Can a Christian make the following statement in good faith?

[Allen of the Cross]

Hello folks! I say this in love - how I live my life for Jesus does not include getting too involved in politics. If you want to, that's your decision. But a better way I've found is to live like a pilgrim in a foreign land, an exile in Babylon, a sojourner for the Kingdom of God. My citizenship is with God, and my walk is with Jesus. I'm just not too concerned with what sinners are doing. If I spend all my time politicking and debating over the laws of the land, that becomes time that I instead could have used to worship Jesus, or supplicate or intercede, or read the bible. And while I have a hard time sharing the gospel: if you want others to live righteously before God, win souls with the gospel, not with the sword of the law. At the end of the day every law is backed with the threat of punishment or death. I'm not too interested in making people obey Christ in this manner.

But do what your beliefs and conscience leads you to do. As for me, I'll be a pilgrim of the cross.

 

[dzheremi]

Regardless of the law of the land (which today is this, and tomorrow may be that, and then some other day something else), abortion remains the taking of innocent life. I feel like I have to phrase it that way because in the country that my Church was established in, the dictates of a foreign religion which is relatively permissive on the subject of abortion rule over everyone, so we as a Church still operate as we always have, by having canonical punishments for those things we recognize as abhorrent but which the society as a whole does not. This is not some kind of schizophrenic reasoning, but rather just the reality of what life as a minority is, where you can't rely on the state to necessarily protect your view or establish it in law.

I think, given the observations in this thread (and others) of our friend Ignatius the Kiwi concerning how much western Christians seem to loathe the idea of actually enacting their morals in the law code, it would be wise for more Christians of all types to consider ourselves as living effectively as a minority within a larger society which is beholden to a different way of life, even if the percentages in the almanac or wikipedia or wherever may say otherwise. What would you think of that, OP -- canonical penalties not in place of but operating outside of a government-defined binary of legal/illegal? (Not because we do not recognize it, but because obviously not everything we would treat as worthy of punishment will be considered as such by society as a whole, and vice-versa.)

This is the only way that I can think of that would be immune to shifting religious demography and society-wide fashions of thought.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What would you think of that, OP -- canonical penalties not in place of but operating outside of a government-defined binary of legal/illegal?

I think a theocracy of men running the church (or the world) as they think fit may be a disaster given the many errors in conduct and thinking that church officials of every kind have made their regular habit.

 

[BravoM]

There is elective abortion of a viable unborn baby = murder and there is medical abortion for reasons and to save the life of the other. The latter is not being attacked. It would make no sense for a woman's life to be in danger to ban it all.
Keep your legs shut and choose better people to potentially be your spouse.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Keep your legs shut and choose better people to potentially be your spouse.

Mistakes are made, they are very common, what is one to do in such a case?

 

[DamianWarS]

Can a Christian make the following statement in good faith?

I will never have an abortion nor would I advise another person to have one nor would I go out of my way to assist a person to have one. Yet I do not support the state making laws to criminalise the act of abortion for those who participate in an abortion in any capacity that I can think of.​

Please, when replying, do not make this into a pro-abortion vs anti-abortion debate. The intention is to ask if a faithful Christian can hold both that abortion is morally unacceptable and also that the state ought not to legislate to make a pregnant woman, her doctor, the nurses and other support persons into criminals because they participated in an abortion.

one can support the right to make a choice while not actually endorsing the choice.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

one can support the right to make a choice while not actually endorsing the choice.

You are right.
It seems to me that freedom, something that as a society we value so much, includes allowing others to differ and still treat them with respect and human dignity.

The question is a moral one really. Is it right to pass laws enforcing "My" or "Our" view of a disputed moral matter on others, thus requiring the others to behave as we demand while discounting how they prefer to behave.

 

[Skye1300]

Can a Christian make the following statement in good faith?

I will never have an abortion nor would I advise another person to have one nor would I go out of my way to assist a person to have one. Yet I do not support the state making laws to criminalise the act of abortion for those who participate in an abortion in any capacity that I can think of.​

Please, when replying, do not make this into a pro-abortion vs anti-abortion debate. The intention is to ask if a faithful Christian can hold both that abortion is morally unacceptable and also that the state ought not to legislate to make a pregnant woman, her doctor, the nurses and other support persons into criminals because they participated in an abortion.

I don't think they can, because even if they are not directly participating in it, they are still in favor of people doing it if they want to. That's enabling them. That sounds more like a Christian trying to play both sides of the fence. Trying to be friends with or accepted by the world but also trying to stick to Christian values. Think about if a Christian said that about slavery or child molestation.

"I will never have a slave nor would I advise another person to have one nor would I go out of my way to assist a person to have one. Yet I do not support the state making laws to criminalise the act of owning a slave for those who participate in slavery in any capacity that I can think of."

Or

"I will never molest a child nor would I advise another person to do it nor would I go out of my way to assist a person to do it. Yet I do not support the state making laws to criminalise the act of child molestation for those who participate in child molestation in any capacity that I can think of."

Or

"I will never beat my wife nor would I advise another person to do it nor would I go out of my way to assist a person to do it. Yet I do not support the state making laws to criminalise the act of spousal abuse for those who participate in spousal abuse in any capacity that I can think of."

That's exactly what saying that about abortion sounds like.

 

[rturner76]

Can a Christian make the following statement in good faith?

I will never have an abortion nor would I advise another person to have one nor would I go out of my way to assist a person to have one. Yet I do not support the state making laws to criminalise the act of abortion for those who participate in an abortion in any capacity that I can think of.​

Please, when replying, do not make this into a pro-abortion vs anti-abortion debate. The intention is to ask if a faithful Christian can hold both that abortion is morally unacceptable and also that the state ought not to legislate to make a pregnant woman, her doctor, the nurses and other support persons into criminals because they participated in an abortion.

I tend to actually agree with the statement however I have been told that by not supporting the law, I am basically not a "true" Catholic so I am a bit conflicted. Probably something I should talk to a Priest about.

 

[Skye1300]

one can support the right to make a choice while not actually endorsing the choice.

But it would be wrong for a Christian to take that stance when the choice could harm or kill another person, especially an innocent baby. I can say that about a person's right to choose Coke or Pepsi, but when it comes to life and death, if you believe taking a life is a sin, then how can you be in favor of a person possibly choosing to take a life? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Think about if a Christian said that about slavery or child molestation.

Slavery is opposed by almost everyone on Earth nowadays. Child molestation is opposed by almost everyone on Earth nowadays. But Abortion is opposed by many, accepted by many.

Abortion is an issue that the community has not yet reached a consensus upon. Ask yourself if it is right to impose your view of the matter upon the 60% or so of people (in the USA) who accept abortion? Impose your view (and perhaps God's view too) by the law and with criminal penalties?

Can a Christian, in good faith, refrain from imposing what he/she believes on a moral issue (and perhaps God also views it the same way) upon others who do not share that view?

 

[fhansen]

Can a Christian make the following statement in good faith?

I will never have an abortion nor would I advise another person to have one nor would I go out of my way to assist a person to have one. Yet I do not support the state making laws to criminalise the act of abortion for those who participate in an abortion in any capacity that I can think of.​

Please, when replying, do not make this into a pro-abortion vs anti-abortion debate. The intention is to ask if a faithful Christian can hold both that abortion is morally unacceptable and also that the state ought not to legislate to make a pregnant woman, her doctor, the nurses and other support persons into criminals because they participated in an abortion.

I understand the reason for the question but we have to ask ourselves why a person would desire to legalize that which he knows to be murder? Should we legalize all homicide now? Is murder done under the auspices of a sterile clinic where the act is done in private, out of sight, somehow ok?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You are right.
It seems to me that freedom, something that as a society we value so much, includes allowing others to differ and still treat them with respect and human dignity.

The question is a moral one really. Is it right to pass laws enforcing "My" or "Our" view of a disputed moral matter on others, thus requiring the others to behave as we demand while discounting how they prefer to behave.

All societies pass laws on disputed moral matters. Liberal Democracies are no different, in that they enforce egalitarianism through law by criminalizing certain kinds of discrimination in certain contexts.

Given this, do you think the governments we in the West are currently under, when they pass a disputed law (say a law that is contested by Christians) deserve to be recognized as legitimate?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Should we legalize all homicide now?

Murder is opposed by almost everyone on Earth nowadays, murder has almost always been opposed by almost everyone on Earth. But this matter is not opposed by almost everyone nowadays. In the USA it is said 60% and more want the situation under Roe Vs Wade to persist.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

All societies pass laws on disputed moral matters.

Will you give some examples of such disputed moral issues which nevertheless have laws enforcing one side against all others?

 

[fhansen]

Murder is opposed by almost everyone on Earth nowadays, murder has almost always been opposed by almost everyone on Earth. But this matter is not opposed by almost everyone nowadays. In the USA it is said 60% and more want the situation under Roe Vs Wade to persist.

The Christian that you mentioned in the OP knows that it’s murder. Why would he care, in such a case, what others think? Does their opinion somehow lessen the fact that it’s murder? What would you do if the majority now decided to decriminalize intentional homicide?

 

[dzheremi]

I think a theocracy of men running the church (or the world) as they think fit may be a disaster given the many errors in conduct and thinking that church officials of every kind have made their regular habit.

This is an interesting response. I wasn't thinking of a theocracy when I wrote my reply, but now that I've read yours, I'm curious if you would say the same about secular authorities -- are they also a disaster, given the errors in conduct and thinking that government officials make?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Christian that you mentioned in the OP knows that it’s murder. Why would he care, in such a case, what others think? Does their opinion somehow lessen the fact that it’s murder? What would you do if the majority now decided to decriminalize intentional homicide?

Who do you say is the murderer and who are his co-conspirators in the crime of abortion and do you want them tried for murder, all of them?

 

[fhansen]

Who do you say is the murderer and who are his co-conspirators in the crime of abortion and do you want them tried for murder, all of them?

Why would you want to decriminalize that which you know to be the taking of innocent life?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This is an interesting response. I wasn't thinking of a theocracy when I wrote my reply, but now that I've read yours, I'm curious if you would say the same about secular authorities -- are they also a disaster, given the errors in conduct and thinking that government officials make?

Yes, many are disasters. Russia has an elected president, some say he is a dictator yet he was elected, and he has led his nation into a disaster and hurt another nation to the point of terrible grief and death with destruction on a people who did not attack him or his nation. So yes, secular as well as religiously inclined governments make messes at times. But a Theocracy has an added dimension; such governments believe that God is telling them what to do and they cannot brook any dissent from their God directed path.