Greg Boyd writes an interesting piece on Christianity, politics, and abortion, with the purpose of providing insight on how the Christian can engage politically, with social tact, to achieve the most productive kingdom outcome. Boyd is extremely pragmatic, which is not always a bad thing, in my opinion, but I also know that the ends do not always justify the means, and pragmatism is a slippery slope into this fallacy.
I first read the article, Christians, Abortion, Politics, and the Kingdom of God, after reading a few reviews of Boyds work by another blogger. I wholeheartedly agree with boyd that Christians often go about politics in a happhazard manner, letting one key issue (in this case abortion) trump all others.
Boyd's solution in this article is to compromise, which isn't easy for him...as he states, he "abhors abortion." Here is Boyd's compromise:
With this compromise, Americans might be able to agree that all second and third trimester abortions should be outlawed. Moreover, with this compromise, Americans might be able to move beyond their polarized positions and rather work together to accomplish what the vast majority of Americans want: namely, a country in which abortions are as rare as possible and late term abortions non- existent. In my personal view, the best political approach to complex issues, such as abortion, is one that capitalizes on present agreements to resolve present conflicts. This of course requires people compromising on both sides to expand their area of agreements, but shrewd compromise is what politics has always been about. In my personal, humble, non-kingdom, political opinion, my proposal does this.Boyd, while wishing that abortion did not merely exists, desires to minimize abortion, and at the same. What do you think? Is this too narrow? Does it limit the ability and goodness of God (God isn't powerful enough to completely end abortion). Certainly Jesus did say his followers would be despised because of him, and quite often, outspoken Christians are ostracized, ridiculed, and regarded as narrow minded hat mongers. But, keep in mind, Boyd is cautioning against forgetting the issues.
In a different piece, Boyd suggests that the underlying cause of abortion is poverty, and that perhaps a Christian voter should steer their vote toward a candidate that is focused on eliminating poverty. This toppling domino would thus eradicate abortion (ideally, pragmatically). I disagree. Statistically, abortion percentages and income climb together on a statistics chart (women with more money have more abortions).
So was boyd right? Would Jesus want us to compromise, keeping in mind that theory of such a compromise might lower the abortion rate in America? Or is Boyd altogether wrong...is pushing for the criminalization of abortion not only feesible, but the most critical plank in any candidates platform, more worthy than other issues like poverty, aids relief, etc. I personally give the American Christian Voter more credit than Boyd. I believe that the majority of Christian voters are not so singularly minded as they approach the poll booth.
Contact me via email for more stats on abortion and to dig deeper into my own personal opinions on the questions posed in this post.
