Saturday, March 01, 2008

Evangelicals for Obama?

Douglas Groothuis: "Obama has repented of one good thing he did in the Senate: voting to save Terri Schaivo's life. Read this story for the details. Is this the kind of 'change' we want: the killing of the innocent at both extremes of life: the unborn and the disabled?"

I know that some evangelicals are contemplating voting for Obama.

But let's keep in mind that the National Journal rated Obama as the single most liberal senator in the U.S. for 2007, and that he is considered to be the most pro-abortion presidential candidate--ever.

Many argue that (1) presidents can't do that much about stemming the tide of abortion, and (2) there are other positions besides just abortion that evangelicals should be concerned about.

Both points have some truth to them, but I would encourage fellow evangelicals to consider a couple of helpful responses by Joe Carter:
Update: Michael Patton asks some good questions of emerging Christians:

If we have a respect for intrinsic human dignity—the imago dei in all people—which motivates us to provide a voice for the poor, for those discriminated against, and for Aids victims, how much more do we have the obligation to speak for the unborn? There are over three thousand children who are aborted each day in the United States alone (over 40 million worldwide). That is more than who died in the world trade center bombing.

Isn’t it hypocritical and imbalanced for us to speak with 10 decimals about the environment, the poor, and aids victims, and speak with only a hesitant whisper, if at all, toward the dying unborn who are being scraped from their mother’s womb?

Are you so disenchanted with a Republican agenda that you neglect these little ones for fear of being identified with the religious right?

If so, wouldn’t this neglect through disenchantment evidence an irresponsible and, indeed, sinful reaction that is totally inconsistent with the missio dei?

Even if we have, as of yet, not been able to do anything about abortion (which I do not concede—read Beckwith’s book), does this mean that we silence our passions and lay down our political arms in a democratic society where the people are the government?

Here is some more difficult questions:

Do you think slavery should have been abolished (or could have been) through a gentle appeal to the mass public to do what is right at the same time as keeping it legal?

Should we given up on the abolition of slavery because for hundreds of years political activists were not able to do anything about it?

Do you think that it was right, in hindsight to have gone to war over the issue of slavery?

If so, would you support such a war—a civil war—over abortion. If not, why not? What is the difference?

Do you, as an emerger, believe that life begins at conception? Or are some emergers—social emergers—uncertain about when life begins? Is this why you don’t speak about it?

If you don’t speak to this issue, do you really expect people to listen to you about others? Why? Sometime silence can speak louder than words. In other words, there is a message in silence.

Read the whole thing.