30
Jul

Robbie Sagers’ pithy point about McLaren’s Voting Advice

   Posted by: Brady Martin   in Quickdraw

Add Comment

Here it is,

Brian McLaren gives the various factors he considers when deciding how to cast his vote. “And my understanding of environmental stewardship obligates me to ask what’s best for birds of the air, flowers of the field, and fish of the sea too. Since they don’t have a vote, I need to try to speak on their behalf,” McLaren says. Perhaps someone should alert Mr. McLaren–a supporter of Barack Obama for president–that unborn children don’t exactly have a vote, either. (Robert E. Sagers)

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008 at 9:03 pm and is filed under Quickdraw. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

9 comments so far

Brother Hank
 1 

Oh snap!

Good point Robbie.

July 31st, 2008 at 12:15 am
Paul Butterworth
 2 

Christians are called to be balanced people, speaking on behalf of all who are without voices. Thus, we speak for the unborn, for the oppressed and abused in Guantanomo, for the slain in Iraq, for the unreached and impoverished peoples of the world, and yes, for the birds and flowers.

August 1st, 2008 at 12:56 am
Brady Martin
 3 

The question I would pose to you Paul is, “Do you think that all of those are of equal priority for Christians?” Though we as Christians have many different concerns, is there a hierarchy of issues? For example would you more comfortable voting for a candidate who supports the right for women to have abortions or one who you might disagree on how to move forward in Iraq?

August 1st, 2008 at 2:24 am
Paul Butterworth
 4 

I do rank sanctity of life issues as of a higher tier, but I do not feel that they are a trump card. That said, I think that issues such as the Guantanomo prison are fundamentally sanctity of life issues too. Eric Redmond has challenged my thinking to that effect, pointing out that there are 10 Commandments, and abortion violates one of them.

August 1st, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Brady Martin
 5 

The problem with comparing politics to the ten commandments isn’t that we are not going to make dishonoring you father and mother illegal. We are not going to make Sabbath-breaking illegal. Dr. Moore makes a good point on the radio show,
-
“What would you say to someone that would argue as I would that getting together with abortion rights supporters and saying let’s reduce the number of abortions is something like a previous generation getting together with white supremacists and saying let’s find a way to reduce the number of lynchings.”
-
What I am getting at is that there is no great moral issue of our time that demands our attention more than that of abortion. In some generations it is slavery, in others civil rights. We as Christians should not have voted for pro-slavery candidates nor white supremecist.

August 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 am
Dee Rock
 6 

Brady,

I am curious and must inquire a hypothetical: A vote between two candidates with the first being anti-abortion with all his remaining policies diametrically opposed to Christianity and the second being pro-abortion but all his remaining policies completely in-line with Christian policies, who do you vote for if you must vote for one?

More tersely: Do you in practice hold that the abortion vote is what Paul called “a trump card” vote? It seems you would from “there is no great moral issue…than that of abortion.” By corollary with your pro-slavery point, I infer you would hold this to be a trump card issue no matter what other policies are involved?

Good discussion.

p.s. Reformation Heritage Books has the Calvin500 THEOLOGICAL GUIDE TO THE INSTITUTES on sale for $20. Retail is $35.99.

August 3rd, 2008 at 6:31 am
Brady Martin
 7 

Derek, while I appreciate the political dilemma that you are posing, I don’t think it provides the framework for thinking about pragmatic politics. Here’s why.

I think that you are saying that it is like two sides and you start marking down points on each side. I would imagine you might give 20 points for issue x and 10 points for issue B. One plots those down in line with what one feels the Christian position on those issues are. You tally up at the end and then make a vote. For the most part I’m in support of some kind system like this.

The problem comes to be with scoring. There is no “Christian” position on Iraq. There is no “Christian” position on gas holidays. There is no “Christian” position on drilling in Alaska. One might argue that certain policies would be better or worse within a Christian worldview for certain reasons. For example, one might argue we shouldn’t drill, because God is concerned with this world and we are to be proper managers of the creation. One could also argue that we should do that to provide a more stable economy because God care about economic equality and not drilling hurts the poor the most. I would even put homosexual marriage in this camp.

With that being said, abortion is a clear cut issue. There is a Christian position on it. It stands above the other issues. So again to my point, how do you score these things? I would say that abortion is significantly higher than the rest. However, I do concede your point that it would be theoretically possible that someone who was closely aligned with the Christian positions on 99% of the issues would be a better canddiate to vote for than the pro-life candidate. However, with most political issues being in the group of no clear Christian position on policy issues, I think this makes the hypothetical impossible and therefore not appropriate for us to decide our vote.

Heading to Louisville tomorrow,
Brady

August 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Dee Rock
 8 

Brady,

Thanks so much for your response; it will be great having you back in the ‘Ville. First and foremost, politics is one of the more, if not the most, complex arenas in which a Christian will do battle due to the complicated nature of most policies.

I am really at a juxtaposition as to where to begin with this post. I am not so sure that my hypothetical question fits into the bifurcation between what I would presume to be “ideal” and what you call “pragmatic.” This part of the discussion, however, I estimate to be periphery.

Instead, I am curious as to what you mean by “‘Christian’ position”? It seems that you import a great deal of subjectivity into the discussion, which I don’t necessarily think is wrong, but I would rather you explicate further what you mean by “‘Christian’ position” as opposed to me making incorrect inferences. I am having trouble grasping what you exactly mean by “…abortion is a CLEAR CUT issue?” (Emphasis mine.)

To further my question, what makes a political issue “clear cut”? More interestingly, I think it would be very helpful if you discuss why abortion in contradistinction with homosexual marriage is a clear cut “‘Christian’ position.” I find your contradistinction here so interesting because I agree that there is quite a bit of subjectivity in issues like the economy, Iraq, etc. which is compounded by misinformation and/or inadequate information from media, but with homosexual marriage, could you not contend it has a more moral objective foundation when evaluated through Scripture? Scripture’s sufficiency does not get in the in’s and out’s of 21st century foreign policy, but it does refer to homosexuality as an ethical issue in both OT and NT.

In conclusion, I believe that further explication on your part regarding these questions would be beneficial for the conversation here. I infer some oscillation in your methodology, but I believe this inference very easily could be in error upon your further clarification. Thanks a ton! pEace

August 4th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Darold Justice
 9 

y3ni2qrquf7g46re

November 13th, 2008 at 2:39 am

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URL
Comment
Back to top