Votes, Values & Voices at the SBC

Baptist Press has run an article in which several guys are quoted, one of them is me.  It's titled "Votes, Values & Voices at the SBC" and it's by Douglas Baker.  Doug interviewed me last Friday and was very thoughtful and conversational.  I think we have a lot in common. 

I'd love to hear your feedback.  I'll withhold my take until I read some responses.

Comments

[Joe Thorn]

Good words man.

I eagerly wait for someone to miss your point and argue with you about Jesus' voting habits.

Idiot #1 "Jesus wouldn't have voted at all! He would abstain!"

Idiot #2 "Duh, there was no voting for new emperors who were oppressing Israel."

Look everyone! ...there goes the point.

[Tim]

Hey, my pastor, Lee Tankersley, is also quoted in the story. Doug Baker's a good guy. I enjoyed the story and your perspective, Steve. While I agree that there are other important issues, I could never vote for a pro-abortion candidate no matter how strong he was on other issues.

I'm not saying I'd always vote for the pro-lifer -- in the Illinois Senate race last year (when I still lived in Illinois), I didn't vote for Alan Keyes because I didn't appreciate him carpetbagging the way he did. I didn't vote for Obama, either.

[Joe Thorn]

Just making conversation here, but I still think the issue of protecting life is more complicated than voting blindly for a guy who says he's pro-life. I am not a one issue voter myself, but even if I was I would have to ask...

"Is the pro-life candidate going to DO something to change the status quo? CAN he do anything? Does he at least have a plan to decrease the number of abortions?"

"Is the pro-choice candidate willing to put restrictions on abortion? Does he have a plan for reducing the number of abortions? CAN he do anything?"

If the answers to the PL candidate are, "No" and to the PC candidate, "Yes" might it not be worth considering voting for the pro-coice guy?

Don't say - "That never happens!" The point is even one issue voting is not as simple as people like to believe.

[Jeff T]

Steve, I thought you did a good job. Your interview is helpful to me because I consider myself to be very conversative politically. Yet, I am beginning to ask questions beyond just the abortion issue. It's still big one for me, but I would like to see the other issues addressed. Take for instance Social Sec. Who is right and who is wrong? It's difficult for me to know at times. What about Africa? It appears that President Bush is trying to do something. Again, people may question his methods. For me I appreciate your words because they give me something to reflect on as I prepare to vote in the fall.

[Tim]

Joe,

I agree that not everyone who says he is pro-life is necessarily all he or she is cracked up to be. I'm suspicious that some Republican conservatives carry the pro-life mantra in an attempt to woo votes from religious conservatives, but in reality don't want to see an end to abortion because it would mean they are no longer needed.

So, in that sense, if I thought a pro-choice candidate would do more to limit abortions than a pro-life candidate, I'd probably support him or her. But, I'm also suspicious about any openly pro-choice candidate who claims to want to decrease abortions. Guess I'm just skeptical and suspicious by nature, especially when it comes to politics.

It's a good thing our hope lies not in politics, but in the atoning death of Christ. Of that I am not suspicious or skeptical.

[Tim]

Another thought I wanted to post. Do you think the SBC is too politically-minded? I know political matters are important, but do they really deserve the attention the SBC has been giving them in recent years?

[Steve McCoy]

Tim, I think my concern is not that the SBC is too politically-minded. It's that the SBC is wrongly politically-minded. It's the approach that could be better.

As to one issue voting, I truly don't mean this as a put down to one issue voters but I think it's an easy way out of wrestling with deeper issues. Abortion is not just a sin, it's in a line of other "sins" and problems and issue that are connected. Everything from poverty to public schools to peer-pressure and a myriad of other things lead to people who want and have abortions. If I approach as a one-issue voter I may miss the forest for the trees.

[Tim]

True, but does that mean you'd support a candidate for office who's openly supportive of abortion and would do whatever he could to end restrictions on abortion?

I'm not trying to suggest that everyone should be simply a one-issue voter, and as I've said before, there are certainly other issues of interest to me. Abortion just happens to be primary for me.

[Alex]

I enjoyed the article - thanks for the link.

I myself do think that the SBC (and evangelicals in general) have become too consumed with partisan politics. I've even wondered why we have an ERLC. I heartily believe that we should engage the culture and be involved with it. But with that said, I fear that evangelicals (esp the SBC) are becoming just another special interest group whom candidates throw bones to during primaries.

I believe abortion is a great travesty, and that we should seek to vote for men and women who believe likewise. But our greatest efforts should be to invest in good pregnancy resource centers that do the hard work of counseling those considering abortion. We should be actively involved in adoption programs. We should show love and compassion to those in the crux of a difficult situation and decision. I think that would be Jesus' priority. He lived in a far different political system so it's tough to make an analogy, but he was very clear that he didn't seek political upheaval.

Again, I think we should engage in the political process and have a voice just like everybody else. But we err when we think that the way to "fix" our culture is through such political channels.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.... sorry so long.

[steven]

Thanks, Steve, for pointing out that even if one is a "one issue voter," that doesn't mean a straight line can be drawn from the pro-life or Republican candidate to the ballot. How about someone who is genuinely interested in reforming the systems that lead to abortions? Fair housing, a living wage, universal health coverage, equal funding of public schools, and urban economic development usually seem to be promoted by a group other than pro-lifers. Why?

[John Mark]

Steven, interesting comment. I think what you said shows that maybe pro-life voters aren't one issue voters. Many pro-lifers would be against many of the programs you offer as possible solutions to the abortion problem for a variety of reasons.

[Joe Thorn]

John Mark,

Pro-life voters, by and large in my experience, care about other issues, but those issues have little to no impact on how they vote. This makes the one-issue voters. Besides, most, not all, pro-life voters we're talking about are Republicans who wind up being less than cooperative on some of the issues raised by Steven. Just my thoughts.

And, as many scholars/pastors have said, one of the major problems we have in America is huge segments of the church (on both sides) have so closely associated the Gospel/Christianity with a particular political ideology, that is almost impossible to look outside of our traditions.

[John Mark]

I agree that believers often show more allegiance to political parties than to the church and problem solving. I'm trying to remember my election time stats, but I think evangelical women were 50/50 split Bush-Kerry. Evangelical men were something like 75/25. I think Rush Limbaugh and others have been highly influential on White evangelical men and Limbaugh rarely talks about abortion. Whether or not evangelicals should take their cues from Rush Limbaugh is another issue.

[John Mark]

Joe,
I started reading Resident Aliens today by Hauerwas. I think he says what you say in that second paragraph.

[Joe Thorn]

Yep. That's a book that makes a strong argument for the problem I summarized.

[danutz]

Is someone "Pro-life" if they want to outlaw abortion but they want to support war? I would call them "pro-birth" and "pro-death" as long as the birth's and deaths help enrich their own lives. Would these people still be against abortion if their wife was raped and became pregnant? Would they support a war if it meant their own financial livelyhood would be disrupted?

Maybe we should make a new category for "pro-anything-that-makes-my-life-easier-at-the-expense-of-others-and-anti-anything-that-makes-your-life-easier-at-my-expense".