Practicing Discernment in Political Giving
October 18, 2006
Until recently, I haven’t paid much attention this year to electoral politics outside of Virginia. That changed when friends asked my wife and me to provide financial support to the Congressional election campaign of a non-Virginian Republican in the midst of a tight race. As a way of helping me think through this decision, allow me to explain why I find it to be a difficult one.
Not until the 1992 presidential campaign did I first consider the issue of abortion. As I recall, I was drawn to some candidate’s explanation that, while he is personally opposed to abortion, he would not seek to make his personal view the law of the land. As a budding libertarian raised in a churched environment, this private/public distinction appealed to me, and I made it my own.
During the past two years, I have been subjecting all of my views to reexamination in light of my new-found conviction that Christ is LORD of all, if he be LORD of anything. As suggested by recent posts in this forum, the moral and political issues of “life” – by which I mean to include abortion, embryonic stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, contraception, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, etc. – have not escaped reexamination. It is probably fair to say that as this process continues, I find myself nearing the positions of the Vatican. If, as I believe, abortion is wrong because human life begins at conception, logic uncompromisingly demands that I object to research that involves harvesting stem cells from embryos, leaving them to die. It demands that I object to the use of reproductive and medical technologies that involve the destruction of human embryos. It probably demands that I object to the use of contraceptive devices known to inhibit the implantation of an already fertilized egg, leading to its destruction. These conclusions are not easily accepted.
If, as I believe, government has an obligation to protect human life, particularly the vulnerable, logic demands that I treat issues of life as matters of public – not merely private – concern. Hence, it is fair to say that I consider these issues of life, how we define and treat human beings, to be among the most important political questions of our day. I haven’t yet become a single-issue voter, but I now can appreciate how someone reasonably might reach that point.
Back to our friends’ request. In numerous specific instances – on questions of abortion regulation, partial-birth abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc. – this Republican candidate has revealed a similar appreciation for the sanctity and dignity of human life. The Democratic candidate, in contrast, is an advocate for embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately, following criticism by the Democrat and expression of concern by some corporate constituents, the Republican has taken public positions on a couple of specific issues that blur the line between the two candidates on these matters of life and death. These developments have raised the question in my mind whether the Republican’s previous efforts to protect human life were influenced not just by conviction of the heart and mind but also politically expedient calculation. God only knows. Yet, even if political calculation did play a role, the Republican remains at present a much more reliable defender of human life than his opponent.
Similar to our family’s approach to all expenditures, I am trying to answer this question: Is contributing to the campaign of this Republican a wise use of the resources God has entrusted to us? Would such a use promote the common good and honor and glorify Him? Or is there another, better use that He would prefer? For remember that, unlike a vote that can be cast only for this Republican or Democrat, this money could be put to God’s uses in countless other ways and places. What do you think?
