Voting Like a Christian - 4
I posted a couple weeks ago about the role that abortion is playing in Pennsylvania during this presidential election. In reading the article, I was reminded by how odd it is to me that this issue is completely off the table in Canadian politics. More remarkable still, it has basically been off the table since Canadian abortion laws were ruled unconstitutional 20 years ago. My Christian friends who were raised in the US are completely floored when they learn that of the 5 federal political parties in Canada, not a single one of them is opposed to unlimited abortion rights. In fact, the Conservative party (who would be most likely to take a dissenting view), at it’s inaugural party convention, adopted a resolution pledging that a Conservative government would not put forward legislation on this issue.
So, south of the border, voters have struggled with this issue loudly, publicly and without pause for 35 years. A lot of smart people say that the last two elections were decided on this issue. Yet, here in Canada, there is a completely different story. On the surface, it would appear that either Christians in Canada don’t take the issue seriously, or the church in this country is so poorly engaged and politically ineffectual that not a single political party is convinced that there is a benefit to opposing abortion. It may also be that Canadians are disquieted by the division and polarization they see in the US and want to avoid something similar here.
Actually, I think there is a different thing at work. I think that far more Christians in Canada don’t think it is the government’s job to solve the problem of abortion by waving a magic legislative wand. Rather, I think that there is a lot more emphasis on the idea that if the church wants to eliminate abortion, she must start offering positive alternatives: pregnancy counseling, adoption services etc. It may be that the church in Canada has decided to focus on making a difference in the lives of individual women who are struggling to decide what to do in the face of an unwanted pregnancy, rather than making a difference in the acrimonious world of politics.
There are exceptions to this and there are certainly very active pro-life political advocacy groups in Canada. Yet I think it is a fair statement that the overwhelming proportion of the energy expended by pro-life Christians on the issue is directed to non-political initiatives.
With this in mind, here are a couple of links to some American Christians discussing the issue:
- Tony Jones recently posted his thoughts on supporting Obama and the abortion issue. He says some things similar to what I described above.
- Over at Culture11.com, Mike Hall responded to those who think like Jones on the issue, attempting to bring them up short.
UPDATE:
Here’s a piece by a retired Catholic priest related to the post above:
One’s conscience is one’s own. Ultimately, we live and die as a unique person if we are true to our own conscience. While we seek input from sources outside of self, in the end we have to decide for ourselves. Following the conscientious decision of another is not necessarily being true to self.
The present tilt of the American bishops to intimidate Catholics against supporting Democratic candidates by implying that they cannot possibly have a well-formed conscience undermines the individual’s right to act according to one’s conscience. It usurps God as the ultimate judge.
Thoughts?
6 comments
These days, I am only able to skim blog posts, so I have only been superficially following this little series. I agree with you on the matter of Canadians not expecting a legislative magic wand to wave on the matter of abortion. In fact, I think it is more effective and helpful for the church to provide positive alternatives to women in difficult situations. I have the controversial opinion that abortion should remain legal, but that it is imperative that church work very hard in providing support, as women usually seek abortion due to the lack of it in their lives. But that is an entire blog post in itself…
Hi there,
In this regard, I feel that the issue of abortion demonstrates how further Canada is ahead on the secular humanist curve than our American neighbours. We’re more open about legalizing pot, we offer pro bono prosecution services to the gay community via the “human rights” tribunals against any openly opposing viewpoint. It is, in fact thoroughly politically expedient to NOT raise the issue of abortion since it would be 4-liberal opposing federal parties thrashing the Conservatives…to the Tory’s political peril. I don’t believe that the rank and file are comfortable with as an acceptable Canadian lifestyle choice.
No, this is at best ambivalence en masse. It is a national disgrace that we could care less about the rights of the unborn and that we as a nation at the first sign immediately attempt to quash any discussion about the matter because it is “divisive”.
Canada is not to be commended for this. It should be ashamed that it does not aspire to stop infanticide.
In fact it is the various bible-based chapels and assemblies that are engaged at the grass-roots level in areas such as pregnancy crisis centres. There is very much a great activity at work.
Let us hope that we find the courage to rise above this national horror. As a nation we must come to the place where abortion is the most repulsive of options and engender greater respect for the sanctity of life.
Max,
Thanks for the comment. I can’t really accept your link between human right’s tribunals and criticism of homosexuality - that line of argument is neither fair nor particularly accurate. However, on abortion I’m with you regarding widespread and dissappointing ambivalence. To be honest, I fit into that category more than I would like.
I guess I’d say that one of the things I was trying to do in this post was to distinguish between “working to end/reduce abortion(s)” and “making abortion illegal.”
Whether a person is Christian or not, my experience has been that most people think of an abortion as a bad thing (something not to be encouraged).
So with that in mind, I wonder whether the strategy pro-life Christians in Canada seem to have taken is appriopriate. Does opposing abortion demand working to make it illegal? I know many people who believe that it does not, and I know many who believe that it does. To be honest, given that we live in Canada, it would be easier if we could continue to let ourselves off the hook, I’m just not sure that we can.
That’s why I linked to Tony Jones and Mike Hall, one of them belives that working for legislative change is necessary and one of them does not.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to engage.
Perhaps we can have a sidebar on your disagreement with my statement about CHRT and recent judgments.
Here’s my two cents: the church of Jesus must always press for legislating against abortion. It must lobby, foment, and protest vigourously against abortion. We must persistently plead and press it the same way that Wilberforce pressed against slavery. An apt comparison if you ask me. Pragmatism, the likes espoused by Tony Jones is untenable and it simply will not work. And besides that, it’s gutless and cowardly.
That said, abortion will continue. Mostly as means of eradicating mistakes of promiscuity. The tired canard of incest, rape and saving the life of an imperiled mother keep being recycled. But we really know the reason. Ultimately it’s sin and the depravity of the sin nature. Notions themselves which are met with derision and division. Nonetheless, biblical and warranted. Only Jesus can change us and this issue. His people must deal in love and kindness, but not with acceptance.
Max,
I’d offer two points:
(1) The Wilberforce example is interesting because in that case legislative change only came after decades of social change. Wilberforce and the Clapham sect worked hard to change the opinions of the common people, through boycott campaigns, through petitions, through pamphlets and books. It was only after a substantial and widespread shift in public opinion that substantial legislative change was achieved. I would also mention that through that process, they were often labelled traitors (particularly during the war with France) - not unlike the modern reaction from those enforcing a narrow political correctness.
(2) I feel as though when the church steps into the public sphere, the means at her disposal are subject to the example of Christ. I mean that it isn’t enough to be pursuing worthwhile ends (i.e. reducing abortions) if the means being utilized are not consistent with the ministry of Christ. I think particularly of the passage in Philippians 2:
“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
The means of Christ’s victory was weakness, vulnerability and humiliation. I don’t think we should be surprised then, when as Christians we find ourselves in similar situations. This idea raises a certain hesitancy with me when I hear Christians speak of the pursuit of power, even when it is in the service of a good end.
Finally, the Church has successful defeated abortion once before. It was very common in the Roman Empire to leave unwanted infants to die of exposure at the edge of the city. In the first 2 centuries of the church’s life, Christians would go around the city at night and collect the vulnerable infants and raise them as their own. Over time, it was the unprecedented fruitfulness of Christians who basically outbred the alternative philosophies which lead to the dominance of Christianity in the West. To my knowledge, in that first victory against abortion, the church did not require a single legislative change in order to triumph.
Thanks again for the debate. I’m curious how you found my little corner of the internet.
Michael,
Thank you for your thoughts. I keep my eye on the latest hijinx and such over at Tony Jones’ site. By now you’ve gathered that it’s not because we share a common theology. I saw your comment posted and the byline intrigued me. I am not talented in word or thought, so in most cases I’m a drive-by (troll) commentor.
You make points worthy of further investigation. As it’s your blog you indeed should have the final word.
Soli Deo gloria
Leave a Comment