Globalism is not compatible with the sanctity of life

As in every area of our lives, Christians are called to apply the Gospel to our political activities. This is particularly true in a nation founded on the participatory principle of government of the people, by the people, for the people. With the blessing of such a government, political activity becomes a stewardship issue every bit as much as tithing.

In 1995 Pastor John Piper wrote a brief article entitled One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society .  In his clear and articulate manner he laid out a rationale for being a one issue voter when he exclaimed "I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him-except that child-killing is more serious than those."

 Just as important, Piper also noted "No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office."

Sadly, President Bush has become a powerful example of why a pro-life stance alone does not automatically make someone a good choice for President. While he has clearly been pro-life, his immediate use of homosexual appointments, his abject failure to uphold the Constitution he pledged to defend, his willingness to give American interests away to foreign concerns, stemming from his pernicious globalism, have proven a severe threat to the liberties upon which the pro-life movement rests.

Furthermore, despite his solid pro-life record, late term abortions are still legal and rampant. Worse, his unlawful desire for the New World Order, has led President Bush to insufferable inaction in the face of the wholesale assault upon the very liberties which allow for us to legally hold a pro-life position (recall the stunning silence concerning Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt). In a word, he has thoroughly betrayed numerous Constitutional and biblical standards, and those who trusted him to protect the same.

In light of such politics, it is not a fanciful question to ask if one can truly be a globalist and pro-life?

The basis for asking such a question is simply this: as every tenant of the globalist movement is ultimately at odds with both the sovereignty of separate nations and of individuals, and as every tenant of the globalist movement is ultimately based upon the anti-Christian religion of secular humanism, can there ever be a hope that any pro-life issues will survive, long term, under a government or President of such persuasion?

We may continue:  given the willful, continual, and so far successful, assault upon our heretofore constitutionally guaranteed liberties, can a Christian, in good conscious, elect an individual to office who will continue to prosecute the assault on the very liberties which are foundational for the protection of life?

With such a horrible selection of candidates, all of the front runners are globalists, we have a very difficult road ahead of us. Can we trust Romney when he says he is now pro-life? Can we trust Giuliani when he says he will only appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court?

As much as I want to believe these men, given their known track record, I am not willing to trust such politicians. But neither am I willing to trust that Mike Huckabee, the only proven pro-life candidate, will replace his new world order liberalism with conservative values.

Beyond Hukabee's gross liberal tendencies, he hosts a liberal brand of Christianity as evidenced by his associations within the Arkansas Baptist General Convention. Such a combination of bleeding heart politics and false doctrine do not inspire confidence that his presidency would lead to anything that would advance, or even sustain, pro-life causes any more than the other front running candidates.

Where does this leave those of us who hold to biblical convictions?

Our vote should not be determined by the surface claims of a candidate, but by what we believe would be the ultimate outworking of a politician's positions - first for the unborn, then family, faith, and Constitutional law. It may be that the best we can hope for are solid Supreme Court nominees, for which we can be very thankful to the Bush Presidency.

Until this election cycle I have been of the mindset that I needed to be a one issue voter, but the disappointment of the Bush presidency shows that voting pro-life is not as clear cut as it seems. While I am not about to set aside this clear, highest standard by which we need to qualify candidates, I am beginning to modify it.

Ultimately, our hope cannot lie in politics, but must reside in the God.  No political figure can stop the America's precipitous decline, but the wholesale repentance of his Church in America may yet delay it.