Posted by & filed under Uncategorized.

There is no doubt about it—politics is polarizing. Perhaps that is why I’ve been reluctant as a pastor to say too much about candidates, elections, and how to vote… other than that we should vote. However, this year is going to be different because I’m going to tell you who I think you should vote for. Not only that, I’m going further—I’m going to tell you who I think biblically you should vote for. I know that sounds bold, maybe even a bit pushy and presumptuous, but bear with me.

Consider the “Father” heart of God.

God is often called a “Father” in Scripture. This form of address speaks to His desire to oversee a large and diverse family, His steadfast love, and His all-encompassing goodness. We see this “Father” heart—even for wayward children—in the Story of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). The psalmist even says God is “father to the fatherless” (Psalm 68:5).

Let’s ask, “Who might God be for in 2016?”

Luke records that Jesus’ public ministry began with Him quoting the prophet Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has anointed me to bring Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the oppressed will be set free” (Luke 4:18). This Scripture clearly indicates that God is for the weak, the powerless, and the vulnerable.

This most vulnerable group of people will number about 1,000,000 in 2016.

Approximately 1,000,000 children will be aborted this year in the United States. Since 1973, this group numbers over 58 million! They have no voice, no vote, and no protection unless we vote for them. Let me be clear: in the church we can debate over poverty solutions, immigration policy, ISIS, taxes… and Christians can love Jesus and disagree on these issues (without being disagreeable). However, as best I can tell there is only one issue that has black and white biblical clarity: God values all human life from the moment that life is conceived and all life is stamped with the dignity of bearing the image of God; therefore, God is for life. Now, I understand some will argue that a fetus is not yet a human. However, can we really define at what point in the developmental process a fertilized egg moves from “non-human” to “human”? In reality, that point is defined by the choice of the mother isn’t it? If a woman who is trying to get pregnant finds out she is now expecting a few weeks or a few months after conception, she believes what is growing inside her is a human—full of value, dignity, and potential. She looks forward to raising that child. However, if the woman who did not intend to get pregnant determines—for a variety of reasons—she does not want or cannot raise the child, then she can legally choose abortion because what grows inside her is “non-human.”[1] Either way, the woman is allowed to make this determination of personhood, under the legal justification that her right to privacy is worth more than the child’s right to life. But hasn’t God humanized His children from before He created the world (Ephesians 1:4), which certainly includes from the moment of conception (Psalm 139:13)? Therefore, the unborn child is not tissue or a fetus or a mistake; the unborn child is God’s will.

To the mothers who may have had abortions, God’s will is equally clear: He loves you.

  He will forgive you in Christ just as in Christ your child is precious and eternally with Him. In Christ one day we will be reunited with the millions of unborn who were taken from this life and marvel at the grace and power of God. But until that day, we must pray and labor for His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. So before you vote in the 2016 primaries and the general election in the Fall, make a commitment to vote for the voiceless lives that have no protection under our current laws—yet they still are made in the image of God. (This is part 1 in a series of posts on abortion and the election.)   [1] Most studies indicate that women having abortions do so because pregnancy would interfere with work or school; inability to afford the costs of raising a child; or lack of support/involvement from the father.

Comments are closed.