Child sacrifice as analogous to abortion

[This is an exerpt from a book I'm writing on social justice in the Old Testament.]

A study of child sacrifice in the Old Testament yields some basic lessons that Christians can apply to the modern debate surrounding abortion. The Old Testament repeatedly conveys God’s abhorrence of child sacrifice. God commanded the Israelites through Moses, “Do not give up any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech [a Canaanite god], for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.”[1] God says that child sacrifice is antithetical to true worship, and that the Israelites profane His name if they practice it while claiming to be His specially chosen people. Despite this clear command, the Israelites did eventually sacrifice their children to Molech. The author of Chronicles condemns various Israelite kings for sacrificing their own children and for allowing their subjects to do so. Later, prophets warn the Israelites against child sacrifice, reminding them of God’s command given in Leviticus. The command is clear, yet the Israelites repeatedly fall into this sin.

The Book of Jeremiah provides a glimpse into the possible motive for the Israelites murdering their own children—something contrary to nature. Influenced by their Canaanite neighbors, the Israelites had begun sacrificing their children to idols in the hope that they would receive good harvests or other favors.[2] [3] “They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind,” God says through the prophet.[4] To the Israelites in Jeremiah’s time, sacrificing their children was a way to make their lives better: relief from famine, victory over an adversary, or success in a business venture. It is too easy for modern-day readers to condemn the Israelites as bloodthirsty idol-worshippers. When they sacrificed their child to the gods, Israelite parents made a pragmatic decision that weighed the lives of that child against their own welfare or the welfare of their family. In the midst of a drought and looking at the child they intended to kill, many Israelite parents must have thought, “What good would it be for this child to grow up in our house if we have nothing to feed them?” Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the reader must assume these parents shed profuse tears of grief as their child burned.

By observing the issue of child sacrifice in the Old Testament and interpreting the relevant passages in context, Christian readers today come away with a message that is tremendously applicable to the modern issue of abortion. Although people today do not abort their children in sacrifice to a physical idol, they largely share the same motivations as the Israelites did in 600 B.C. To be generous, most women who abort their children, or fathers that urge an abortion, believe it will be the best solution to what is often an admittedly difficult problem. An unplanned pregnancy in today’s society can upset plans for college, family finances, or career aspirations. Weighed against these consequences, parents today may decide to abort their child—contrary to their natural instinct to protect and love a unique life bequeathed to them by God.

Christians who regard the Bible as the word of God cannot question the immorality of abortion: it is directly analogous to the child sacrifice in the Old Testament that God unambiguously condemns. Every human life is a sacrosanct gift entrusted to a natural family, whether planned or not, or convenient or not. But, Christians diverge when it comes to applying the teaching of Scripture in a representative democracy. Based on their understanding of God’s righteousness standard, Christians that adopt the “pro-life” position believe that they must do everything they can democratically, including peaceful protest, to minimize the number of elective abortions where the life of the mother is not in danger. Christians adopting the “pro-choice” position agree with biblical teaching that abortion is immoral, but they maintain that the government cannot legislate morality and that abortion is a personal matter for the mother to decide. Dictates of conscience, however, require Bible-believing Christians advocate the former position, as is argued in the previous chapter.

[This post is an excerpt of my work-in-progress book on social justice in the Old Testament. Feedback is welcome! More on Learning to Do Right.] 

---

[1] Leviticus 18:21

[2] We see an example of this motive in 2 Kings 3:26-27. With his army defeated and his capital besieged by the Israelites, the king of Moab offered his firstborn son on the city walls as a propitiation to the gods.

[3] These Israelites still worshipped the God of their ancestors, Yahweh, but saw nothing wrong with worshiping the gods of the nations that surrounded them as well. King Solomon set the precedent for this syncretistic worship several hundred years earlier. 2 Kings 11:4-5, “As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites.”

[4] On three separate occasions in Jeremiah, God emphatically denies that He ever wanted the Israelites to sacrifice their children. God told them that, if they sought His favor, then sacrificing their children would by no means induce Him to bless them. Jeremiah 7:31, above, and also repeated in 19:5 and 32:35.

"Standing in the gap" through democratic means

[This is an exerpt from a book I'm writing on social justice in the Old Testament.]

Throughout history, Christians have been at the forefront of social issues, advocating on behalf of the weak and oppressed, and doing what they could to right wrongs through peaceful means. More often than not, these Christians worked for good against established authorities and powers, just as the Old Testament prophets often stood against the rich and powerful on behalf of the poor and weak. In the New Testament, James provides one of the earliest examples of Christian advocacy of social justice. Citing the Law of Moses, James launches into a prophetic condemnation, typical of Old Testament prophets, of entrenched interests who exploit the working poor:

Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.[1]

This type of strident advocacy was sure to upset comfortable people who probably otherwise would have given little thought to their unjust business practices. Several centuries later, John Chrysostom, the famous preacher and bishop of Constantinople, used his pulpit to warn against the excesses of the rich and powerful in that capital city. Speaking on Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46, Chrysostom delivered a lyrically beautiful, but terrible message to the elite of the empire:

You eat in excess; Christ eats not even what he needs. You eat a variety of cakes; he eats not even a piece of dried bread. You drink fine Thracian wine; but on him you have not bestowed so much as a cup of cold water. You lie on a soft and embroidered bed; but he is perishing in the cold … You live in luxury on things that properly belong to him … At the moment, you have taken possession of the resources that belong to Christ and you consume them aimlessly. Don't you realize that you are going to be held accountable?[2]

John Chrysostom confronting Empress Aelia Eudoxia, a painting by Jean-Paul Laurens (1880s).

In speaking up for people who lived on the margins of society, Chrysostom earned the wrath of Empress Eudoxia. Unwilling to blunt his message, Chrysostom was soon banished to the Caucasus where he died from the rigors of travel and climate. Christians who disrupt the norm by speaking out against injustice can expect the same type of critical response today. While leading non-violent protests against segregation in Birmingham, Alabama, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was publically denounced by several Christian ministers who characterized his actions as too radical and disruptive.[3] In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. King responded, explaining the need for strident but peaceful advocacy on the part of Christians.

There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. … They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial combat.[4]

Writing from his jail cell, Dr. King argued that Christians must not stand by idly as witnesses to injustice. Besides civil disobedience, Dr. King relied on democratic means to effect change. Quoting Micah 6:8 in a later speech, he urged civil rights protesters to vote for God-fearing government representatives for the overall good of society.

Let us march on ballot boxes until we send to our city councils, state legislatures, and the United States Congress men who will not fear to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God. Let us march on ballot boxes until all over Alabama God’s children will be able to walk the earth in decency and honor.[5]

Dr. King’s sentiment is the same as the Apostle Paul writing to Timothy and the church at Ephesus:

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.[6]

Although Paul wrote at a time when Christians did not have the right to vote for their leaders, Christians living in democracies today can apply this advice to themselves first by praying for their elected government officials, but then also by praying for God to help the electorate decide who to vote into office and what policies to support or oppose. The renowned New Testament scholar C.E.B. Cranfield writes that Christians today can find guidance for their democratic responsibilities in verses such as 1 Timothy 2:1-4 quoted above, even though the historical context is much different than the situation for many believers today. Commenting on Romans 13:1-5, Cranfield writes:

The proper exposition of Paul’s words involves for the Christian living in a democracy the translation of them into the terms of a different political order. Such a Christian can, and therefore must, do much more for the maintenance of the state as a just state. His “subjection” will include voting in parliamentary elections responsibly, in the fear of Christ and in love to his neighbor, and, since such responsible voting is only possible on the basis of adequate knowledge, making sure that he is as fully and reliably informed as possible about political issues, and striving tirelessly in the ways constitutionally open to him to support just policies and to oppose unjust.[7]

Expounding on 1 Timothy 2:1-4, Cranfield notes that “the purpose of civil government and of the state in God’s intention is a purpose of mercy toward men,” specifically individual men, women, and children for whom Jesus died. [8] This scope of this mercy is not limited to a single country, but extends throughout the entire world. In each person in need of assistance, Jesus is present to be either honored or neglected. The realization that the government exists for the sake of precious people should cause the Christian to soberly consider his or her democratic responsibility. Measuring policies and legislation against God’s merciful purposes in government, Christians will remember that “persons are infinitely more precious than property.” In practical terms, this means the Christian voter will not limit his or her concerns to the local sphere, but will side with generous and unselfish policies that look to alleviate global hunger or ensure the personal liberty and dignity of those without a voice—“the underprivileged, the misfits, and the lame dogs of society,” as Cranfield puts it. And, while not a pacifist, in times of war the Christian will never forget that even the lives of the enemy are precious to God.

Social justice advocacy is not a replacement for the gospel of Christ. Certainly, Christians must transform society by promulgating the gospel of Jesus Christ, which leads to an inner change in people that is incomparably more effective than outward coercion. Yet, once the inward change takes place, spiritually reborn people will then become God’s representatives in society, speaking and working on His behalf. They have the same anointing, or divine authority, of Jesus, who came to preach good news to the poor, bind up the brokenhearted, proclaim freedom for the captives, release from darkness for the prisoners, and proclaim a day of vengeance for God against both spiritual and physical oppression.[9] Christians’ reborn nature compels them to take action for a more just society, the Bible guides them, and the Holy Spirit empowers them to do so.

[This post is an excerpt of my work-in-progress book on social justice in the Old Testament. Feedback is welcome! More on Learning to Do Right.] 

---

[1] James 5:1-6, where James echoes the law in Deuteronomy 24:14-15, “Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns. Pay him his wages each day before sunset, because he is poor and is counting on it. Otherwise he may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin.”

[2] On Matthew, Homily 48:8

[3] The U.S. Civil Rights movement led by Christians such as Dr. King may provide an example where the advocacy against injustice may have averted divine retribution. Although it is true that the movement stirred violence resulting in deaths, including that of Dr. King himself, it could be argued that the success of the civil rights movement avoided greater bloodshed and societal disruption. Had the Civil Rights Bill, Voting Rights Bill, and Fair Housing Act never passed into legislation, can anyone doubt the severe societal repercussions that would have followed?

[4] Martin Luther King Jr., April 1963, Letter From a Birmingham Jail

[5] Martin Luther King, Jr., March 1965, Our God Is Marching On!

[6] 1 Timothy 2:1-4

[7] C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary, p. 321

[8] This paragraph and the following quote drawn from Cranfield’s essay, “The Christian’s Political Responsibility According to the New Testament,” first published in Scottish Journal of Theology 15, (1962), pp. 176-192.

[9] Luke 4:16-21

Social justice in the Old Testament: Second and third chapters (in draft!)

I've finished the second chapter in my book on social justice in the Old Testament, and am half-way through the third chapter. Read both below, or my first chapter here.

If you have any experience self-publishing a book, including marketing, editing, and formatting tips, please share your best practices! My goal is to create something that I'll be proud of and that will add something to our collective understanding of God's principles of justice and righteousness, and the Christian role in advocating those principles.

The second chapter covers the motives for Christians to get involved in political advocacy; those being dictates of conscience and a desire for the general welfare of society.

Motive for Christian Political Advocacy

The third chapter begins an exposition of the social justice provisions in the Mosaic Law, notably stipulations governing day labor, harvesting, tithes, debt-cancellation, and the famed Year of Jubilee.

The Law God Gave to Moses

Chilling reading on eugenics and family planning

I stumbled upon this Google Books version of Margaret Sanger's The Pivot of Civilization, in which she lays out her case for "family planning" as a way to implement eugenics on a broad scale. She's the founder of Planned Parenthood and writes some really scary stuff about eugenics. (Check out chapter four on "The Fertility of the Feeble-Minded," for example.) It's frightening to realize how much of her vision has come to reality with legalized abortion. And, if proposed health care reform includes subsidies for family planning, her vision will be even more true. It's scary stuff.

John Piper on Obama's abortion views

John Piper gave this sermon after the Presidential inauguration, but I only heard this clip now. It's a tremendous hammer blow to me, because I did vote for Obama and am extremely saddened to hear that his healthcare proposal includes subsidies for abortion. I believe that goes against the word and spirit of his promise of working to reduce the number of abortions in America.

In this case, the embryos are my nephews

Some years before I arrived on this planet, invitro-fertilization (IVF) was the herald of a new Frankenstein-esque humanity and brought on many of the ethical debates now associated with embryonic stem cell research. But in the decades since, "test tube babies" have become commonplace. Wired News has started a three-part series about a renewed focus on IVF.

I have to say that IVF being controversial is relatively new to me. I have multiple family members who have children today due to IVF, or "fertility treatment." Fellow blogger Underground Logician first alerted me to what should have been an obvious logical impasse. As the Wired News article puts it: "If embryos are people, as anti-abortion activists argue, then how come so many of them are sitting in vats of liquid nitrogen in IVF clinics?"

Hm ... this is a tricky space, but I would like to point out that IVF is a proven technology that absolutely requires embryos while embryonic stem cell research is not only unproven for treatment of disease, but also can be done without destroying embryos. I'm looking forward to learning more.

Pre-natal testing and a perfect world

A recent New York Times article revisits the issue of pre-natal genetic testing and selective abortions. Advances in testing technology now allow doctors to know months earlier, and with far greater certainty, if a child will have Down Syndrome or not. In the near future, "lab-on-a-chip" technology will allow parents to conduct hundreds of screening tests quickly and easily at home. Testing is getting earlier, more accurate, and more comprehensive results.

So this brings up a host of murky, difficult, and somewhat eerie scenarios: insurance companies that refuse to cover "known" conditions, fewer disabled people in society, more disabled among the poor and uneducated, parents trying to determine how severe a condition they are willing to care for or allow the child to live with.

The article also gives some statistics about abortion rates for disabled, unborn children:

One study of 53,000 women's choices, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology in 2002, found that the termination rate ranged from about 1 percent for conditions that were classified as having no impact on the quality of life, to 50 percent for those considered to have a serious impact.

Women were far more likely to choose abortions for disabilities that have a high probability of affecting cognitive functioning. For conditions that have little or no impact on the quality of life but might require medical or surgical therapy, the abortion rate was 16 percent, but doubled for those likely to cause mental dysfunction.

As for Down syndrome, doctors estimate that about 80 percent of women who get positive test results choose abortion.

I must confess that even though I am staunchly against abortion, I can imagine situations that would certainly give me pause. I remember reading one Washington Post Magazine profile about a year ago about one couple who decided to carry to term a child who would not be able to live on its own. The parents deliberately decided to have the child die in their arms. Re-telling the story here makes it sound crass, but I cried when I read the article.

There are a lot of tough problems to be worked out in the coming years. Has anyone seen Gattaca?

New York Times plays Bible scholar

On November 13th, the New York Times carried an article titled "On Abortion, It's the Bible of Ambiguity," about "controversy" as to whether the Bible is against abortion. The article begins thus:

Flip to the back of any of the fancy, leather-bound Bibles that are so common in evangelical churches these days, and chances are there is an index. Called a concordance, it offers a list of specific words mentioned in the Bible and where they are referenced in the text.

There a reader can find, for example, how many times Jesus talked about the poor (at least a dozen), or what the Apostle Paul wrote about grace (a lot). But those who turn to their concordance for guidance about abortion will not find the word at all.

Fair enough. The Bible doesn't mention abortion specifically, but it certainly does mention child sacrifice to the Canaanite gods Baal and Molech. That was abhorent in the eyes of God. And why? Because those parents were sacrificing their children for selfish reasons, thinking they could gain something by doing so. And isn't that basically what abortion is about today? It's not as though there are not thousands of qualified families waiting to adopt. But people don't want to be shamed or inconvenienced by an unwanted baby.

But back to the point of this post, which was the absurdity of the New York Times playing Bible scholar. Really, did they think they could pull it off? The article made it seem as though abortion is a modern problem and that early Christian thought is not clear on the issue ... simply because the word "abortion" isn't used.

Aha. There I have something to add. In the Epistle of Barnabas, authored in Alexandria between 70 A.D. and 100 A.D., it says this:

Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born.

The same passage is again quoted in the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which is one of the early Christian writings I've been reading and where the abortion passage stood out for me. Anyway, you can read the Epistle of Barnabas for yourself here and the Wikipedia entry on that book here. The abortion verse is Barnabas 19:4.

Pauly, blogger and pastor, talks about abortion

One of my favorite Christian blogs, Beer, Barbecue and Bible study, is written by a house-church pastor down in Texas. Even though I've never met him, I really like the blog author, Pauly, cause he's "real."

In a recent few posts, he's addressed the issue of abortion ... no, not the political or moral aspects of abortion, but rather the emotional and spiritual implications for would-be parents. Pauly shares about his own experience:

25 years ago, I took part in a decision that separated me from the life of my unborn son. I can only imagine what type of young man he would be today. Sometimes when I mow the lawn or am doing work around the house, or on my car, I think how much I miss not having him here next to me, helping me, telling me about his day, learning from me, sharing jokes, or telling me his plans. The decision for abortion didn't seem like much of a 'choice' at the time. It seemed like there was no other choice. We were pressured by the doctor, society's view at the time, and the fact that we weren't married. It seemed like such an easy thing to do at the time, and I had no idea how it would impact my life for years to come ...
I think about my own decision, and I wonder what made me think I couldn’t go to my parents and let them know I needed help and advice. I think they might have been disappointed, but they would have been there for me, and helped me. They certainly would have encouraged me to be responsible and raise my child, rather than kill their grandson before he even had a chance to breathe.

Pauly's writings (you really need to read them yourself) emphasize again how important family and community are in preventing abortions. I hope that I will be able to be a brother, father, and friend that people around me can turn to if they are ever facing the decision to have an abortion or not. I think that, in order to avoid tragedies like this, we as the community need to make our positions known: We will love and welcome both the parents and the new baby, not condemn them. I can see how this would make for an excellent sermon, maybe I'll talk to my pastor about it.

Wrenching NYTimes article about the realities of abortion

I feel quesy after reading this article. It's a straight description of why and how more than 1 million American women (and girls) abort their pregnancies each year. Some excerpts:

Like many women at the clinic, Leah had conflicted feelings about what she was doing. "I always said I would never, ever have an abortion," she said. "I probably will regret it. I'm pro-choice for cases of incest or rape, but if it's your own fault, you should accept responsibility. And it's my own fault."

... an operating room supervisor, rinsed the blood off the aborted tissues for Dr. Edwards to examine.

You get the idea. As for commentary, I think these people are making the wrong choice. As difficult as it may sound, I believe human life should be protected, not destroyed. There are alternatives.

Secondly, families and communities deserve blame for having judgmental attitudes and stigmatizing unmarried mothers. Many of these women described in the article are worried about what their families and communities will think. What if they knew they had the full support of their partners, parents, churches, schools, and places of employment? Would that change their mind? Would that prevent them from making a choice many admitted they would regret?

"Embryos and fetuses aren't babies"

Liberal blogger Majikthise argues that pro-choice advocates will not be able to win public opinion without changing people's concept of motherhood and pregnacy. As one commenter on that post notes:

"The major problem, as I see it, is that expectant mothers form an emotional bond to the fetus, and publicly calling it a 'lump of tissue' won't win very many hearts and minds. The truth is that emotional attachment doesn't make the fetus human ... So how do you convince these people that their fetus is a cute and cuddly little ball of cells, but the woman who wants an abortion has a lump of tissue?"

Well, I would argue that the fetus' humanity ellicits emotional attachment. And the fetus' humanity is what differentiates it from a piglet, in reference to the comparison Majikthise uses:

"But if you're prepared to allow people to kill piglets for food, you should accept a woman's right to terminate a non-viable second-trimester fetus. Arguably, the piglet has a stronger claim to be left alone than the fetus. The piglet has a much richer mental life. It is a being actively engaged with its environment with unequivocal cognitive, affective, and social capacities."

So I think Majikthise has a really good point: unless pro-choice advocates can convince the public that fetuses are neither living nor human, the anti-abortionists will always have an edge in public debate.

Abortions are painful, physically and spiritually

This Reuters article, titled "Morphine fails to control pain in preterm infants," shows premature babies still feel pain despite medication, possibly because of immature drug receptors. It's not difficult to infer the consequence for babies that are aborted, even though their mothers may be insensitized.

This is a disgusting topic, and I know it doesn't make for a nice blog-reading experience. But ... how can one remain silent?

Via Mere Comments.

Democracy and tolerance

I'm sorry to have to keep harping on the same issues here, again and again. (I think I'll label these "roll-your-eyes posts.") But it seems very clear to me that many political liberals are unclear about the meaning of democracy and tolerance. Take, for example, this blog entry by Sarah Wildman over at the liberal mag American Prospect. She says Rick Warren's overtures to liberals concerning poverty would be great--if only he would relent on homosexual and abortion issues. Wildman attended the same Pew Forum talk by Warren that New York Times columnist David Brooks did last week, about which Brooks wrote an excellent column that I also posted on.
About Warren's focus on issues of cooperation, she writes:

But "branching out beyond the traditional issues of abortion and gay marriage, and getting more involved in programs to help the needy" is not the same thing as changing positions -- or even abandoning activism -- on the issues of abortion and gay marriage. Warren didn't want to be asked about these two issues, or even the death penalty. He only wanted to talk about poverty and disease. I admired the effort, and eventually understood why. His views on these issues make the alliance Brooks envisions very difficult; for example, when asked if members of his congregation would vote for a politician who favored gay marriage, he said "no" and added, "They're not going to vote for a guy who wants to marry a horse, either." Audible gasps all around. And a casual comment about "activist judges," sent a chill over the room. Finally, at its heart, The Purpose-Driven Life is a text directed at the followers of Jesus Christ. The rest of us, literally, are going to hell.
Yet Warren is intensely likeable. I completely believe that he wants to be a "new sort of evangelical leader," one that puts the focus on these points of intersection -- poverty, AIDS, disease generally -- but I'm not sure he has the luxury of abandoning these other issues. If Warren is a "new sort of evangelical leader," is he powerful enough to shift the conversation? Does he recognize, and does he reject, the potential tyranny sought by many evangelicals? Or is his theology at its core exclusionary and incompatible with a secular democracy? Is Warren willing to compromise to meet the goals of poverty reduction? Brooks seems to believe it's possible. I'm not so sure.

Basically, liberals such as Wildman find it incomprehensible that Christians view abortion as murder and refuse to acknowledge man-on-man or female-on-female relationships to constitute traditional marriage. She even finds it appalling that Christians believe in a heaven and hell! Yes, she is certainly welcome to her beliefs to the contrary and advocate accordingly, but can't millions of other Americans be accorded the same rights and still agree on poverty reduction? If you read her last few sentences, she makes it clear that one cannot work with liberals on social advocacy issues unless they are pro-choice and pro-homosexual marriage.
It seems someone's ideology is exclusionary and incompatible with democracy, but it's not Warren's. Duh.

National Association of Evangelicals calls for balanced Christian politics

This is great news! MSNBC.com reports that a new declaration from the National Association of Evangelicals clarifies Christian political stance, and especially distinguishes itself from right-wing conservative and business interests in areas like employment, labor, housing, health care, education, human rights, racial equality, and the environment.

The NAE document, “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility,” was the product of three years of work. It was created by two dozen scholars who bridged the spectrum of conservative to liberal evangelical thought encompassed by the organization’s 45,000 churches, which represent 52 U.S. denominations. It was released in March for general distribution with a book of essays that expanded on its seven main points.
The statement is a diplomatically worded synthesis that reaffirms evangelicals’ traditional opposition to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, pornography and “sexual libertinism.” And it urges evangelicals to remain deeply engaged on those issues.
But “evangelicals have failed to engage with the breadth, depth, and consistency to which we are called,” says the statement. It was signed by nearly 100 of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders, among them James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family; Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; David Neff, editor of Christianity Today; Charles Colson, president of the Prison Fellowship ministry; and the Rev. Rick Warren, author of the best-seller “The Purpose-Driven Life.”

Introducing politics into the church?

When in a pub, there are two groundrules for discussion: no politics or religion. The only thing more divisive than politics or religion is politics AND religion. Take the as-we-blog showdown now occuring in Congress, where Republicans and Democrats are ready to tear the place apart over what is basically an abortion argument veiled as whatever else. If it weren't for the judicial nominees' stances on religious-associated issues, this would still be a big issue, but not one described as "nuclear."

I don't think there's really any other way around this issue, however. After all, isn't the president supposed to nominate and then congress vote to approve? So what's the hold-up?

But while this nasty scenario may be unavoidable in the political realm, it would be especially tragic to see it play out in churches, as recently happened in North Carolina, where a church has split over political issues.

That's why I'm torn over the proposed Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, which is current supported by more than 165 House Representatives. If made law, this bill would remove IRS restrictions on tax-exempt religious organizations regarding political endorsements. The bill was recently changed so that it doesn't cover radio and television broadcasts, so it's not like you're going to see advertisements by religious leaders during election time (thankfully). But it would mean pastors can tell members they should support a particular candidate, rather than an issue.

My view is that the bill should pass because it's a question of free speech. However, that doesn't mean I want political campaigning in church. Rather, I think pastors should be free to mention names without censoring themselves, but do so in a way remembering they do not speak for themselves, but speak for God. Just like prophets in the Old Testament got into trouble when they made up specific words from God, pastors today should be careful about exceeding the bounds of Scripture.

Also, while you can't be expected to avoid religious discussion in church as in the pub, the rule on politics is a good carry-over, I think.