Partisanship and Christianity
November 21, 2020
In the recent months and even years, it has become easily recognized that there are “Christians” in both of the major political parties, Republican and Democrat. (See this footnote.1) I am sure that this is quite tragic since there are moral issues involved in our politics now. (We're not merely squabbling over the cost of bridges or how to pave the roads!) I have, in the recent past, insisted that we, the Lord's church, should not be dividing over politics – and I still believe that! – but there are some issues that have become “politicized” and never should have been. (“Life,” itself, should not be a political issue! It is a moral one.) In this brief article, I will 1) examine one particular issue, 2) demonstrate how this issue necessarily causes a “split” between us and 3) answer some objections to what I have previously stated.
First, allow me to state emphatically that abortion is murder. I make no apology for saying this. There are some that would attempt to reduce the weight of this charge, but it simply cannot be done. I simply do not have the space here to document the methods, the timing and the inhumanity about abortion; however, I might advise you to read for yourself about “vacuum aspiration,” “dialation and evacuation” and/or “dialation and extraction.” Even a basic, sterile, clinical description (as provided by WebMD2) pushes the reader to sense the villainy that exists within “abortion,” as the article speaks about “cleaning everything out” and giving a shot into the fetus to “stop the heartbeat.” I might ask the reader if he/she would think that we had finally found “life on Mars” if we found a heartbeat there? Certainly, it would be one of our biggest feats; however, finding a “heartbeat” within a growing baby in a mother's womb at 6 weeks is debated by some as to whether or not it actually qualifies as “life.” To say that this is merely “inconsistent,” would be quite the understatement.
An old argument once raised was that the baby did not feel pain until 12 weeks. (President Ronald Reagan had made a statement that the abortion process was “long and painful” for the baby.3 Several disagreed with his remarks.) This, however, was proven to be untrue. Various professionals were able to demonstrate how before 12 weeks the baby's skull was crushed with forceps so that the body could fit into the vacuum in a first-trimester abortion. Furthermore, filmmaker and producer, Bernard Nathanson (once an abortion provider) later changed his tune and became an anti-abortion activist, producing the film “The Silent Scream,” demonstrating that the baby, who has not yet developed a voice, is making cries and signs of extreme discomfort in the process of the abortion; he decided that the only way to silence the critics, who denied any discomfort to the baby, was by videotaping/photographing the event; the baby consistently backs away from the vacuum, while its heart-rate increases threefold, indicating that the baby senses danger and finally is sucked down a vacuum through which it would not fit.4 Naturally, there are some who still attempt to deny the discomfort of the baby in the womb during the abortion; however, the pain is not merely our concern here. Whether there is pain or not, it has already been openly admitted (in places all over) that the skull is smashed, the brain is stabbed and the heart is stopped. Abortion is murder.
Second, I might add that there are several “Christians” who identify with the Democratic party, but I will make several arguments to demonstrate why this is inherently flawed. It is worth noting that Planned Parenthood praises Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for their defense of “safe” abortions.5 It is no secret that “abortion” (disguised as a “woman's right to choose”) is a major platform for the Democratic party (at least for her major players). But, since the Democratic party endorses such, allow me to provide four arguments why one cannot be a Christian and endorse such.
First, I might ask, “What issue is most important to you on the ballot?” This was a question asked of me by a pollster before the 2020 Presidential Election. Allow me to state: There is no “issue” as important as the issue of human life itself. The point I am making is that gun rights, the economy, healthcare, taxes, etc., etc. are all dwarfed by the issue of human life. All of the above seek to improve upon our present “life” as we know it; however, the most important issue ought to be “life” itself. (How can one seek to “improve” on life, when “life” itself is not even supported? Democrats need to wrangle with this! How can they tell us about “improving” life, when they openly have a platform that seeks to destroy it?) These other issues simply do not compare to whether or not human beings even have a right to life. To argue for any “issue” primarily against the issue of life is selfish. Such seeks to improve on the “good” of only the individual and not society and ethics as a whole. Life, itself, is the foundation of our ethical system; shame on those (Republicans or Democrats) who vote with a different concern in mind primarily. Nothing is more important than the very notion of life.
Second, I might ask, “What would it take for you to be driven out of the Democratic party?” Would bullying, taxes, arrogance or anything else drive you out of the party? Would massive genocide drive you out of the party? If one is not yet driven out the Democratic party – a party that has supported abortion since Roe v. Wade, resulting in 59,902,500 murders6 – then I must say that his/her ethical “basis” is highly confused. (It is remarkably ignorant that I have had “Christians” tell me that they could not vote for Republicans because of their bullying or mockery – an ethical charge, I might add – while openly telling me that they voted for Biden-Harris, who openly support murder. I'll return to this comparison in my fourth argument.) I might ask, also, “Could one be a Christian and a Nazi at the same time? Could one be a Christian and a member of the Ku Klux Klan at the same time?” (“Christian” Democrats often object by saying that they don't support the abortion but only the other policies; this, however, is nonsense. How would these feel if I were a Nazi or a member of the KKK because the general or imperial wizard was my boss or for tax breaks or because my friends were members? Don't you see that the platform itself is embedded with anti-Christian ethics?!) Most Christians know that this violates everything about the way in which Jesus told us to structure the world. Similarly, it is because the platform is embedded with murder and/or a lack of the sanctity of human life that one cannot endorse the platform of the present-day Democratic party. This leads to my next point . . .
Third, there can be no separation of the Democratic platform (which openly supports murder) and the faces of the party. Here's a point: a man is only as good as his platform. Yes, it is true that I have voted for Republicans, in the past, who later “crawfished” on the issue of abortion. (Shame on them!) But, it is a platform – a policy – that one must vote for (not mere partisanship). See, a man is only as good as his platform. I can expect Joe Biden to support murder because his platform openly supports it; the platform is inherently problematic for the Christian ethic. The Republican platform openly supports life. (Sure, it has its fair share of goons, too – sure, it has folks that don't really believe in a “pro-life” agenda, but how would we know until they “come out” with it?) The issue really is as simple as this: one platform supports “life” and the other does not. I don't think that you should “vote for” a person (per se) on either side of the issue; you, as a Christian, must be voting for the ethics or the policy or the platform of the issues. (Again, I have heard of several objecting to Donald Trump's character; to this, I say, “Amen!” God forbid that my son be like him; his language is filthy, his marriage is unscriptural [as far as I can tell] and some of his insults are completely unbecoming of the kind of speech that Jesus honors. None of this, however, suggests a thing about his platform and policies. [He is an imperfect man with a perfect platform: life.] Again, I might add that it is very strange to see people making these kinds of “ethical” arguments while later voting for murderers to fill office.) And, this leads to my final argument . . .
Fourth, I'd like to ask a brief series of “T/F” questions. First, “True or False? Murder is wrong.” (Of course, you'll say “true.”) Second, “True or False? Lying is wrong?” (Of course, again, you'll say “true.”) However, my third question is this: “True or False? In our secular/human government, both 'lying' and 'murder' should receive the same punishment equally.” Everybody knows that this is “false.” (This is not to say that one action is more permissible than the other! In fact, both will/can cost one his soul for eternity! They are equally opposed to the character of God.) However, in governing society and by making “imperfect” judgments on how to run that society most effectively, everybody agrees that “lying” should not receive the death penalty by human governments. (This would need to be embellished much more fully in an “ethics” class; however, if that were the case, the human race would be extinct, I'd think. Each of us has lied before at least once, I'd assume.) My argument is this: when comparing the Democratic support of murder to the Republican support of life, it is easily seen that the Democratic party holds the most vile, anti-Christian platform – yes, platform! – and comparing scandals and sins of Republican politicians to the murder openly endorsed by the Democrats is no real comparison. (Again, this would need to be developed more fully.)
Allow me to summarize my four arguments before addressing a few objections . . . First, I have argued that “life” is the most important issue. I beg for any “Christian” Democrat to pose to me a rivaling reason that is of more importance than “life” itself. Second, I have argued that massive genocide should push Christians to abandon the groups that support such; the Democratic party has been guilty of supporting 59,902,500 murders since Roe v. Wade, yet there's something that pushes these “Christian” Democrats to speak against the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis, and I'm wondering why. (Or, are these groups permissible too? If not, why not? What if some only support “x” [a particular way of shaping a better world] about them but not their racism and murder? Sure, the speech of these groups may speak voluminously of “unity” and “peace” and “freedom,” but those elements in any of these groups are laughable when they support murder!) Third, I have argued that there is no possible way to support the major Democratic players from their platform; it is openly embedded with support of murder. Fourth, I have presented a comparison of “ethical” violations, demonstrating that some should receive governmental penalties to differing degrees (though God can/will judge them equally); justifying “murder” and the support of it because another party is comprised of flawed human beings is a radical comparison in human ethics; “life” is the base of our “ethics” and should be considered a greater/primary importance. (Finding flaws in others does not justify self.)
Third, in this last section, I seek to answer a few objections (briefly); some of the objections have already been raised and answered implicitly above and may even seem redundant . . . First, one might say that both parties (Republicans and Democrats) have issues and “commit sin.” Well, you'll find no objection from me on this argument. The platform of “life,” however, is not flawed and should be supported primarily; the platform of “murder” is inherently flawed and un-Christian. (I might ask, “Could I endorse the Nazis because the Jews didn't recognize the Messiah as Jesus?” I might ask, “Could I endorse the KKK on the basis that all other people are flawed too?) It is a policy issue; finding wrong in others does not justify our actions. My question for a Christian might be, “Why do you vote for the Democratic party?” I confess that I'd not be impressed on hearing these answers, and how will they compare to the thesis, “I vote for life”?
Second, one might specifically object to Donald Trump. I will add that you are not wrong by objecting to vote for Donald Trump; I know of no moral obligation to be involved in “politics” at all. However, it is astonishing to see people that “can't vote for Trump” vote for “Joe Biden” (who openly supports murder). I wonder, “On what basis?” Again, I would argue that there is no reason to vote for a Democrat that will surpass the need for voting in favor of the very ethical basis of our existence, “life” itself. Like it or not, the Republican moral platform (presently) aligns with the ethical platform of the Bible and Christianity; the Democratic moral platform is stunningly atrocious and “in the face of” everything about Jesus.
Third, one might argue that some Republicans support abortion. This is true. Shame on those candidates, and don't vote for them. It is important to endorse policy, not persons or personality. As of this moment, however, the Democratic platform openly endorses murder; the Republican platform (collectively) does not. But, to reiterate: don't vote for any candidate of any party that endorses murder.
Fourth, I have had multiple people remind me that “God reigns.” Well, so he does, but I'd like to unpack what this means in various contexts. Yes, it's true that God still reigned when all of the tyrants and the politicians held their positions in years of the past, but this is no warrant to vote for a candidate who willingly structures this world in a way that is completely opposed to God, His ethics and that very “reign” that He has! Sure, there are Christians who voted against the murderous platform of the Democrats on this issue and hold to this phrase with hope; that is how I feel also. But, there is a grand difference between that and the use of the phrase by those who voted for a murderous policy as though they can vote for whomsoever they may choose because God is going to reign anyway. No, this is no real justification. In fact, I could cite a hundred passages to you where Christians are under obligation to speak truth against this kind of “structuring” of the world – certainly, not for it! When Christians vote in favor of murder, they are attempting to undermine the very “reign of God” that the Bible seeks to reinforce. (Stop telling me that God reigns if you're one who voted for a policy that completely denies it! I'd hate to see the kind of “reign” that God would implement if it were styled after the manner of such folks. It can't be worth much!)
Fifth, one might say, “Drew, saying that you can't vote for the Democrats and be a Christian simultaneously might be a big 'turn off' for people and will run people away.” I hear this; I am not trying to “run people away” and hope to be as tactful as I know how to be. (I struggle here at times, I confess!) But, let me add that propositional truth doesn't care for our feelings – mine either! The Bible inflexibly states that liars, murderers, homosexuals, thieves, etc., etc. will not inherit the kingdom of God; now, I don't have much room to give on these propositions. While it may not “sit well” with us to hear that one can't be a Democrat (today) and a Christian simultaneously, let's remember that it is murder that is being disputed; we are talking about the very sanctity of life that is at stake. (And, in Hitler's day, should we have worried about offending those blonde-haired-blue-eyed Nazi Christians who thought we were too offensive? Or, what if we offended the imperial wizard when we said that one couldn't be a member of the KKK and a Christian?) If we continually worry about “offending” people, there will be no doctrine left in the Bible for us to preach! Forget who cares . . . Jesus reigns! – Now, that's a thesis that's controversial, but shame on me if I won't hold to it and all of its implications! (Additionally, I might add that I invite civil discussion and debate, but if one is a Democrat and doesn't want to engage on and think about the issue, then that's a problem, too. One cannot disagree, dislike the argumentation and then not engage in civil discourse and correct me if I'm wrong; if there is no reason to support, then abandon the view! If I do err here, please correct me and I'll retract.)
In conclusion, I have made four arguments (above) why a Christian simply cannot vote for the Democratic party. I invite discussion and correction (should I have “missed it” here). But, I might add a few personal remarks, since this “newsletter” is a journal for a preaching school.
Our preachers need to stop being evasive on these issues. We are not talking about whether or not to wear masks (a completely neutral/opinionated issue); we are not talking about whether or not to eat in the church building. We are discussing the very notion of “life” itself. I am fully aware of the desire to “take a middle ground” kind of position, where we speak neither for nor against either “party” within the political arena, and I am aware that we, as preachers, worry about our income and upsetting some of our contributors – God does reign, doesn't He?! – however, “life” is not a thesis where a Christian can take a “middle ground.” I am not here saying that you must have voted Republican, but let me be clear on this: you cannot be a Christian and vote for the Democratic platform as it presently stands. This is not based on gun rights, taxes, healthcare or any other “optional” policy that merely “embellishes” life; no, this conclusion is based on “life” itself. Yes, the KKK and the Nazis were wrong – objectively wrong! – and the Democratic platform finds itself right with them! – so, preachers, stop being evasive, stop worrying about upsetting people and start worrying about pleasing a God that created “life” and all of the colorful things about it. Let the chips fall where they may! Don't divide over political issues; divide over moral issues!
1I am using the term “Democrat” somewhat loosely in this article. I am assuming that every Democrat holds to the position that “abortion” (disguised as “pro-choice” is permissible and part of his/her platform. There may be a Democrat that still opposes “abortion.” If that is the case, then this article would not apply to such. I confess that I, at this moment (November 17th, 2020), however, know of no Democratic politician that opposes abortion as part of his/her platform; I do know of Democratic politicians who were recently “booted” from the party because of their conservative stance on “life” and the issue of abortion.
3Reagan, Ronald, Address to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, January 30th, 1984. Sheraton Washington Hotel. Washington D.C. <https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreagannrbroadcasters.htm> Article. Online.
4Nathanson, Bernard, The Silent Scream, 1984. Movie.
5Planned Parenthood: Biden v. Trump, <https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections/biden-v-trump> 2020. Webpage. Online.
6National 2019 Abortion Statistics, Right to Life of Michigan, Grand Rapids, MI. 2019. <https://www.grrtl.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/Abortion_US.pdf> Chart.
Subscribe to get scholarly articles and brotherhood news
I will never send you spam and it's easy peezy to unsubscribe at anytime.
© Copyright Drew Leonard 2019