Christian Life Commission

Some people just say it better than you can. Enjoy this timely piece by Scott Klusendorf, founder of LIT (Life Training Institute).

By Scott Klusendorf

The national election is still one year away, but pro-life candidates are taking heat right now on a number of questions ranging from Darwinian Evolution to political philosophy. They’re not alone. As the election draws near, rank and file Christians—both in the marketplace of ideas and in their houses of worship—will face similar challenges. Here are five questions every pro-lifer should be ready to answer as we approach 2012. 

1) Are pro-life Christians focused too narrowly on abortion? After all, informed voters consider many issues. 

Of course abortion isn’t the only issue—anymore than the treatment of slaves wasn’t the only issue in 1860 or the treatment of Jews the only issue in 1940. But both were the dominant issues of their day. Thoughtful Christians attribute different importance to different issues, and give greater weight to fundamental moral questions. For example, if a man running for president told us that men had a right to beat their wives, most people would see that as reason enough to reject him, despite his expertise on foreign policy or economic reforms. The foundational principle of our republic is that all humans are equal in their fundamental dignity. What issue could be more important than that? You might as well blame politicians like Winston Churchill and FDR for focusing too narrowly on defeating the Nazis, to the neglect of other issues. Given a choice, I’d rather pro-lifers focus on at least one great moral issue than waste their precious resources trying to fix all of them.¹ 

2)  Why don’t pro-life advocates care about social justice both here and in developing countries?

They do, which is why pro-life crisis pregnancy centers vastly outnumber abortion clinics in the U.S and why committed evangelicals, most of whom are pro-life, give more than their secular counterparts.² Nevertheless, pro-life Christians should reject the premise that because they oppose the deliberate and unjustified killing of innocent human beings, they must therefore take responsibility for all of the world’s ills. Is the American Cancer Society wrong to focus on one deadly disease to the exclusion of others? It’s highly unfair to demand that local pro-life groups take their already scarce resources and spread them even thinner fighting every social injustice imaginable. This would be suicide for those opposed to abortion. As Frederick the Great once said, “He who attacks everywhere attacks nowhere.” True, as defenders of human dignity, we should care about the poor, clean water, and the rights of others everywhere. But, the U.S. government is not going to solve those problems in developing countries the way it can solve abortion here. For example, our government can’t ban poverty or stop the sex trade of young girls in Thailand. That is the job of that nation’s citizens and government! However, the U.S. government can and should ban the killing of unborn children within its own borders. That is why prudent pro-lifers have always sought both moral and political solutions to that problem. While poverty and sex-trade are evil, no one in America proposes legalizing them. Abortion is different. Our government sanctions the unjust killing of unborn humans. Because ours is a government of the people, Christians have a fundamental duty to influence it for good. Shouldn’t social justice start in the womb?

3)  Why don’t pro-lifers oppose war like they do abortion?

War can be a moral evil, but it isn’t always so. Careful thinkers make distinctions between intrinsic (absolute) moral evils and contingent ones. For example, the decision to wage war may or may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances. However, the decision to intentionally kill an unborn human being for socioeconomic reasons is an intrinsic evil and laws permitting it are scandalous. True, a general in a just war may foresee that innocent humans will die securing a lasting peace, but he does not intend their deaths. With elective abortion, the death of an innocent human fetus is not merely foreseen; it’s intended. Problem is, many Catholics and left-leaning evangelicals are perfectly willing to support a political party that supports an intrinsic evil simply because its members promise to help us avoid contingent ones. This is bad moral thinking.

4) Instead of passing laws against abortion, shouldn’t pro-life Christians focus on reducing its underlying causes?

It’s irrational for liberals to say that we should work to reduce abortion by focusing on its underlying causes rather than passing legislation to protect the unborn. As my colleague Steve Weimar points out, this is like saying the “underlying cause” of spousal abuse is psychological, so instead of making it illegal for husbands to beat their wives, the solution is to provide counseling for men. There are “underlying causes” for rape, murder, theft and so on, but that in no way makes it misguided to have laws banning such actions. Moreover, why are liberals even concerned about reducing the number of abortions in the first place? If destroying a human fetus is morally no different than cutting one’s fingernails, then who cares how many abortions there are? The reason to reduce elective abortion is that human life is unjustly taken—but if that’s the case, then restricting the practice makes perfect sense. Indeed, a society that has fewer abortions but protects the legal killing of unborn humans would still be deeply immoral. Imagine a nineteenth-century lawmaker who said that slavery was a bad idea and we ought to reduce it, but owning slaves should remain legal. If those in power adopted his thinking, would this be a good society? True, politics isn’t a sufficient answer to injustice, but it’s certainly a necessary one. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “The law can’t make the white man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me.”³ Frankly, if Christians don’t think the government-sanctioned killing of unborn children merits a political response, then they not only misunderstand the moral gravity of the situation, but also their mandate to love their neighbor as themselves.

5) Should pastors challenge church members who support a political party sworn to protect elective abortion?

Yes and no. They should challenge believers and non-believers alike with the truth that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being—and that truth should impact which party we support. They shouldn’t claim that supporting a particular party or candidate saves us from God’s righteous wrath against sin. (Only the gospel does that!) Nevertheless, in a nation where the people are the government, Christians have a duty to limit evil and promote the good insofar as possible given current political realities. At the legislative level in particular (House and Senate), that means voting for the party that, though imperfect, will best protect unborn humans against one that sanctions killing them. The reason is simple: At the legislative level, political parties more than individuals determine which laws see the light of day. Consider the House of Representatives. If a party committed to elective abortion controls the chamber, it will squash pro-life bills and promote pro-abortion ones. Even if that pro-abortion party has a few “pro-life” members, those members will never get to vote on a pro-life bill unless their party is not in power! But it gets worse. These same “pro-life” members of that pro-abortion party almost always put party politics above moral principle when it comes to the most important vote they will cast—selection of the Speaker. Remember, the Speaker of the House ultimately determines the legislative agenda and if the party committed to elective abortion controls the chamber, its candidate for Speaker will inevitably be pro-abortion. Nevertheless, these “pro-life” members vote for their party’s candidate for Speaker, which all but guarantees that pro-life bills never see the light of day! In that sense, they aren’t reforming their pro-abortion party; they’re enabling it! Given that political reality, how should a pastor educate his flock on the relationship between politics and Christian morality? First, he should teach a biblical worldview affirming that all humans have value because they bear the image of their maker. Second, he should challenge church members to live out that biblical view in every area of their lives, including their political affiliations. Suppose, for example, that it’s 1860 and fifty percent of professing Christians in your church are members of a political party dedicated to the proposition that an entire class of human beings can be enslaved or killed to meet the needs of the White race. If you’re a pastor, is this okay? You might be sympathetic to new converts coming to grips with a Christian worldview, but mature Christians? Pastors can’t use church resources to endorse political candidates or parties, but they can (and must) teach that a biblical worldview informs our political behavior. Saying so is not wrong—it’s leadership.

Notes:

1. See Randy Alcorn (BMP Blog, 11/16/08) and Steve Hays (Triablogue, 1/30/06) for a fuller refutation of the single-issue objection.

2.  Helen Alvare, et al, “The Lazy Slander of the Pro-Life Cause,” Public Discourse, 1/17/11; See also, Arthur C. Brooks, “A Nation of Givers,” The American, March/April 2008.

3. From Martin Luther King’s speech at Western Michigan University, 12/18/63.