In a recent interview, Emergent Church leader Brian McLaren was asked about abortion and homosexuality (his comments below). As usual, he seems to dodge the homosexuality issue, stating his position is simply that those of different positions should a) accept that good Christians can disagree on the issue (try wrapping your mind around the proposition that two people can disagree on such a fundamental issue of human identity and both be faithful to Scripture) and b) dialogue (with him receiving a “state your position” pass).
However, his comments about abortion are what inspired this post. When I compare his statement that abortion is “not one of the most significant moral issues out there” with his book-length treatment of global climate change and quasi-socialistic economic policy (see, Everything Must Change), I get disturbed.
Following the 2004 elections, the new Democratic party leader, Howard Dean, explicitly stated that the Democrats were going to go after the evangelical vote. They would do this by talking more openly about “faith” and by attempting to show that Democrats care about “morality” as well.
Over the last 3 years, I’ve been watching as evangelical authors have, in one way or another, de-centralized this issue of abortion, making it just one more issue in a solar system of moral questions. I’ve listened as we’ve been told that we should not be “single-issue” voters. The long and short of it is this: Evangelicals have increasingly become comfortable with the idea of voting for a pro-choice candidate if she or he, for instance, has a “strong” position on “ending global climate change,” or “enacting ‘Fair Trade’ laws.”
Point 1: The issues of life, environmental stewardship and caring for the poor touch on core aspects of our faith. To each issue, Scripture offers clear command.
Point 2: The legislative response to each of these issues can be discerned with varying levels of certainty. That’s a bit thick. Let me break it down.
A) The Bible commands us to “care for the poor.” However, I believe that there can be real debate and potentially, good-faith disagreement on how that can best be accomplished. Those, like me, of a more conservative bent, believe that a socialistic policy of “required altruism” (i.e., requiring all citizens to provide a portion of their paycheck to the Federal Government and allowing that government to redistribute it) isn’t the best answer to poverty and, in fact, eviscerates true charity. Even among conservatives, there is a spectrum of opinion regarding the “right size” of a governmental safety net. Some say more; some say less. In any case, the logical connection between “caring for the poor” and “providing national health care for every child” is something open to debate, discussion and disagreement. CONCLUSION: While the biblical mandate to care for the poor is CLEAR, the legislative response is not. (and I would say the same applies to the question of environmental stewardship)
B) Unlike the issues of caring for the poor and environmental stewardship, I see a very close connection between the biblical teaching about human life and the legislative response required. [I’m not going to post an entire defense of the biblical teaching that abortion is wrong here. I’ll just assume most of us agree.] Scripture declares all humans to be “made in the image of God.” Abortion is the active taking of life. And in the last 30 years, well over 40 million lives have been taken in our country. That, by the way, dwarfs every genocidal rampage of the 20th century…PUT TOGETHER.
As far as I’m concerned, any politician who can look at the direct act of murder performed by an abortion doctor and declare it a “fundamental right” is morally deficient. That politician might have extensive positions on how we can affect the environment fifty years from now, but he has abandoned the RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW issue of human dignity.
Conclusion to Point 2: The Biblical teaching on issues like “caring for the poor” and “environmental stewardship” can be applied within a wide spectrum of legislative action. That is, there is not a virtually one-to-one relationship between the Christian ethic and Christian legislative position.
HOWEVER: The Biblical teaching on human life requires a pro-life legislative position. We should certainly seek MORE than the overturning of Roev.Wade, but to seek anything less is to lessen the horror of legalized murder. As Christians, halting the genocide of the last 30 years and seeking to heal those who have been scarred by its horror is central. While the jury is still out on how best to legislate on issues of poverty and environment, there is no question: Legalized abortion equals abortions.
I guess I just don’t understand McLaren’s thinking on this. While I believe we should certainly push for equitable economic policy, that we should continue to pursue the science of environmental change and consider the best legislative responses, I fail to grasp how he can consider the active taking of human life a “side issue.” I fail to grasp how he (and other evangelical leaders) can potentially legitimize the moral sensibilities of politicians who stand up for partial-birth abortion just because they have a cap-and-trade carbon emissions policy.
Maybe I’m missing something.
MCLAREN’S QUOTE:
Q. What’s your view of homosexuality and abortion? I know that’s a big question.
The first thing I’d want to say is that I don’t think they’re the two most significant moral issues in the world.
I believe in the sanctity of life, but I believe that our efforts should be toward reducing the need and desire for abortion on the front end by way of persuasion and education rather than putting our efforts on the side of legislation.
SOURCE: http://www.charlotte.com/449/story/463053.html
Yes, I too question the wisdom of tacking one more thought on an already long post. But I’ll do it anyway:
I’ve listened to and read McLaren lament some of the great social sins of the past and present (e.g. Nazi Holocaust, Inquisition, treatment of Native Americans). He is often more than willing to criticize the Church on her direct or indirect involvement in these atrocities. And he’s more than willing to condemn American policies on “aggressive interrogation.”
How can he miss the connection here? How can he lament the deaths of 6 million Jews at the hands of Nazi soldiers and, in the same breath, categorize the deaths of 40 million innocent children as not one of “the most significant issues in the world”?
Administrator
January 30th, 2008
you’ve given us alot to tackle on this one.
i wholly agree with your comments adam. its embarassing how people can dehumanize babies just for an argument. When was the last time you heard someone say “oh, we’re having a fetus”. no, you don’t hear anyone say that. most of the time, you only hear fetus being referred to in the act of an abortion. its flat out disturbing.
i forgot what the exact numbers were that i heard a few weeks ago at sanctity of life sunday, but i want to say of people under the age of 35, over 25% have not had the chance to see the world because they were killed before they could. i knew the number was alot, but i didn’t think it would be in the range of 25-33%. sad and shocking!
well, brick needs some sleep so i’m signing off for now. adios amigos!
brick
January 31st, 2008
Very well put, AB. Very clear thinking on the subject. The line I’ve been hearing lately from some Democrats, particularly Roman Catholics is “although I’m personally opposed to abortion, I am not going to restrict someone else’s choice.” It has no air of sincerity to it. It’s just pandering to “faith” and “morality” a la Howard Dean, while still bowing to the “pro-choice” lobby. Typical politicians. I’ve heard this kind of logic from both Kerry and Jennifer Granholm. Frankly, I’m more than a little frightened about giving a person with such strange ideas the power that they have been given. And McClaren for that matter.
Funny how such folks have no qualms about forcing us to spend our money in certain ways through taxing to support all their government pet projects, yet they become all libertarian when it come to abortion.
Ciao
Mark L
February 5th, 2008
What a breath of fresh air this post is- and I really agree with your comment too, Mark.
McLaren’s ideas have taken hold of mainstream evangelicals- I have seen dramatic changes in thinking among evangelicals in the last few years, and there is no question that Howard Dean and Jimmy Carter’s strategy has been amazingly effective.
I completely agree with you Adam, that Christian charity does not equate to governmental redistribution of wealth. All Christians have to do is ask themselves, do we want the church to be Christ’s hands and feet, or do we want the government to take more of our money and redistribute it to political allies and have it disappear into a huge federal bureaucracy? If most of us would think this through, we’d realize that politicians who use platitudes about “caring for the poor” are going to do exactly that with taxpayer dollars. If some small amount actually does get distributed to the poor.
Christians, let’s stop outsourcing charity to politicians. We need to increase our giving to Christian organizations and churches that demonstrate a high level of accountability and stewardship.
Derek
February 6th, 2008
Adam:
Very well done. In total agreement.
We do two things wrong when we tackle issues: 1.) We say something like “The whole world is messed up…why even break down the issues” and 2.) We do what The Emergent church us doing, we select which issues are more important by either labeling causality as the problem (stopping abortion on the front end argument) or elevating the alarm level of an secondary issue (environment, social justice)so far beyond the appropriate response that other “central” issues (like abortion) pale in comparison. These are the two mistakes that we make.
Sure…it’s all sin. But some sin is just worse than other sin. Some sin (like abortion) is more central to total evil that other sins (like pollution). I believe that murder is a worse sin than not properly handling resources to feed the poor. I believe putting a stop to shedding innocent blood is more important than fixing the socio-economic circumstances of the murderer. Call me crazy.
peace,
Tony
Tony
February 14th, 2008