Single Issue Voting
As this election cycle has continued, I have (admittedly) been persuaded to look again at my convicitons and at which candidates most closely represent my greatest concerns for our country. As I posted last week, we should absolutely vote as though we were not voting, but we still ought to vote nonetheless (and be informed in doing so).
The charge of “single issue voting” has stung me particularly hard, as I have often times in the past identified with most Evangelical Christians in my desire to see the fight for the lives of the unborn as a fundamental issue that must be shared with someone I am willing to vote for. The question has been raised, however, “What if that person disagrees with your economic philosophy, view of war (and just war), understanding of other human rights, etc.?” So, I have begun to wonder if (while never relinquishing it’s importance to my heart) I ought to be a little less rigid in using a candidate’s views on abortion as a litmus test.
Fortunately, there are people in this world much smarter than me, who have thought about these issues far more than I have, and who can help to remind me of why an issue like abortion is so important to me in the first place. Al Mohler is one of those men (to say he is much smarter than me is a gross understatement). He recently wrote a blog asking the question, “Is the Abortion Argument Changing?” In doing so, he reminded me that we are not simply fighting a battle to preserve a culture that reflects our Christian beliefs (which is not one of my top priorities), but we are fighting against the oppression and destruction of people created in the image of God who are too small and helpless to have voices of their own. Here is a powerful section from the article:
I can understand the desire to reset the equation, to transcend the tired divisions. I can even understand the desire to move on, to go on to other issues of great and grave concern. I can sense excitement about a candidate who represents generational hope, and whose election could do so much to heal racial lines of division.
But I just cannot get past one crucial, irreducible, and central issue — the moral status of those unborn lives. They are not mine to negotiate. If abortion were a matter of concern for anything less than this, I would gladly negotiate. But abortion is a matter of life and death, and how can we negotiate with death? What moral sense does it make to settle for death as “safe, legal, and rare?” How safe? How rare?
Our considerations of these questions will reveal what we really think of those millions of unborn lives. Do we consider the battle for their lives permanently lost?
Those fighting for the abolition of slavery pressed on against obstacles and set backs worse than these because, after all, these were human lives they were defending. What if they had listened to those who, after Dred Scott and the Missouri Compromise, said that the battle was “permanently” lost? What if they had been intimidated by critics accusing them of “single-issue” voting?
