a Christian, but believe that a reasonable space must be protected for women to make that weighty moral discernment according to their own best guidance, rather than have government impose a sectarian answer. That’s not perfect, but it respects individual conscience around a matter of sharp moral disagreement that remains unresolved in society.
But this polarized debate often ignores significant common ground around the goal of reducing abortions. What makes abortions mostly likely are poverty and lack of access to health care and contraceptive measures. When policies provide for pre- and post-natal care, family leave, women’s health, and alleviation of poverty, abortion decreases. That’s why abortion rates climbed under the Republican Administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, decreased under President Bill Clinton, and have reached the lowest point in 40 years under President Obama. Hillary Clinton will continue those policies. So if you’re “pro-life,” you have solid reasons justifying your vote for Hillary.
The other main reason given by Christians reluctant to vote for Secretary Clinton, and shared by 60% of all voters, is that she can’t be trusted. That’s serious. Trust must be earned; it can’t just be requested. And it comes when a person does what she or he says they will do.
Let’s recognize two things here. First, during her career in public service, Hillary Clinton has made mistakes. Second, for about two decades, adversaries have spent millions of dollars in relentless public campaigns to undermine her credibility. Over that time, many people have grown to hate Hillary Clinton without even knowing why.
Today, three phrases are shouted— “Benghazi”, “e-mails”, “Clinton Foundation”—which are met with Pavlovian responses of “lies” or “lock her up.” But go beneath the partisan vendettas on social media and look at the investigative reporting that’s been done. In summary, here’s what I find:
Benghazi: a terrible personal tragedy and bureaucratic failure which Hillary’s adversaries turned into what even Colin Powell termed a “witch-hunt.”
The personal e-mail server: a poorly thought through, pragmatic attempt to get efficient, non-classified communication for her as Secretary of State all on one personal device, and improvised haphazardly by staff. The tiny number of “classified” emails which inadvertently got into the system were of no proven detrimental consequence.
Clinton Foundation: despite the confluence of money and power, which never looks good, no quid pro quo of funds given to this charitable Foundation as a means of influencing official U.S. policy has ever been discovered. Meanwhile, critics conveniently neglect the enormous good work of the Foundation, affirmed in all objective evaluations.
I have no desire to canonize Hillary Clinton. She has her flaws, as do I. But if you actually read Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, instead of reading about them, you discover a tireless, hard-working person trying to get her job done, with staff strategizing about how to navigate political challenges to reach their objectives. As First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has tried let her actions demonstrate the goals she believes in. She’s proven to be experienced, committed and very effective in doing so. So I trust her as President to do what she says, finding ways to move the nation toward shared goals.
But are her goals consistent with the values that Christians would seek in a President? My answer is yes, in these five critical areas:
Caring for children and the vulnerable in society
The Bible instructs us to judge the justice of a society by how it treats those who are most disadvantaged and on its margins. From the start of her career out of law school, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been focused on the welfare of children, the disabled, and the poor. Her efforts significantly expanded health care for children, and her platform includes strong commitments and specific plans to alleviate poverty, give every child the opportunity for health and well-being, and protect those whom society easily forgets.
Immigration Reform
36 times in the Old Testament alone, God’s people are commanded to care for the foreigner and the stranger in their land. In this election, it’s hard for Christians to find a more compelling biblical litmus test for judging Presidential candidates than their attitudes and commitments toward immigrants. Unlike her opponent, Hillary Clinton has exemplified a stance of Christian hospitality toward immigrants, and a commitment to comprehensive immigration reform. Appropriate security checks are part of her plans, but Hillary’s stance toward foreigners and strangers resonate with biblical expectations.
Economic Justice
The alarming concentration of wealth in the U.S. with those who are the very most economically privileged, and the gap from our poorest citizens, would earn the swift and powerful denunciation from any of the Bible’s prophets. Hillary’s plan to raise taxes on the nation’s most wealthy in order to support measures that strengthen the overall economic well-being of society is a step in the right moral direction. Pursing economic justice, and addressing disparities of wealth and poverty, is a biblical refrain found from Genesis to Revelation, and understood by Hillary Clinton.
Caring for Creation
“The earth is the Lord’s,” declares the Psalmist. The duty and calling of Christians to preserve and protect the gift of God’s creation is now embraced across denominational lines, from the National Association of Evangelicals to Pope Francis. Climate change is the most severe threat. Instead of denying this, Hillary Clinton has a fundamental commitment to policies that address climate change and build a renewable energy future. That’s a minimum step toward preserving, rather than polluting and depleting, God’s gifts, intended to sustain all creation for God’s glory.
Racism and Criminal Justice Reform
In the New Testament, breaking down barriers of race is seen as a primary test of the Gospel’s power to bring about social transformation, communicating God’s desire for humanity. This political campaign has exposed the harsh, enduring realities of racism in our society. While her opponent manipulates racial fears, Hillary has identified the reality of implicit racial bias. Further, she advocates criminal justice reform to address the ugly reality that the U.S., with 5% of the world population, has 25% of its prisoners, who are disproportionately people of color.
Many more issues are at stake in this election, and on some questions I’m not in agreement with Hillary Clinton. I’ve prioritized these five, however, because of their unquestionable relevance to any Christian desiring to have their vote informed by Biblical values.
Finally, Christians often want to know what a candidate for President personally believes about faith. For some, this makes all the difference. Hillary was asked that question at a town hall in Knoxville, Iowa during the primary election. Her spontaneous answer was revealing.
“I am a person of faith. I am a Christian. I am a Methodist,” Hillary shared. “My study of the Bible, my many conversations with people of faith, has led me to believe that the most important commandment is to love the Lord with all your might and to love your neighbor as yourself…(and) there is so much more in the Bible about taking care of the poor, visiting prisoners, taking in the stranger, creating opportunities for others to be lifted up.”
As she continued, Hillary got more personal. “…I am by no means a perfect person, I will certainly confess that to one and all, but I feel the continuing urge to try to do better, to try to be kinder, to try to be more loving, even with people who are quite harsh.”
I can also get more personal. I went to high school with Hillary Rodham in Park Ridge, Illinois. We served together on student council, and she became President of her youth group at First United Methodist Church. She was smart, responsible, and like John Wesley, wanted to make a difference for good in society. What was true then remains true today.
In October, Hillary spoke on gospel radio in Florida, ending by saying, “Do not grow weary in doing good.” She was quoting from Galatians 6:6, a verse she certainly learned at her Methodist Church. And while said to voters, I’m sure she’s repeated it countless times to herself. It describes Hillary’s journey, who through all she has endured and experienced, has not grown weary in doing good. That’s what she’ll do as President, and why, as a Christian and a pastor, I support her, and encourage other Christians to do the same.
About the Author
What are your thoughts about this topic?
We welcome your ideas and questions about the topics considered here. If you would like to receive others' comments and respond by email, please check the box below the comment form when you submit your own comments.Leave a Reply to Assistant Village IdiotCancel Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
“So if you’re “pro-life,” you have solid reasons justifying your vote for Hillary.”
Right, because her record on stupid and murderous foreign wars is flawless. Your article reads like one grand rationalization of a hallucination.
The author doesn’t say her record is flawless – quite the opposite. It seems that what he meant by the line you quoted is that if “pro-life” is the beginning and end of your decision about which candidate to vote for (which sometimes seems to be the case for many evangelical Christians), Secretary Clinton has a solid (not flawless) track-record.
I would also like to encourage all readers of iAt to be thoughtful, gentle, and listen respectfully as they interact with others who share different political views, particularly at this time of year.
I have a different take on the message. The writer did not ignore the problems that many see with Hillary but also stated the many positives. I really enjoyed the part talking about her faith because when you believe in God and live by his word good things will happen.
Shalom.
As Donald Trump has demonstrated that he’s unqualified even to teach a Sunday School class, millions of those who want their Christian faith to guide their political choices are wondering if they should vote for Hillary Clinton. WHAT A COMMENT!!! NEITHER DOES HILLARY. Hillary sense of order is “LAW BEFORE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM” or haven’t you heard her say that. I have in many clips.
From the start of her career out of law school, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been focused on the welfare of children, the disabled, and the poor. How can you say that when she laughed in a video about getting a rapist off by making the child look like she asked for it. Did you not see that? She will make so many non-Christian rules for children in my observation of her cold ways. She has surrounded herself with more Muslim staff than any other religion.
Well, as long as this forum is hosting blatant political campaign pitches, here’s my point by point rebuttal. This author pitches for votes for Clinton (and by that her pledge to continue Obama policies and the dominance of the current Democrat Party) based on the following, to which I respond.
Caring for children and the vulnerable in society
Neither Clinton nor the Obama/Democrats (O/D) have a monopoly on ability to care for children or vulnerable. Lets look at the record. We’ve had 8 years of Obama and find ourselves less able to care for our children and the vulnerable. Why? Because the O/D approach is to increasingly push the private sector out of being responsible and being able to be responsible for doing that. We have more debt, more learned dependency, and more power and money dedicated to the public sector versus private sector after 16 years of O/D and “compassionate conservatism.” The charity community (including guys like Bono of U2) that works in third worlds has been learning that to “help without hurting,” there have to be societies where families and individuals and local communities do things for themselves. The O/D approach has not yet adopted that wisdom for our own society but rather doubles down on centralized solutions for all things. While Bono somewhat embarrassingly says he’s learned that what third world countries really need to thrive is “capitalism,” the O/D perspective continues to move in the opposite direction, apparently unable to learn or admit what Bono has, slowly creating an overall societal/economic atmosphere where families and individuals and local communities are less able and less empowered to take care of their own children and the vulnerable among them.
Immigration Reform
Barak Obama had two full years where he was president and his party controlled BOTH houses of Congress. And before he got to the beginning of those two years, he had repeatedly promised the Hispanic community that within the first xx days of his presidency, he would place a proposal for comprehensive reform in front of both legislative houses. Did he? Nope. Did he even take up the subject matter? Nope. Why? Hard to probe the man’s mind of course but given this past 8 years in retrospect, the only plausible explanation is that he considered it more important that unresolved immigration issues play the part of being a campaign slogan on the unresolved immigration issue for his and other Dem’s re-election campaigns, than that the immigration problem be solved. In other words, Obama and the Democrats kept immigration reform as a wedge issue and it remains that today for the sake of Hillary Clinton campaign. Given history then, how much should we believe that the O/D perspective, which Clinton commits to carry on, will be any different?
Economic Justice
The last 8 years of O/D has created more economic dependency (remember “helping without hurting”), a diminishing middle class, more accumulation in amassed national debt than that created by all US administrations before that of the last 8 years, an uninterrupted dependence on artificial low interest rates, and an increase in the “rich having gotten richer and the poor poorer.” The O/D approach presumes, as a religious presupposition, that government and only government can create the jobs, the overall economic health, the infrastructure, and the regulation of all facets of life that will make a prosperous and healthy society. After all, as Obama said, “if you have a business, you didn’t make that.” And the irony of course is that the O/D approach has and will create a wealthier upper class. Look for the same pattern in third world countries where government power is strong and pervasive, as the O/D approach prescribes. Do those countries have a prosperous middle class or a Grand Canyon sized chasm of divide between rich and poor? The last 8 years has moved us pretty far toward a society which more heavily divides between rich and poor and Clinton promises to continue that.
Caring for Creation
Take a look at the NW Iowa farm community, where all the land is privately owned and farmed. Would those farmers take better care of the piece of creation they have stewarded because of government regulation or because they want to pass on the the piece of Creation they have stewarded to stewards who come after them? Oh of course, government has a role to play in created certain standard, zoning rules, etc., but the greater difficulty we have today is over-regulation and saying no to good energy solutions. And Clinton promises to do more of that: to pick winners and losers in the energy industry (putting some out of a job as she smilingly said), to stop energy transporting pipelines even if the O/D EPA has given it an environmental green light, to disfavor nuclear energy even if the original father of “climate change alarmism” (that would be James Hanson) repeatedly says that nuclear is clean, CO2 free, safe and the only realistic option for supplying the energy we need in the way we need it. Is this Creation Care or a distorted form of an environmental religion that just happens to create a political advantage?
Racism and Criminal Justice Reform
So after 8 years of Obama, in which he personally got involved in specific racial hot-spot events that like no president before him, has the racial divide diminished or gotten greater (even much greater)? Are police officers — both black and white — feeling more or less comfortable in communities of particular race characterizations? Are those same police officer policing more and better or less and worse? Is the black community, for which Obama has particularly advocated, doing better economically after his 8 years or significantly worse?
I haven’t at all talked about abortion of course. What is even more important (more fundamental) than talking directly about abortion is talking about what makes for good government (and governance policy) and what makes for bad government (and bad governance policy). Obama believes that society works best when power is centralized, not just in government but in the economy as well. Note Obama’s bailout of GM, his partnership with the CEO of no-tax-due General Electric, his total disinterest in reducing the size and consolidation of financial institutions, his appointment of Tim Geithner of all people to be his Treasury Secretary, or Clinton’s relationship with the big players on Wall Street. The Democrat Party that had its roots in the working class, in small towns, in the lower or middle class, doesn’t exist anymore. They may still preach it (“my proposal for comprehensive immigration reform will be in front of Congress within 90 days of my being sworn in as President”) but they do something else. They may constantly “advocate” for the poor black community, but when the dust settles after have 8 years of being in power, having spent borrowed money than than all administration before them, they have nothing to show except an even poorer poor black community. But at least Bill and Hillary Clinton are rich now, fabulously rich even, 1 percenters perhaps, with no end in sight as to how much more rich they will get, especially if Hillary is elected president.
When will Democrats learn that the party’s leaders aren’t Democrats anymore? They talk like the old Democrats but act like what they’ve always accused the rich Republicans of acting like, except with a more zealous proclivity for economic and political power centralization. I would hope we would be willing to look at the historical facts as opposed to the repeated rhetoric about what Democrats will do in the future. As for me, there is really only one thing I trust O/D and Clinton to do. I trust they will continue the trend of increasing centralized power, more and more of it from families, from individuals, from communities, and from states, to the federal level, and even then, to move it from Congress to the Executive Branch (witness O’s increased use of that power) and the Courts.
This is why I would not support Hillary or the Democratic Party.
AMEN
Doug, I would like to add the following to your point-by-point response:
Benghazi: Yes, “A terrible personal tragedy and bureaucratic failure” attributed for three weeks to a reaction to a U-tube video in an attempt to cover up the administration’s and Mrs. Clinton’s own involvement.
Personal E-mail Server: The issue is not “attempts to get efficient non-classified communication on one device,” (I believe there were at lest 13) but rather the missing 33,000 subpoenaed emails, computers and phones, and Hillary’s “Extreme Carelessness,” which is the definition of a felony (18 USC 793)
Clinton Foundation: “no quid pro quo of funds given to this charitable Foundation as a means of influencing official U.S. policy has ever been discovered.” Haiti, the King of Morocco, and Chelsea’s own admissions immediately come to mind.
Caring for children and the vulnerable: Seems to me that unborn babies are about the most vulnerable. And who can forget how Hillary cared about the disadvantaged children playing on the governor’s mansion lawn?
Immigration Reform: The author implies that Republicans oppose immigration period. The truth is that the Republican platform supports “immigration reform that it is legal, safe, orderly and humane. It also supports measures to ensure that the immigration system is structured to address the needs of national security.” http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_Immigration.htm.
Economic Justice: “Pursing economic justice, and addressing disparities of wealth and poverty, is a biblical refrain found from Genesis to Revelation. . .” A Biblical refrain!? The prophets enforced Mosaic laws and foretold the the coming of the Messiah. I’m not a Biblical scholar, but I don’t think that perusing economic justice was high on the prophet’s list of priorities. The author might read Mark 14:6-9 and recall how Jesus prioritized economic justice.
Caring for Creation: Maybe the reverend would consider honoring the supremacy of God rather than the Religion of Global Warming. He spoke of his uncertainty about when life begins, but accepts by faith that man can control what God created.
Racism and Criminal Justice Reform: God’s desire for humanity is not that we “bring about social transformation,” but rather that we accept the gracious gift of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice as atonement for our sins. The gift is for all people of all races, which is why Jesus commanded that we present his gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19).
Looks like you’ve taken the blinders off. Most people are still quintessentially Jeremiah 5:21…..” Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes, but see not; Who have ears, but hear not.
The pastor says, “The basic question is this: at what exact point does a fertilized egg have the full status of independent personhood, deserving complete legal protection, apart from the life of the mother?”
The basic question really is “who created human beings and when?” The answer is simple and well known to all who read the Bible.
Psalm 139:13 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”
Believing anything else is folly!
It is also folly in my opinion for “In All Things” to begin political campaigning!
Amazing. Hillary lies constantly with an arrogance and a certainty of what she is saying that even makes the devil jealous. I agree with Greg. Wesley is hallucinating.
There is no way I can vote for Hillary CLINTON and support the Democrat Party. I am Pro-Life and Christian Reformed. I know Trump has many flaws but so do every Christian. With Pence by his side I think he will do good as President. We need to pray for AMERICA and for our next President Donald Trump!!
So sad that a pastor who uses his background as a leader in the Reformed church to gain credibility uses Secular Humanistic arguments to justify his positions. No, sir there does not be “a reasonable space . . . protected for women to make that weighty moral discernment (abortion) according to their own best guidance.” What about seeking out God’s guidance? Psalm 139:13 would be a good starting point.
I’m not a big fan of iAt posting this unless they also plan on posting articulate articles from those supporting Trump and Johnson. I also disagree with the author regarding Hillary’s trustworthiness, as the FBI has now reopened the investigation into her emails, and Wikileaks seems to have more incriminating, or at best, really unethical acts come to light on a daily basis from Hillary’s staff.
And since the author references Colin Powell, let’s quote his true feelings from one of his emails: “Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris…I would rather not have to vote for her, though she is a friend I respect. A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational…” He then went on to state Bill Clinton is still having affairs.
You’ll recall that Powell voted for Obama, and has openly criticized Trump.
Regarding abortion numbers dropping: considering that it’s Congress that writes domestic policy, not the President, and that policy can take years to be implemented and have real effects, it’s disingenuous at best to claim that Democratic presidents somehow lower abortions compared to their Republican counterparts. And since we’re citing economical effects on abortion rates, it’s less than disingenuous to attribute how the economy is doing to a sitting President.
The truth is that this election is one of leftovers. These two major party candidates are about the worst options that both parties could come up with. Scandal has followed the Clintons everywhere, in ways that it never did with GWB, his father, Reagan, Carter, etc. Even MSNBC (no fan of Trump) is reporting on how the Clintons used their foundation to enrich their own lives (yes, Trump did too), with Bill earning tens of millions in consulting fees from large foundation donors.
And also because this election is one of leftovers, no one in the Christian community should be judging one another for the choice they make this November. Nor should anyone be making the argument about one candidate being a morally good choice over another. But I’d prefer to see this on the author’s own blog, where it can be shared on social media to the heart’s content of those who agree. Especially due to the vitriol/divisiveness this election year, I think it’s better if iAt would refrain from the appearance of campaigning for a candidate.
So very sad. First of all, I don’t think that true Christian people and what I mean by that is, those who love Jesus above all else, not “those who attend church”, need a pastor to tell them who to vote for. But wow, he sure had his ducks in a row for this didn’t he. Almost like someone paid him to write this?? He is part of the establishment isn’t he. He has worked for the government?? Clinton claims to be a christian? Her actions do not show this. Someone who claims christian and lives opposing Jesus, they should be feared as a wolf in sheep clothing. Someone who does not claim to be a christian and lives as a good human being, those have hearts that can still be changed by a meeting with the risen Christ. This article was written with much bias and blantant ignoring of the facts and the and the serious implications of the things that the Clinton’s have done. I am a Christian, but I don’t support the Christian establishment any longer, sadly it is corrupt. I am a conservative, but I am not a Republican. the Republican establishment is corrupt. I am a fan of John F Kennedy, he was a great democrat leader. He was a great person. The Democrat establishment is now and has been since him, corrupt! I do not think that Donald Trump is a christian, I do think he believes in the truth of God and His son, he just hasn’t had a personal experience with Him at this point in his life, but he will someday. I pray that it is during his American Presidency. But it is all in God’s hands. He knows what it is that the American people need. It might just be that we still need some more lessons. What I do believe at this time is that Donald is not part of either establishment. I think he is a business man, he is a brilliant business man. He does know how to choose the right people to get the job done. I don’t want another establishment person. One who has sold out to a system of corruption. One who really doesn’t care about anybody American or foreign. Those in the establishment care about no one but the other people in the establishment and they really don’t care about them either. Isn’t it obvious by what our county looks like these days that the only people that matter to them are themselves, power and their deep pockets. Over regulations have destroyed our country. You can not change a country by forcing stupid rules and regulations on people just as you can not change a heart by giving it more laws! Abortion is a big issue to Christian and Christ loving people. But there is much more at stake during this election, the lives of those who have made it through a live birth to live long or short lives! All people, born and unborn! People of every color and nationality. People of every religion and non religion. People of every gender and non gender. Lawlessness of any sort can not be tolerated. You don’t always need proof to know when someone does something wrong. I know and so do most of you. I have 6 kids and they have gotten away with many things that they did wrong because I didn’t have the proof I needed. However with each thing they got away with, I got smarter in my parenting. I became a better parent and they have become better children and citizens. I didn’t make rules to control them, I taught them about consequences, I increased my love and understanding, I built on relationships to teach openness and honesty and trust. We still all make mistakes, but I know their hearts: and their actions reflect what is truly in their hearts. So even though the establishment media has made Donald Trump out to be a bad guy, he is really just human. A human like the rest of us. He hasn’t claimed to be a saint, but he has for years talked about what has gone wrong in the USA and he wants to help. He has said bad things about women, there is no excuse for that. I have said bad things about women, I have said bad things about men so have most of the people I have met or known in my life. The truth is that there are bad women and bad men in this world. I don’t know why or what made them act that way, but everyone is not good like it or not! I can only hope that God changes their hearts, I can’t do it and neither can you. This minister really needs to spend some time reflecting on what he wrote and his reasons for doing so. Is he wearing a sheep costume?
Naive perspective.
I’m so disgusted with your flawed logic, I am truly speechless. I assume having worked for the RCA that you’re a Calvinist. Well my friend, have fun explaining your consensus on abortion to God on judgement day. Jesus said, “many who call me Lord, Lord do not know me.” Shame on you for leading others astray.
When people make statements like “…has made mistakes,” or “…has her flaws, as do I,” then I accuse them of minimising to the point of dishonesty. He doesn’t acknowledge her flaws, he shows how they really, truly, weren’t quite so bad, and keeps talking about how others have attacked her, and “undermined” her.
She has been caught in lies, then stonewalled and refused to answer questions for twenty-five years, then claimed she was proven truthful. Most recently, she stated that Comey had exonerated her, said she did nothing wrong – which is flat-out contradicted by what he actually said. This is why people keep going after her.
Spare me your protestations about how important trust is, and how it must be earned. Those are simply lip service to that virtue, which you then backpedal from for the rest of the essay. And as for your explanation of how it was that Bill Clinton that made the abortion rate go down with all those enlightened policies, there is no evidence that the two are related. Zip. It’s NPR science, not real science. Therefore, asserting it as a fact is…come on, work with me here…making baseless assertions as fact could be called…tip of my tongue here, help me out…
I can understand voting for Hillary to avoid Trump. Praising her (while pretending that you are being objective), and tying it in to Christian grounds is very dangerous theologically. As dangerous as it is for Trump. Christians are nowhere near fearful enough of what sin they commit when they do these things.
I read this anti Biblical tract, but before despairing I read the comments! Yea for the people who would not be turned from the truth! There are fundamental Biblical truths for which God’s people should be willing to stand against the culture. We American Christians are put to shame by the brave Chinese house churches, the Syrian and Iraqi Christians giving their lives for Jesus and all the persecuted church around the world. All we have to do is take God’s Word at face value and vote accordingly.
Mr. Granberg-Michaelson makes room to vote for HRC by making excuses for abortion. He says:
"The basic question is this: at what exact point does a fertilized egg have the full status of independent personhood, deserving complete legal protection, apart from the life of the mother?
"We have no social, political, or even theological consensus in our society over the answer to that question. Given that reality, one can hold to his or her personal convictions as a Christian, but believe that a reasonable space must be protected for women to make that weighty moral discernment according to their own best guidance, rather than have government impose a sectarian answer."
Really? Let us set aside HRC’s extreme position on the other end of the spectrum (in which she thinks halfway delivering a full-term baby and then killing him or her violently should be legally allowed). Consider a related question: Should reasonable space be given for a teen to make a “weighty moral discernment” whether to shoot up his high school?
The answer is certainly “no,” but the author seems to think that’s because we’ve reached a consensus in society about not killing high-school students. If that’s the principle–morality as social consensus–then perhaps the author would argue that the sixth commandment is, “You shall not murder, when you’ve reached a consensus about that.” That is certainly not the commandment God gave us. There are “weighty moral discernments” that God has forbidden us to make, with or without social consensus.
The author stumbles over a basic philosophical fact: Innocent human life is to be defended because of an objective quality it possesses–the image of God. It is therefore not for us to say, “Some people think this is a human life, and some don’t, so we should let the mother decide”–as if we, who know God’s command, were not in a position to defend what he has objectively created and what he has objectively commanded us to defend. (“You shall not murder,” Exodus 20:13. “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,” Proverbs 31:8.)
Rather, if some people in our society claim it’s uncertain whether there’s a person there some time after fertilization, then even if we ignored the simple philosophical argument that the unborn child is just as much a human person (by virtue of possessing the criteria we usually use to recognize a human person), the clear moral answer would still be and must still be to defend the life at every stage, because that is safer than risking what may be a person’s life. It really is a person’s life, but I’m trying to argue from the author’s position. (And of course there is a possible moral exception to defending one life if it’s at the cost of another.) Regardless how the mother became pregnant, God has now given her the responsibility to protect the child, and we as a society should insist on it. But the author would have us be sorry rather than safe.
Or maybe the author thinks the mother’s mental decision can magically make an objective life into an objective non-life? If that kind of sorcery is his view, then maybe “sectarian” is the right word. But realistically, we must value unborn life enough to try to legally require every mother to live up to her moral responsibility to defend it, even if it is difficult to do so.
Thank you for writing this article. I will admit it has been a difficult choice. I’ve pondered this over the course of many months. And I am very concerned about the future of our nation regardless of who is in office. But I have a responsibility to vote. Someone will be elected president. Over the course of time, through my readings I would agree with what you have to say. She is not a perfect choice by any means. I have searched, read and prayed trying to do the right thing. Considering my options, I see her as the best fit. That is my choice. Others will make another choice. But we all have the right to make a choice as part of a free country. This is why I am saddened by hate that I see over an election. One has the right to disagree but the ugliness shown to someone who wants to make a different choice? That is not what God would want. If we truly believe God is in All Things, most of all we need to be on our knees in prayer, asking Him to show what us he wants us to to do not only in the election but also in life. How do we live out loving our neighbor? How do we show that God is King? Regardless of how I may feel about my friends, families, neighbors choices, God wants me to love them as his people who have thoughts, feelings, and opinions just as I do.