Christians must not enable murder;
Voting for the pro-abortion party enables more murder;
Thus, it is incompatible with the Christian’s moral duty and worthy of church discipline
It is time to admit the evangelical church has a problem. Too many of its members are putting politics above the Gospel. They advance pragmatic, consequentialist arguments to justify how they vote. Thinking that supporting a good policy trumps following God’s commands. No, I’m not talking about Donald Trump’s evangelical voters. I’m talking about Democrat voters who claim to be evangelicals and are part of your church.
What should the church’s reaction be to a voter who casts a ballot for the Party of Infanticide? Should it be, “Well, that’s great,” or should it be church discipline?
If a Christian falls into error, the church has a responsibility to correct that error.
If the church rightfully would expel unrepentant racists, why shouldn’t the church expel unrepentant voters who enable abortion?
We either have a Christian worldview or a secular worldview. Either we are shaped by the Word of God—hold a biblically informed worldview—or we are shaped by the world. If we are shaped by the world, then we need guidance. That is why we have church discipline.
Is voting an element of Christian liberty?
But isn’t voting an element of Christian liberty? Well, is robbing a bank an element of Christian liberty? While there is no biblical mandate for specific policies, the moral issues at stake are governed by biblical teachings. People (and the state) shouldn’t steal. The state shouldn’t execute innocent people. Slavery is wrong.
There are many other examples.
Political policies can have moral significance. Not every political dispute is worthy of censure. However, some, like support for racism, slavery or murder would be worthy of condemnation. Enabling these kinds of sins by voting for candidates one knows will expand or keep the status quo, when other options are available, seems wrong.
So, why isn’t it the same with Abortion? Infanticide?
A Christian must affirm, innocent human life deserves protection. The state and individuals must not kill the innocent. The earliest Christians affirmed this doctrine. The Didache, dating to the second century AD, commands, “You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.”
Thou shall not kill is kind of a big deal for Christians.
So, why do so many sneer at the pro-life cause? Or minimize protecting the unborn?
Typical of many evangelical elites today, protecting innocent life is compared to or linked to improving life experiences for others. For example is this Twitter thread from one leading evangelical:
“If white evangelicals continue to only highlight conservative politicians, it will reinforce the pernicious myth that Christian = Republican.
“Top Two Responses to the Tweet: 1) If Dems stop killing babies maybe we’d listen 2) Christians should be essentially non-political.
“The first response assumes there are no pro-life Democrats and that there’s only one *political* way to be pro-life.
“The first response also places emphasis on life in the womb with little support for systems that ensure quality of life afterwards.”
So, why the emphasis on the life in the womb? It is the life being killed. The quality of life after, may or may not be a matter for the state. However, it is without controversy, the right of an innocent human to enjoy life is a matter for the state. The state must protect it. The Christian affirms this because the Bible affirms it through the Apostles and prophets.
The quality of life enjoyed by the living cannot trump the most basic requirement for the state—protecting the innocent from death. Any attempt to link the discussion of policies against abortion to other matters like healthcare, wealth inequality or the fact that people’s hearts must be changed to eradicate abortion are dangerous and unbiblical.
Martin Luther King said it best about the benefit of the law for those subject to evil, “But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also.”[1]
That is the point of law—to restrain the heartless.
Or, as the Apostle said, to punish evil. That’s what gives order to society. It furthers the preaching of the Gospel and enables humans to flourish. (A favorite trope of many Christian scholars today is human flourishing, but humans cannot flourish in disordered conditions, and a society murdering babies is at its heart severely disordered.)
Is voting for the bad candidate a sin?
So, is voting for a Democrat a sin? If we do something and know it will cause harm, is that a sin? It seems so.
For example, the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate indicates that not only would Pilate be guilty for the execution of Jesus, but the ones who enabled it.
“You would have no authority over me at all,” Jesus answered him, “if it hadn’t been given you from above. This is why the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”[2]
Note here, “Like Pilate, he (the high priest) was given authority over Jesus, but he abused it, and for political expediency handed Jesus over to Pilate on a trumped-up charge of sedition to secure his death.”[3]
Christians who live as citizens in the US are given political power. This is recognized in our founding documents, and is repeated every time an election submits the machinery of state to the voice of the people.
Continue reading here.
[Editor’s Note: This article was written and originally published at Capstone.]
