Spiritual Perspectives


POLITICS AND MORALITY

Gary W. Summers

                A few days ago a political candidate for president said that he was in favor of abortion being legal right up until the time of birth.  Few are they who take such an extreme position, and it is distressing to even ponder that a person so lacking in character might be the leader of this nation.  Do not misunderstand.  A unique human being begins at conception, and a Christian ought not ever support a candidate of any political party who is in favor of it.  But even those who support abortion “rights” are not usually favorable toward it after the child has lived five or six months in the womb.

 

     Consider, for example, Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the baptizer, when Mary came to visit.  “And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1:41).  It so hap-pens that Elizabeth was in her sixth month at this time.  [This is not a guess; an angel related to Mary this fact (Luke 1:36).]  But there is more.  The movement in Elizabeth’s womb was not just a random baby kick; by inspiration (the Holy Spirit) Elizabeth affirms that upon hearing Mary’s voice, the babe leaped for joy (v. 44).

 

     Can a child experience joy in the womb?  So say the Scriptures.  The word in the Greek used of the baby in the womb is the same word that Luke the physician uses for the baby out of the womb in Luke 2: 12 and 16.  Yet some argue that a woman pregnant for six months should have the right to destroy that sentient being within her.  Who can give a human being the right to destroy another human being—particularly one who has never committed an offense of any kind—one who is totally innocent?  Man does not have the right to do so; a doctor does not have such a right, either. Even the mother does not possess any authority to commit such an atrocity.  Only God could make such a determination, and He has not done so.  Any political candidate who advocates abortion is dangerous to the well-being of this nation.      

     In the Old Testament, when Rebekah conceived, she experienced some inner turmoil; she inquired of the Lord concerning the problem.

 

And the Lord said to her:

 

“Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger (Gen. 25:23).

 

     The problem she was experiencing was that “the children struggled together within her” (v. 22).  The antagonism expressed against each other before birth represented what would later occur between the descendants of the two nations they would head: Israel and Edom.  Imagine, even prior to birth these twins were combative.  Babies are not merely “fetal tissue.”

 

     The word translated “children” in this verse is the same one used for “children” out of the womb hundreds of times in the Old Testament.  In fact it is the same word used in the oft-repeated phrase, children of Israel.

 

     Conclusions drawn about abortion that ignore Biblical facts such as these are either carelessly arrived at, or those who espouse such a view do not care what the Bible says.  How could anyone calling himself a Christian support someone for the highest office in this land who was willfully ignorant or just plain indifferent to Biblical morality! 

 

     How greatly has this country changed from the time of our founding fathers and the respect they showed to-ward the Word of God?  Now we are ashamed to have the Ten Commandments on display in a courthouse, the Bible cannot be read in public schools, and lawyers cannot cite Scriptures in a trial for fear that the case will be thrown out.  And we call this religious liberty?  How do such awful things occur? 

     One problem has been that Christians often fail to vote.  Some have advanced the notion that “Christians” should have nothing to do with politics—not even to vote.  They have reasoned that politics is a secular and nasty business that religious people should stay away from.  The idea is that we should not sully our hands and contaminate our thoughts with such matters.  Okay, this view is tempting, but what is the upshot of it?  Perhaps a significant number of voters stay home and do not vote for the candidate who might best uphold Christian virtues. 

 

     Another problem involves those who do espouse New Testament Christianity and who do vote.  But they help elect the man who will fight against the pro-life position.  He will also champion the homosexual agenda.  On what basis do they support such an ignoble person?  They do so because he belongs to their favorite political party.  Is it right to place a political group above Biblical morality?

 

     Suppose a person were asked to make recommendations about two individuals who had applied for a job involving competence with handling money.  One of them is foul-mouthed, takes the Lord’s name in vain, drinks alcohol often, and gambles.  The other is a very moral person who respects the Bible and tries to live a clean life.  Now the first guy described has a great personality, and most people really like him despite some of the drawbacks.  The second individual is rather quiet, perhaps even a little aloof.  Would it be proper for a Christian to recommend the first man, or does he not have an obligation to see that the second one is hired?

 

     On a grander scale, we want someone leading the nation who will respect the Bible and promote public morality.  Those—regardless of party—who publicly flaunt their disagreement with Biblical values should not be given serious consideration.  If those professing to be religious would vote the Scriptures instead of the party, more decent men would be in office.

 

     Some do not think that the person elected president matters, but his judicial appointments shape our country for years to come.  Eisenhower, when asked if he had any disappointments about his two terms as president, said one of his deepest regrets was appointing Earl Warren to the Supreme Court.  It was the Warren Court that could not define pornography, which opened the floodgates for the filth that now abounds.  They also made the decision to curtail prayer in public schools, as well as restrict the use of the Bible.  How much damage has come to this country because of that decision?  To Eisenhower’s credit, he at least acknowledged the error.  Liberal judges are appointed by presidents.  Periodically, we are all outraged to hear of some inane, idiotic decision of a court, but someone appointed those men.  The president nominates them, and the Senate must confirm them.  Thus, the legislative branch of our government is as important as the executive branch with respect to judicial appointments.

Religious Quackery

 

     Another candidate says he is religious and has “found Jesus” even though he supports both abortion and homosexual marriages.  Right!  Who do these politicians think they are fooling?  Sadly, a profession of faith from a politician is sometimes sufficient to garner votes—even when it is a meaningless profession.

 

     No one who supports abortion  knows enough Bible to be anything but dangerous; the one who sup-ports homosexual marriage must deny the  plain, obvious meaning of numerous passages of Scripture.

 

     God created man and woman in the beginning.  Jesus makes a point of this fact when stating that divorce is unacceptable to God (except for fornication) (Matt. 19:3-9).  The command God gave mankind was to be fruitful and multiply, which may explain why He did not create two men or two women.

 

     Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their homosexuality (Gen. 19:4-5), and the practice was condemned under the Law of Moses.  Paul said that men rejected God and embraced idolatry; in response God gave them up to “vile passions” to practice homo-sexuality, which is “against nature” (Rom. 1:22-27). 

 

     Jude cites Sodom and Gomorrah as “having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7).  God was displeased with the perversion of homosexuality.  He did not consider it normal, nor did He say that they could not help themselves because they were born that way.

 

     The punishment God gave to Sodom was that He “rained brimstone and fire” upon them (Gen. 19:24).  That event serves as brief display of the eternal fire that awaits all those who engage in this sin.  For someone to say that he is a follower of Jesus and supports homosexual marriage is ludicrous and an impossibility.  It is no different than saying, “I am a Christian, and I sup-port murder” or “I am born again, but I am in favor of stealing.”  Positions such as these are nothing more than what George Orwell termed Doublespeak. 

 

     Determining for whom to vote is an important and sometimes complicated decision; various considerations must be weighed.  Some may be intrigued by foreign policy, the economy, infrastructure, immigration, safety, and so on.  None of these is unimportant, but if a candidate does not respect human life or God’s institution of marriage, he does not need to lead this nation.  When all else is said and done, it is still true that: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Pr. 14:34).  Those who profess Christ should exercise their voting rights toward that end.

    

*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "Whatever the article name from above is (12/14/04)."

Return To Article Index