My cousin Amy recently wrote a very well written note on Facebook explaining why she, as a Christian, supports Barack Obama. It has gotten quite a bit of attention. Some people cannot understand how a Christian could support a candidate who is pro-choice, which is pretty much the issue that evangelical Christians rally around (that and gay marriage).
I agree with what Amy says in justifying a Christian supporting a pro-choice candidate. She, herself, is pro-life and makes that very clear. Although this is a sticking point for many evangelicals, Amy explains that “The Bible does not just condemn abortion, it also condemns not caring for the poor, not seeking justice (no our health care system is not just, even if you work hard that does not mean you have any health insurance let alone good health insurance) not caring for the planet, and a whole lot of other issues.” She continues, “Yes… Obama is pro-choice, and I have a problem with that, but I also have a problem with the way we abuse the planet and treat the poor.”
I completely agree with what Amy wrote in that note. I don’t want to bombard her with friend requests from people who she does not know, so I won’t link to her note on Facebook.
I, for one, am a bit tired of evangelicalism harping on two political issues, abortion and gay marriage, as if a candidate is pro-life and anti-gay he OR SHE(!!) will usher in the eschaton (which normally means the rapture, depending on the current day’s news stories from the Middle East). There are a host of other issues to which Christianity speaks that are often ignored, justice, both socially and ecologically, are two big ones. I am not promoting abortion nor do I think that the definition of marriage includes man/man, woman/woman, or unicorn/leprechaun. Rather, I am thinking about applying what the Scriptures teach to the issue of who I vote for. Perhaps the candidate, like Obama, strikes out when it comes to gay marriage and abortion. But justice is a huge issue for younger evangelicals who have grown tired of seeing corporations like Wal Mart and Microsoft make billions of dollars while 30,000 children worldwide die daily from diseases that are easily curable.
At this point, my candidate is Hillary. The reason: if you line up a bunch of dudes and one girl, I’m always going to vote for the girl. That’s how I roll.
Seriously though, there are other issues that, I believe, will bring more change to our country than just abortion and gay marriage. People need health care, the poor need food and shelter as well as education. How can we call ourselves the greatest nation in the world when we deny human beings health care? Wouldn’t we want to display our greatness and our medical miracles by spreading health as far as we can?
Oh wait, we’d rather get rich, have big businesses, own guns, and buy SUVs. Sorry, I forgot for a moment.
What are some of the issues that cause you to support your candidate? (I know political conversations can get ugly (which is why I normally avoid them on this blog), but please be respectful for other people’s opinions and beliefs. Even if you strongly disagree, do it with love.)
26 February 2008 at 12.55 am
I’ll just say I’m glad I can’t vote in this election. It’s far too complicated.
But I do have a few takes on the current political situation, which I posted on my blog about three weeks ago (during Florida’s primaries). If anyone is thus inclined, you may read it here.
26 February 2008 at 1.04 am
Oh yeah…any reason your Hillary banner on the sidebar is linked to Huckabee’s website?
26 February 2008 at 2.10 am
These are some of the things I’ve been working through lately, on my blog and in my head. I can totally understand both sides. A democrat can dismiss abortion and gay marriage for other just as important issues, but then again, they are also overlooking these issues. Clearly these issues are very very important, and overlooking them might not be the right answer…I don’t know. I don’t have one issue that is most important for me. I will say that I am totally stuck in the middle, but I think Obama’s ability to unite and work with both sides makes him my favorite. I just don’t see any other candidate with the ability to do what he can and will. And to think of how our country’s perception will change with a black President. I think we need this.
26 February 2008 at 6.59 am
I’m not sure the reasoning behind Evangelicals harping this one issue, but to me it doesn’t matter why. If those with the least chance of defending themselves are given the shaft in the name of choice (the fact that we need to find alternative words for killing babies is telling enough) by a candidate who would rather focus on social justice for those who have at least a fighting chance at life, no matter how small, then that candidate cannot even be given the slightest consideration. Being a voice for those with the least chance of defending themselves against violence is too important.
I want to like Obama because he makes me feel good when he gives speeches (and he’d be the first to admit that they’re good. He said on the CNN debate with Clinton: “What I’ve been saying in these speeches – and I’ve got to admit, some of them are pretty good…”). But governing the world’s only superpower in a time of war and possible economic recession? And running a campaign based on the word “change” when you’d be hard-pressed to find any changes he’s made in his political life so far? If he is elected president, hopefully his (or that other guy’s) “Just words?” speech won’t backfire.
I’m all for having fresh eyes in the oval office and the chance for our country to be united rather than divided. But at the expense of the most vulnerable among us? Help me see why the trade off is worth it.
26 February 2008 at 9.04 am
Jake: That is a joke. I had it linked to Ron Paul at first, then to ESPN, then to Obama, and now to Huckabee. I’ll probably change it in a few days.
Vic: I understand what you are saying because I am also pro-life. Flip the situation around though: lets save children who are not yet born while those children who are already born suffer from hunger, no health care, and poor education in our cities. I guess working with these children in West Philly has really opened my eyes to the justice issues involved. It’s hard for me to look into these kids eyes and then walk into a voting booth and cast my vote for someone who is not going to actively help these children. How can I really love those children if I voted for McCain or Huckabee? I think the two would be mutually exclusive.
About the abortion issue: abortion is a law and there are many organizations out there that are adamant about keeping abortion legal. To change the legal status of abortion, at this point in history, is going to be a long, hard road that requires much of a president’s time and energy.
How many organizations and/or lobbyists are there who are actively pursuing the continued oppression of the poor in the inner cities? How many are continually pushing to keep health care in the possession of those who are well off? I can’t think of any. The point in saying that is that a candidate who devotes themselves to social justice can get, and will get, a lot more done in this country. The orphan, the widow, the poor, and the oppressed will be helped by leaps and bounds. These are people who can be helped easily and they are people who Scripture continually teaches us to care about and reach out to.
The trade off: vote for a candidate who will spend a large amount of time fighting a law that already exists with the very far outside chance that it might, possibly, maybe, perchance get overturned and let those who are already living continually suffer poor health, poor education, and hunger;
or, vote for a candidate who will actually do something for those who are currently in a living hell.
I wish there was a candidate who would do both.
26 February 2008 at 9.32 am
Art, this a great post. I wish you had gone into a little more detail about why you liked Hillary. While I am highly pro-life, that issue is a non-issue this time around. I liked your explanation Art. Maybe it could be more of an issue next time, but this time it doesn’t make sense.
On the other hand, as much as “liberals” dislike the evangelical vote against abortion and “gay rights”, I dislike the call for all Americans to “social justice”. The federal government already takes too much money from its citizens and spends it extremely inefficiently. They shouldn’t be taking my things to distribute to others. I should be allowed to give that money my local community and schools to care for those around me. I will be voting for the candidate that allows to me to care for others (mainstream, third party, or write-in). McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama do not fit that bill.
26 February 2008 at 12.33 pm
I think that this is a basic misunderstanding and only really works if, and it’s a big if, you can convince yourself that the Dem’s, truly care more about the poor and that their policies are indeed more beneficial..now I am not going to say that you can’t, but I am going to say that it is more complex than it looks. For one we do not have representative government in America, we have governance by those rich enough to get into office…therefore there is no real way that a politician can represent us. (unless you too are a millionaire.) But I would just like to point out (as have JC Watts and the people at the conservative social justice think tank the Acton Institute), that years of free welfare and other social programs have not been good for urban communities…in fact in a lot of cases they have destroyed them. Now I am not advocating the abolishment of programs, but they do need to be thought through better. The current system still enslaves the poor African American, only now instead of a cotton farmer the government has taken on the role of master. The poor African American community is not free, it is enslaved to a system that throws money at a problem to assuage its own guilt and then moves on.
One of the key emphasis of people in Christian Community Development is that handouts do not help, they elevate the giver and destroy the self esteem of the receiver, and all the while communicating that he who receives has no value except to take.
Will Obama change this? Perhaps, but he seems to be a descendant of this political legacy. If the issue is going to be justice I really believe that it needs to be argued on thought and logic not on the rhetoric of a corrupt political system. As Urban Ministry pioneer Ray Baake says: It’s hard to be a World Christian. (which means that our choices have consequences, and the seemingly right answer is not always so…)
D
26 February 2008 at 6.25 pm
I find the questions raised here to be some of the most difficult questions that we will be asking ourselves in the next few months. What is Social Justice? And how should it function in our modern world?
I for one am all for social justice, but how do I define the term? Do I equate social justice with entitlement? No – What are we entitled to as humans living on this earth? I know of few things that are guaranteed or promised.
However, am I moved with compassion when I see a child who has no mother and father and who is forced to live as an outcast of his own society? Yes – Do I think that we should give him 50k a year and hope that he makes it? No.
Recently when I was working with orphans in Peru, I was willing to sell all I had and give to the work so that I could guarantee that they could have what they needed, whether it was food or clothes (and yes I wanted them to have the nicest things you could imagine). I cannot wait to get a tax refund so I can send them as much as possible. The difference in me giving to them and universal (you name it) is that I see the children and I give to their need. I know that there are loved. Money can never take the place of love.
I am perplexed with the question of universal health care. Should we guarantee that everyone has the same health care I do? I just don’t know. One thing is for sure as soon as I guarantee them the same health care my health care will suffer.
Is the question about my health care and about how much I will give? No not really. I guess I could sign up to universal health care and not have any money to give the orphans in Peru, but then I have no compassion either.
Many people look at those in need in this country and see the need as a money issue and then they decide that issue can be fixed if everyone will just give to their cause.
Imagine there was a box on the ballot that said that 5% of everyone’s income would be given to me to benefit the needs of anyone I thought had a need (which I would send to Peru) would I check that box? Yes, I would. But how can I expect everyone in the US to see the same concern that I see. To feel the same urging I feel deep in my soul. I cannot and to force that on all of society may in itself be a justice issue, depending on your definition.
Do I want poor children to be taken care of? Do I want all children to be educated? Do I want all children to be loved? The answer to all that is yes. I wish for all there is in my being that voting for a candidate that guaranteed maximum funds for education and healthcare would guarantee that every child would have the same childhood I had. However, the thing that gives any child a fighting chance at life is love, and if we move every concern to the government we take away any chance of that. By being born we are not guaranteed education, healthcare or love, but I will do my best to give as much of love as I can and I pray that will be what gives them a fighting chance. I cannot endorse a program that takes away the very thing that each child needs. I cannot with a good conscience.
26 February 2008 at 10.05 pm
To Poop
Much of what democrats do is not a handout, it’s community building. Ironically it’s mostly Christians who do the handouts. Programs like head start are shown to be effective at helping people yet Republicans routinely cut them while still giving tax cuts to people who make over $200,000. A Republican type program is No Child Left Behind which many teachers I know call “No child left untested.” Under-resourced schools get punished with further withdrawals of funding when their students don’t perform well. That’s a definite concrete way in which the policies of democrats are better than Republicans.
The republican (and often Christian) sees poverty as solely a function of laziness and poor moral decisions. This ignores the fact that deep sociological issues contribute to poverty which include injustice, race, opportunity, geography, history, AND morality.
27 February 2008 at 12.49 am
Meade: I hate no child left behind..worst law ever. I should note that because everyone in my family is a teacher I am the most “liberal” person you will ever meet on Education! Especially when it comes to urban education. Jonathan Kozal is my hero (google it if you don’t know) I did not know we were talking education…I would like to change my answer
. My point I guess though is really that as Christians we should trust neither side and just think!
27 February 2008 at 10.00 am
Absolutely. My wife (the Amy Art is referring to in his post) is a school social worker in Philly so I always think about social justice as including education.
I also agree with you about not trusting either side. Christians can’t be in the back pocket of any political party. We should be the ultimate swing vote so that the gospel can influence the whole political process, not just “conservative” issues like family values or “liberal” issues like environment or justice.
27 February 2008 at 10.33 am
That’s cool Meade, my wife is the school counselor in an alternative ed. in an Urban district.
27 February 2008 at 11.21 am
As for Abortion and Gay Marriage –
I am not sure that either is a big enough issue for me to vote strictly with one party or the other. Not to say that I am personally against both.
Gay marriage is a hard issue. A good friend of my, who is a believer, is involved in a same sex relationship. When we discussed whether or not I would attend their wedding (if it were to get to that), I commented that I could see myself attending to support my friend, but not to support the union. To stand so far against this issue is to make those involved feel that you do not care about them. I want my friend to know that I do care and that I care very much. However, I want to be clear that I am not a moral supporter of any such union. Will a president be able to make some headway possibly but will that matter. I just don’t know.
In many ways I see abortion similar but I understand that we are speaking about life and death verse what someone does in their private life. I am agianst it, but I think that a president will probably not do much to change it.
27 February 2008 at 9.05 pm
Here’s something I never thought I’d say, “I agree with Poopemerges!” And Nathcot, you express it well too. The fact that Republican policies (and a lot of Christians) have gotten it wrong up ’til now when it comes to social justice doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that a liberal approach is going to be the solution. Liberal answers always involve more power for government. They want to take more of our money and make spending decisions that result in poor people becoming more dependent on them (liberals). Liberals think poor (and middle class) people always need their involvement. I don’t see that they have any confidence in the spirit or competence of individuals. I’ve never read “It Takes a Village”, but I have heard Hillary speak to Congress about how incompetent individuals are at managing their own healthcare. I can only assume that she thinks parents need the government’s (her) involvement when it comes to raising children too. I agree that there appears to be a lack of compassion on the Republican side, but are we sure that what parades behind a compassion mask among liberals is not just a clever way to get more power? How will either of the Democrat candidates’ approaches actually help the poor? If I can become convinced that the Democrats own the true compassion that respects the poor person’s competence to rise out of poverty while acknowledging hardships and offering support, I will vote for Barack. I can’t imagine that I would ever vote for a Clinton, but I’m open to someone making a case for her.
22 October 2008 at 3.49 pm
[...] Art Boulet “I, for one, am a bit tired of evangelicalism harping on two political issues, abortion and gay marriage…” [...]