![74325: Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit"s Power](http://ag.christianbook.com/g/tiny/7/74325.gif "74325: Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit"s Power")
Guest Post: A Deliberation on Protesting Abortion Funding
Not long ago my friend Michael and I were discussing the implications of health care reform for Christians especially the possibility of federal funding for abortion. How should Christians respond? I thought the issue might be an interesting topic to explore so I asked Michael to write something that might help all of us clarify our options for protest. Below is his response.
A Deliberation on Protesting Abortion Funding
By Michael Kallenberg
All things considered, it was at least good that the House of Representatives adopted the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which eliminated the pro-abortions elements of H.R. 3962 (Affordable Health Care for America Act). Despite abortion rights advocates like Rep. Diana DeGett (D-Colo.) misrepresenting the amendment as the biggest restriction on a women’s right to choose in decades, the measure actually maintained current law by prohibiting both the government insurance program (a.k.a. the “public option”) from paying for abortion and the use of federal premium subsidies to purchase private insurance plans that pay for abortion (except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger). Whether or not the Senate will likewise take a stand in favor of the life of the unborn is yet to be determined.
Now is the time to let your voice be heard. For, if the health care bill passes and if it contains federal funding for abortion, pro-life citizens will be forced to choose their response to an unjust law (i.e., legislation that is out of harmony with the higher moral law) from some less than ideal options. Such a situation would present an ethical decision that seems to be anything but simple. For instance, shall I obey the unjust law? Shall I obey it until the majority can be persuaded to amend it? Or shall I transgress it immediately? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that I am an “extremist” who like Henry David Thoreau decides that I cannot lend myself to the wrong that I condemn and therefore such an unjust law must be transgress immediately (An annotated text of “Civil Disobedience” can be found here http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html). It seems to me that transgression, in this case, translates into withdrawing financial support (taxes) from the federal government insofar as it sustains such injustice. However, this too proves to be a murky matter.
Again, for the sake of argument, let’s say I am a “religious extremist” who seeks to follow the teaching of Jesus when he said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). And for a second time concurring with Thoreau, I am convinced that the point of the instruction is this: “if you use money which has the image of Caesar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Caesar’s government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it” (“Civil Disobedience”). What am I to do? I certainly ought to pay taxes to support the many services of the federal government that I do enjoy. After all, even Thoreau never declined to pay the highway tax. But how much should I render?
Once more in agreement with Thoreau, I do not think it is possible to trace the course of my dollar to see how it is spent (i.e., to discern what portion of my tax money actually pays for abortions). Thus, the amount of money I choose to withhold from the taxes I owe would be rather arbitrary. Moreover, I must be willing to accept the consequences imposed by the I.R.S. for failing to pay (which likely would include the initial tax itself as well as an interest penalty or imprisonment). Since I would hate to pay even more money toward the wrong I condemn and I would also disdain defaulting on the obligations I owe to my family; maybe, it is best to reconsider obeying the law by paying my taxes in full until the majority can be persuaded to amend it. After all, once my congressional representatives receive my tax revenue are they not the ones responsible for how they spend it?
While I think our legislators do bear the moral responsibility for how they allocate the resources of the American people, they surely do not bear it alone. We the people must break free from the politically correct “chains of conformity” that bind us and speak the truth, which is stronger than error (“Letter from a Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. can be read here http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html). We must continue to voice our complaints and creatively protest until unjust laws are corrected. (Given the deliberation above, I am obviously open to suggestions as to the best form of protest – feel free to leave a reply). And, perhaps, we must be willing to suffer more for what we believe. Borrowing from Thoreau’s exhortation one last time in closing: “Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence (“Civil Disobedience”).
Michael Kallenberg is a husband, father, and philosopher in the Denver area. A special thanks to Michael for writing RevNev.com’s first guest post!
ECQKEJS99K6A
In at least 3 NT passages, Jesus is recorded as affirming the obligation to pay taxes to lawful authority. (See Matt 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26) Indeed, if there was any doubt about whether or not we must pay taxes, the Holy Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to write in Romans 13:7, “… if you owe taxes, pay taxes…”
In the historicalcontext that authority was the Roman government. They used that tax revenue to fund all sorts of immoral and vile activities and programs.
Yet Jesus’ words are simply “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” And Paul simply says to give what we owe.
So that begs the question: Are we really morally culpable for how the government spends tax revenue when they extract it from us with the coercive power of the law? Does the Bible in any way imply that a Christian is participating in sin by paying taxes whose use is determined by the governing authorities?
Giving voluntarily is one thing. Giving as one under compulsion is another.
Ben,
I have a few points to make in response to your comments: First, my post was a deliberation in which the idea of withholding taxes as a way to protest federally funded abortions was considered should that occur. I ultimately do not think that it is a wise approach primarily because of Jesus’ teaching, which I did cite (i.e., Mk 12:17; Mt 22 and Lk 20 are parallel accounts of the same incident). Second, I would agree that in Romans 13 Paul teaches that it is important to maintain good citizenship so that the church is not shamed or disgraced in any way. I also agree that the Roman government used tax revenue for immoral activities. However, I think that the passage does contain some qualifications; namely, that “rulers are not a cause for fear for good behavior, but for evil” (v. 3). Third, we live in a republic where we have some measure of political influence. To the degree that we vote to put and keep our representatives in office we share moral responsibility (it should go without saying that the Bible does not imply such participation is sin because such a participatory governing structure is a post-canonical development). Although our political power is still limited it is surely more than the initial recipients of Paul’s letter who lived under imperial rule. I think that the differences in our political context from the Romans of Paul’s day does factor into how we apply what Paul said. In our political situation some form of civil disobedience (note: a form of resistance made possible by a civil government) may be warranted (although upon consideration I hoped to show that withholding taxes does not appear to be beneficial or biblical). Having said that, my main point was that we have a moral responsibility to speak the truth and to advocate for righteousness. Finally, it is clear from the Didache (or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) that the early church took a strong and successful stand against abortion and infanticide despite their political powerlessness. Hence, the question I was getting at still remains: How should we resist our government’s sanction of such evil practices? How do we prudently counteract a permissive law?
Michael – (Can I call you Mike?)
Thanks for the responses. Your third point, about living in republic (though with liberals and their use of agencies like ACORN and their cohorts in the media to effectively steal elections, can we really say that our government is truly republican? I digress…) about living in a republic and bearing moral responsibility for actions of elected officials.
I’d say that if you vote for someone knowing their position and they then use their office to vote in favor of immoral legislation, then I would agree that one bears guilt. If, however, I vote my conscience and vote for someone, let’s say I vote for a Conserative Party candidate, and the Democrat wins contrary to MY will and if he or she then goes and passes immoral legislation contrary to my will and vote, then I fail to see how I am in any way morally responsible.
Your last two questions are, in my opinion, historically easy to answer though practically very difficult and “boring.” The Church historically affected pagan Rome (indeed, the Church brought pagan Rome to her knees, by faithfully preaching and teaching truth, by communicating it in dialogue with people in daily encounters, by writing tomes, and by their willingness to testify to their convictions with their blood. The Church should stop pandering to the fads and whims of culture, quit putting on a weekly three-ring circus, and simply teach people. Study after study, poll after poll, scholar after scholar all testify to the woeful state of the church do to want of serious feeding.
Ben,
I sincerely appreciate your response to my response. As far as being morally responsible for the legislation of a representative you did not vote for, I would agree that you are not. However, I think many people have committed sins of omission by failing to take a stand for what they know to be true and right. (As an aside, I am also afraid that most politicians have a mixed legislative record as far as genuine biblical morality is concerned – including conservatives).
I also agree that the real answer lies in a robust church that does not shrink from testifying to the truth. I am continually dismayed by how pervasive the entertainment mindset is within Evangelicalism. A permissive law (like the potential funding of elective abortions through health care reform) or ruling (like Roe vs. Wade) would be inconsequential if no one took advantage of them. That is, if consciences were convinced of the sanctity of life by the church actually teaching and living out the good news, abortion would be a rare procedure.
While we’re still deliberating…
The proposed law would ALLOW abortions to take place using federal dollars (actually, our federal dollars already fund abortions throughout the world). This is different than say a situation like in China where abortions are REQUIRED in some/many cases.
Historic Christian teaching is that we obey the government up until the point that doing so requires us to sin. Does the difference between “allowing” and “requiring” change the moral/ethical situation at all? I think perhaps somewhat, but not significantly enough that it gets someone morally “off the hook” for casting their lot, so to speak, with a representative who votes in favor of “allowing” a woman to murder her unborn child.