President Obama: a Christian Response

I said before the election--well before it--that I believed Obama would be an "apocalyptically bad" choice for president. He's now president anyway. But I'd like to explain my use of the word "apocalyptically" and explain how to respond to the current situation.

Actions have consequences, and in my next post I'll go into why I think the current president could lead to the destruction of the country. For now, I'll sketch the current situation for those who may not have been paying attention.

While the president does have a number of frankly disturbing traits--especially his tendency to stifle dissenting views--I admit that his stance on abortion particularly troubles me. He was one of the only senators who thought it should be legal for a doctor to reach into the birth canal, reposition the baby to come out head last, and then punch through the skull and brain at the last moment, killing the child. This is also known as "partial-birth abortion"; it's probably the most obviously evil form of abortion there is. It's also the least justifiable, because under virtually any imaginable circumstances, it's more invasive and dangerous to the mother than simply giving birth.

Yet the current president supports it. He also opposed keeping alive any kids who might survive an abortion.

On the other hand, he is the president, and as Christians we are to subordinate ourselves to the ruling authorities.

So what do we do?

To begin with, we need to repent. It doesn't bother me quite so much when the unsaved do something stupid; they're rebelling against the omnipotent, omniscient, and loving God, so they can't be that bright anyway. But when we act the same way, that's frightening. I confess that I did not deal with the election properly from a spiritual standpoint; in general, I think we did too little too late. And if you voted for killing the unborn, well, you have some repenting to do as well.

Then we should pray for the president. As we read in Proverbs 21:1, "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases." God can cause him to act better than he is, and that is likely our only hope.

I also think it is reasonable and righteous to ask God to send the curse of Babel on his enemies: whenever there is an attempt to enact some wicked law or policy, may God bring confusion and division upon his enemies. This does not involve sedition on our part, and certainly no violence or even threats. Leave it in God's hands. But asking for him to bring strife upon the ungodly has a very long biblical pedigree.

Next up, my justification for invoking the apocalypse.

Single-issue voting

Some people act as though it's horrible to vote based on a single issue, especially if it's abortion. But let's consider that idea carefully.

Suppose there is a candidate whose views and policies you agree with almost 100%. On practically every issue, this candidate is perfect. However, the candidate believes that all Jews (Blacks, Asians, handicapped people, whatever) should be deported or shot. Do you still vote for that candidate?

If you would, then you're like a lot of people, even self-proclaimed Christians, who will vote for someone they supposedly disagree with on a major issue because they believe that the good outweights the bad. But in some cases, a single evil can--must--outweight any amount of good.

I expect some will cry foul, however. After all, how likely is it that a candidate will agree with you on every issue but still have one extremely odious view?

But that's my point--at least partly. You see, if someone is able to justify killing an unborn child, he can justify a lot of other things. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum; one evil will lead to another. So while abortion is a single issue, it touches on other fundamental issues.

You may say, as double-minded voters often do, that the pro-abortion candidate is anti-war and probably anti-capital punishment. But war and capital punishment do not take nearly as many lives in any given year as abortion does--and the lives taken by abortion are easily the most innocent and deserving of protection. Is it reasonable to save a hundred thousand hypothetical lives--those who may be killed in a war--at the cost of a million actual lives?