- Aug 2, 2016
- 755
- 839
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
In discussing American politics on a forum like this, the most fun seems to come from arguing about specific things that happen, and specific statements or actions by political figures. But I like to stay focused on the big picture, which is How am I going to vote in the next election? Should I, as a Christian, support anybody who’s out there? If so, whom should I support?
My own answer I that I support Democratic candidates now. But how can that be? Since about 1980 the working assumption has been that Bible-believing Christians should of course vote for Republicans or conservative Democrats, primarily because of the abortion issue, but then also because of everything related to a preference for limited government. I was taught this mindset when I was a young Christian, I agreed with it, and I voted Republican in every election until 2012.
Why did I change to Democrat since 2016?
Well, first, understand that it wasn't just because of one person. Even before 2016 I considered myself, like George Bush called himself, a compassionate conservative. By that I mean that, because of how I understood my Christian faith, caring about the good of other people was important to me. From that conviction I supported Republican policies because I believed, with Ronald Reagan, that a rising tide floats all boats. I believed that a stronger general economy did more to help people than did social programs in a weak economy. I also believed that America really had reached the point where everybody did have equal opportunity. I had no problem with unequal outcomes, because outcomes were the responsibility of the individual. I believed that individuals who did not do their own part to take advantage of their opportunities did not really deserve to be bailed out.
Then, watching the early campaign action in 2015, I began thinking hard about those things I believed, and a number of things fell into place at the same time. It was the healthcare debate that influenced me the most. As I watched Republicans make illogical argument about why the poor were not entitled to health care if they couldn’t afford it, and as I heard more and more Republicans arguing for things like the abolition of the minimum wage, and saw them use “ivory tower” arguments that sounded reasonable but did not actually reflect the real world, I slowly came to realize that a good chunk of what I believed was wrong. Like most people, I hate admitting that I am wrong, especially out loud to other people. But this time I had to.
Why?
Stated as briefly as possible, without the entire detailed rationale that led me to each one, here are the basic reasons (which are, of course, my own beliefs based on my understanding of what the Bible says. You may disagree, and you are free to do so. But here are my thoughts for your consideration):
First, I used the Bible to find out what conclusions I should come to. Jesus Christ is Lord of everything in my life, seven days a week, not just churchy things on Sunday. That includes my political choices.
Then—
1) The extreme anti-abortion argument is not supported by the Bible or by ordinary reasoning. In the first place, nobody actually treats abortion and infant murder as exactly equal; if they did, the doctor would be tried and convicted of first-degree murder, and the woman would be tried and convicted of murder-for-hire. And almost nobody is willing to go that far. Not even the state of Alabama, which recently passed the strictest anti-abortion law so far. Even that Alabama law expressly says that the woman is not guilty of a crime; only the doctor is. In the second place, the Bible does not support the idea. The “proof texts” most often cited are not speaking about when life begins, they are speaking about God’s foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is the only possible interpretation of “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.” [Jeremiah 1:5]. This does not mean “before Jeremiah was born,” it clearly says “before Jeremiah was formed.” God knew Jeremiah before Jeremiah even began to exist. Foreknowledge.
Also, much of the Christian discussion of when life begins seems to ignore one very critical component of life: life requires both a body and a soul. A beating heart is not proof of life; a soul is required. Catholic thinkers, at least, have always placed this issue out front, but Evangelicals often seem to be saying that a functioning body, or even a fertilized cell, is all that is required for a living person. Technically, this is actually a heresy.
Therefore, I will summarize and say that the Bible gives good support for the common Christian belief that “life” (the presence of a soul within a baby), begins when the baby draws its first breath outside the womb. Regardless, the question itself properly belongs under the heading of freedom of conscience because there simply is no clear Bible passage that answers the question. Therefore, a person [read: political candidate] who says, “I am personally against abortion but I believe a mother must be allowed to follow her conscience, not mine,” is voicing a completely Bible-supported point of view.
I guess I said more about that than I intended to, because it tends to be a make-or-break, non-negotiable issue for some. So I said why it isn’t make-or-break for me. Now let’s move on to the next point.
2) No nation can establish God’s righteousness by law. Yeah, that’s what I see when Christians quote II Chronicles 7:14 as a reason to vote Republican. Electing the right lawmakers so they can write proper laws and appoint good judges cannot make America a righteous nation. Righteousness only comes by individual faith, not by law. The New Testament is absolutely crystal clear on this point. Oh, laws do have their legitimate uses, but bringing about righteousness is not one of them. II Chronicles 7:14 is addressed to God’s people, not to unbelievers, and is a call to heart repentance, not to voting Republican.
3) The Bible does not demand “limited government.” It does not demand any particular form of government at all. It does not even give express approval to a constitutional republic. Yet here we are, with the Christian voters in the country using our best human judgment to discern what the Bible allows.
4) One thing I especially object to is the implied assumption there are only two economic choices: free enterprise or communism. This is absurd. “Regulation” is not even remotely the same thing as “communism.” Calling Democrats “communists” is just as wrong as calling Republicans “Nazis.” As a Christian, I believe in civil discourse, not name-calling and strident propaganda. And I have adopted, as my fundamental social position, the idea of “the greatest good for the largest number.” That does not mean favoring the poor over the rich, but it does mean following the teachings in the Book of James about not favoring the rich over the poor. I believe that current Republican policies do exactly that. It turns out that a “rising tide” does not lift all boats. In fact, the whole shift away from “demand-side” economics toward “supply-side” economics turned out to be a shift away from looking out for the overall welfare of society, and toward focusing on the good of the “suppliers” (business owners and investors). Republicans have been quite open about wanting to scale back, or even eliminate, social safety net programs, and I believe that their justifications for that are contrary to what the Bible teaches. I see the Evangelical opposition to social welfare programs as being equivalent to believing that individuals should do what the Good Samaritan did, but government should do as those did who just walked on past the injured man. I also believe that what social programs are doing is not so much practicing redistribution of wealth as they are combating the effects of the ungodly concentration of wealth in the first place.
5) As a general catch-all, when I see people point out some apparent bad parts of Democratic policy, I often agree completely. I do not think for a moment that Democratic policies (let alone individual Democratic politicians) are uniformly saintly. Neither party can be called a Christian party. I merely believe, on balance, that the Democratic party is the lesser evil, with policies that are generally better for the whole of society than Republican policies are.
And I believe that because of what the Bible says.
My own answer I that I support Democratic candidates now. But how can that be? Since about 1980 the working assumption has been that Bible-believing Christians should of course vote for Republicans or conservative Democrats, primarily because of the abortion issue, but then also because of everything related to a preference for limited government. I was taught this mindset when I was a young Christian, I agreed with it, and I voted Republican in every election until 2012.
Why did I change to Democrat since 2016?
Well, first, understand that it wasn't just because of one person. Even before 2016 I considered myself, like George Bush called himself, a compassionate conservative. By that I mean that, because of how I understood my Christian faith, caring about the good of other people was important to me. From that conviction I supported Republican policies because I believed, with Ronald Reagan, that a rising tide floats all boats. I believed that a stronger general economy did more to help people than did social programs in a weak economy. I also believed that America really had reached the point where everybody did have equal opportunity. I had no problem with unequal outcomes, because outcomes were the responsibility of the individual. I believed that individuals who did not do their own part to take advantage of their opportunities did not really deserve to be bailed out.
Then, watching the early campaign action in 2015, I began thinking hard about those things I believed, and a number of things fell into place at the same time. It was the healthcare debate that influenced me the most. As I watched Republicans make illogical argument about why the poor were not entitled to health care if they couldn’t afford it, and as I heard more and more Republicans arguing for things like the abolition of the minimum wage, and saw them use “ivory tower” arguments that sounded reasonable but did not actually reflect the real world, I slowly came to realize that a good chunk of what I believed was wrong. Like most people, I hate admitting that I am wrong, especially out loud to other people. But this time I had to.
Why?
Stated as briefly as possible, without the entire detailed rationale that led me to each one, here are the basic reasons (which are, of course, my own beliefs based on my understanding of what the Bible says. You may disagree, and you are free to do so. But here are my thoughts for your consideration):
First, I used the Bible to find out what conclusions I should come to. Jesus Christ is Lord of everything in my life, seven days a week, not just churchy things on Sunday. That includes my political choices.
Then—
1) The extreme anti-abortion argument is not supported by the Bible or by ordinary reasoning. In the first place, nobody actually treats abortion and infant murder as exactly equal; if they did, the doctor would be tried and convicted of first-degree murder, and the woman would be tried and convicted of murder-for-hire. And almost nobody is willing to go that far. Not even the state of Alabama, which recently passed the strictest anti-abortion law so far. Even that Alabama law expressly says that the woman is not guilty of a crime; only the doctor is. In the second place, the Bible does not support the idea. The “proof texts” most often cited are not speaking about when life begins, they are speaking about God’s foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is the only possible interpretation of “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.” [Jeremiah 1:5]. This does not mean “before Jeremiah was born,” it clearly says “before Jeremiah was formed.” God knew Jeremiah before Jeremiah even began to exist. Foreknowledge.
Also, much of the Christian discussion of when life begins seems to ignore one very critical component of life: life requires both a body and a soul. A beating heart is not proof of life; a soul is required. Catholic thinkers, at least, have always placed this issue out front, but Evangelicals often seem to be saying that a functioning body, or even a fertilized cell, is all that is required for a living person. Technically, this is actually a heresy.
Therefore, I will summarize and say that the Bible gives good support for the common Christian belief that “life” (the presence of a soul within a baby), begins when the baby draws its first breath outside the womb. Regardless, the question itself properly belongs under the heading of freedom of conscience because there simply is no clear Bible passage that answers the question. Therefore, a person [read: political candidate] who says, “I am personally against abortion but I believe a mother must be allowed to follow her conscience, not mine,” is voicing a completely Bible-supported point of view.
I guess I said more about that than I intended to, because it tends to be a make-or-break, non-negotiable issue for some. So I said why it isn’t make-or-break for me. Now let’s move on to the next point.
2) No nation can establish God’s righteousness by law. Yeah, that’s what I see when Christians quote II Chronicles 7:14 as a reason to vote Republican. Electing the right lawmakers so they can write proper laws and appoint good judges cannot make America a righteous nation. Righteousness only comes by individual faith, not by law. The New Testament is absolutely crystal clear on this point. Oh, laws do have their legitimate uses, but bringing about righteousness is not one of them. II Chronicles 7:14 is addressed to God’s people, not to unbelievers, and is a call to heart repentance, not to voting Republican.
3) The Bible does not demand “limited government.” It does not demand any particular form of government at all. It does not even give express approval to a constitutional republic. Yet here we are, with the Christian voters in the country using our best human judgment to discern what the Bible allows.
4) One thing I especially object to is the implied assumption there are only two economic choices: free enterprise or communism. This is absurd. “Regulation” is not even remotely the same thing as “communism.” Calling Democrats “communists” is just as wrong as calling Republicans “Nazis.” As a Christian, I believe in civil discourse, not name-calling and strident propaganda. And I have adopted, as my fundamental social position, the idea of “the greatest good for the largest number.” That does not mean favoring the poor over the rich, but it does mean following the teachings in the Book of James about not favoring the rich over the poor. I believe that current Republican policies do exactly that. It turns out that a “rising tide” does not lift all boats. In fact, the whole shift away from “demand-side” economics toward “supply-side” economics turned out to be a shift away from looking out for the overall welfare of society, and toward focusing on the good of the “suppliers” (business owners and investors). Republicans have been quite open about wanting to scale back, or even eliminate, social safety net programs, and I believe that their justifications for that are contrary to what the Bible teaches. I see the Evangelical opposition to social welfare programs as being equivalent to believing that individuals should do what the Good Samaritan did, but government should do as those did who just walked on past the injured man. I also believe that what social programs are doing is not so much practicing redistribution of wealth as they are combating the effects of the ungodly concentration of wealth in the first place.
5) As a general catch-all, when I see people point out some apparent bad parts of Democratic policy, I often agree completely. I do not think for a moment that Democratic policies (let alone individual Democratic politicians) are uniformly saintly. Neither party can be called a Christian party. I merely believe, on balance, that the Democratic party is the lesser evil, with policies that are generally better for the whole of society than Republican policies are.
And I believe that because of what the Bible says.
