Tim Kaine Offers Trump a Key to Victory

While most vice-presidential debates have made little more than a small ripple among raging waves of a presidential election year, history may record that last night’s debate between Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Governor Mike Pence (R-IN) was a major exception.  Most of the 90-minute match produced the typical bantering back and forth involving punches and counterpunches aimed at the qualifications of their presidential running mates—Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R).

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Gov.  Mike Pence (R-IN)

Governor Pence pointed to the lack of candidate Clinton’s qualifications based on her failed policies as Secretary of State under President Obama regarding Syria, Libya, Iran, and Russia; and the fact that she was handling classified information on an e-mail server housed in a basement while using the Clinton Foundation in a “pay for play” with influential world leaders.   Senator Kaine countered with accusations that Trump must be hiding fraudulent tax returns and would conduct his presidency discriminating against Muslims whom he views as evil without exception, against ethnic minorities whom he views as lawbreakers, rapists, etc., and against women who apparently Trump doesn’t trust to make decisions about their bodies.

Were the above accusations and rebuttals the entire substance of this vice-presidential debate, I think nothing historic will have come from it.   However, the Kaine-Pence debate was unique in that each candidate chose to invoke the authority of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures on at least one occasion to question the ethics and character of their opponent’s running mate.

Governor Pence challenged the American electorate to consider what kind of nation we have become when we continue to refuse the right of unborn babies to live.  Pence questioned how Senator Kaine who is pro-life could compromise his own stand against abortion by agreeing to run on the ticket with Secretary Clinton.  Clinton supports late-term abortion up until the time when birth is imminent.  Her campaign also calls for repeal of the Hyde Amendment that respects the moral conscience of those who defend the unborn.  Hyde opposes the use of taxpayer funds for abortion services.  In his opposition to abortion, Pence criticized the Democrat party’s pro-abortion platform by appealing to the authority of the Bible which teaches that unborn babies are already persons with rights.  He stated:

I would tell you that for me the sanctity of life proceeds out of the belief that -- that ancient principle that -- where God says, ‘before you were formed in the womb, I knew you,’ and so from my first time in public life, I sought to stand with great compassion for the sanctity of life. Pence added:  Society will be judged by how it defends its most vulnerable – the aged, the infirm, the disabled, and the unborn.

Sen. Kaine countered that Gov. Pence and Donald Trump have no regard for women’s right to choose, and that they would reinstate laws that would punish women who seek abortion.  However, Pence denied this charge by saying,

The state of Indiana has also sought to make sure that we expand alternatives in health care counseling for women, non-abortion alternatives. I'm also very pleased at the fact we're well on our way in Indiana to becoming the most pro-adoption state in America. I think if you're going to be pro-life, you should -- you should be pro- adoption.

Senator Tim Kaine, who considers himself a devout Catholic, also appealed to the Scriptures when he questioned the character of Donald Trump.  Kaine’s criticism of Trump’s character came following repeated quotations of derogatory statements Trump has made toward women including Hillary Clinton, and toward Muslims, Hispanics, and individuals who Trump deems unworthy of his respect.  Kaine said, there is “a great line from the gospel of Matthew. From the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks.  By referring to this tiny quote from Matthew 12: 34, in my estimation, Tim Kaine earned the prize for one of the greatest zingers of any presidential debate in American history.

The Judeo-Christian Scriptures reinforce in many passages this principle that our mouth reveals the nature of our hearts, or our character.  Proverbs 23:7 states, For as he thinks within himself, so he is.  Luke 6: 45 expands on Matthew 12: 34 quoted by Tim Kaine,  The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.  Matthew 7: 16-17 records a claim of Jesus followed by His question, and then an application in regard to the character of false prophets:

You will know them by their fruits.
Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.

Donald Trump and Mike Pence

Whether or not candidate Kaine understood the power of his use of the Scriptures in last night’s vice-presidential debate, I believe he placed his finger on the key to the success (or failure) of the man, Donald Trump, in his bid for the presidency of the United States.  I believe Donald Trump’s greatest opponent both in years past and during the entire 2016 presidential race has been none other than himself.  Trump’s biography is laced with rude and downright immoral expressions that are indefensible.  Even while his running mate was defending many of Trump’s utterances last night, Trump himself was busily tweeting additional words that do not represent him well as a presidential candidate.

But, the truth is that you will know a person by his or her fruit.  The real problem is not Trump’s tongue.  It is his heart.  Nor can any of us be expected to “bear grapes” if our DNA matches that of a “thorn bush” (Matthew 7:16).   None of us can bring forth good treasures with our tongues if our hearts are plagued by evil.

Thankfully, there is hope for Donald Trump just as there is hope for all who, according to Romans 3: 23, …have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  There is none righteous, no not one, Romans 3: 10 adds.  But, God has not ceased in His pursuit of us.   Centuries before God sent His Son, full of grace and truth (John 1:14) to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10), He spoke through the prophet that He would send a Savior.  In Ezekiel 36:26, God promised He would change our hearts so that we can personally know Him and bear the fruit of His righteousness, and not the bad fruit of our own self-righteousness. 

Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Ezekiel is speaking of the transformation that is possible thanks to the incarnation, sinless life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ Who opened the way for salvation from sin and the new birth of Christ’s life within.  Romans 10: 17 states, So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ, and verses 9 and 10, just prior, explain that if you

confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Although we are all concerned about Election 2016, and many wonder which candidate is most qualified, there is a more important “election” that all of us must consider.  Not by our own righteousness, but by putting aside our pride and looking to the cross of Christ where God gave His very life to redeem us from the slavery of sin and death (separation from God). 

And so, we ought to pray for our nation, and pray for the candidates.  For reasons I have written elsewhere, I am leaning toward voting for Donald Trump.  But, more importantly, I am now praying that he will grasp onto the “key truth from Scripture” quoted by Senator Kaine.  I pray that Trump will take to heart his need to surrender in repentance to God and receive the gift of a new heart and…a new spirit.  From such a heart, godly character can grow, and it is such character that America now needs in leadership like never before.

What Does It Mean to Be “Pro-Life?”

Our current age of sound bytes, blogs, and slogans can easily distract us from thinking broadly, deeply, and biblically about complex cultural issues.  The combination of small bits, fast transmission, and high volume of information can discourage careful reasoning and the public discourse necessary to define, analyze, and resolve social, political, and ethical issues.

A case in point is the recent exchange between some pro-life leaders and the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) over what pro-life leaders see as a misuse of the term “pro-life.”   The latest objection came in response to the testimony by Rev. Mitch Hescox, President of the EEN, at a congressional hearing of the Energy & Commerce Committee when he stated:

Biblically, being ‘pro-life’ is far more than being ‘anti-abortion.’ Jesus said that he came to bring life and life in abundance (John 10:10). We believe that includes spreading the gospel, standing up against abortion, reaching the lost, helping the least of these, and being good stewards of God’s creation. In essence, to be ‘pro-life’ is to be ‘pro-whole gospel.’[i]

Rev. Hescox’s testimony was invited to inform the Energy & Commerce Committee as they discuss new emission standards for coal and oil-fired power plants that release mercury and affect fresh water sources.  The proposed “Utility Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MACT)” rule would address allowable levels of the toxic metal in the environment.  The Center for Disease Control estimates that at the time of birth, approximately 1 in 6 children in the United States carry threatening levels of mercury.

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill) spoke on behalf of pro-lifers who object to the more comprehensive definition of “pro-life” expressed above by Rev. Hescox.  According to Shimkus,

Truly pro-life issues are issues of life and death” and “we in the pro-life community take great offense when an evangelical movement tries to usurp the meaning of ‘pro-life.’[ii]

Two notions of what it means to be "pro-life"

So, who is right?  Are members of the environmental movement unfairly usurping the anti-abortion/pro-life movement by expanding the meaning to the term “pro-life?”  Or, is there merit in rallying around a more comprehensive perspective of the sanctity of human life; one that calls for Christian stewardship of all of life, human and non-human?

Lest I contradict my earlier caution against finding quick answers for complex issues with a few sound bytes and blogs, I must acknowledge that this blog posting cannot be the final word.  Instead, I hope to lay out some considerations that will stimulate readers toward further reading, reasoning, and response.

First, I have an admission to make.  In 2000, during the close presidential race between Al Gore and George W. Bush, I attempted to expand Bush’s concept of “compassionate conservatism” to include what I called compassionate conservationism.  The main point of my essay published in Christianity Today was as follows:

Moral conservatives are successfully articulating a biblical worldview regarding sexual abstinence before marriage, sanctity of life, and the importance of moral teaching in our schools. Consistent with this, they must also articulate the case for a compassionate conservationism, an environmental ethic rooted in a biblical worldview. Such an ethic would redefine “environmentalists” as those who are concerned about the environment of all of life. [iii]  

My intent, both then and now, was not to gloss over the serious moral failure of our culture that allows the innocent lives of babies to be snuffed out by abortion.  I would oppose any individual or group that seeks to gloss over or otherwise diminish the moral tragedy of abortion by diverting attention from it to environmental issues such as climate change, habitat destruction, toxic pollution, or environmental and social justice.

I do not believe Rev. Hescox or the EEN is seeking to unjustly usurp the “pro-life” movement or diminish the grave importance of respecting the sanctity of human life.  Rather, I believe they are seeking to challenge us to view it more broadly and biblically.  Before drawing your own conclusions, let’s consider what legitimate objections there are against an effort to reconcile the two major notions of what it means to be “pro-life.”  Allow me to briefly list and comment on three possible objections.

First, is the argument of “confused terminology” articulated by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council when he stated,

The term pro-life originated historically in the struggle to end abortion on demand and continued to be used overwhelmingly in that sense.  To ignore that is at best sloppy communication and at worst intentional deception.[iv]

If we are concerned that the sanctity of human life cause might be jeopardized if terminology is confused, perhaps it will be necessary to abandon the more politically correct term “pro-life” in favor of the term “anti-abortion” or “anti-death.”  Clarification of terms is fundamental to discourse on any issue and should not be cause for division, at least among those who strive for the same goals.

Let’s call the second objection the argument of “confused theology.” Hescox and the EEN make a strong case for extension of the sanctity of life ethic to include “all of life” when Hescox stated last December:

We’re called as Christians to defend the sacredness of life.  As a pro-life community we have a biblical responsibility to protect the unborn and infants from pollutants that will prevent them from reaching their full potential.  There is no known safe levels of mercury which cause neurological damage to the unborn.  Jesus tells us to do nothing that would hinder our children. Mercury poisoning from their mothers eating contaminated fish threaten our children from such an abundant life.”[v]

On the other hand, I am sympathetic with the concern articulated by Rep. Shimkus and others who object to the notion that abortion should be added to a long list of environmental concerns that only indirectly affect human life.  After all, the abortionist’s tools directly kill an unborn baby; whereas, it is proposed that coal-fired power plants that release mercury can only indirectly affect the health of an unborn child when the child’s mother ingests mercury-contaminated fish.

So, the question becomes, are we ethically responsible to do all that is reasonably possible to protect the life of the unborn from both direct and indirect threats?  In this context, a command from the Torah may be instructive:

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise..... Exodus 21:22-25 (NASB)

Many would interpret this passage as affirming the personhood and value of the unborn child[vi]   If this is true, and we agree that is was not the intent of the scuffling men to harm the woman let alone her unborn child, then this Scripture seems to affirm our accountability for indirect effects upon the unborn.

Returning to the concern about mercury poisoning, the science of ecology is providing a clearer understanding of indirect effects of this heavy metal which can move with food, nutrients, and toxic chemicals within the so-called food web of life.  Although few of us would directly ingest toxic mercury, or commit the act of poisoning his or her neighbor, the actions of anyone responsible for releasing mercury into water and poisoning fish or other creatures which are then eaten by his or her neighbor would seem to be in violation of the command to “love thy neighbor as thyself” if it is clear that harm or death resulted indirectly from the action.
 

Note also that the ecological food web that pictures the links between polluted water, fish, and mankind makes it harder for us to ignore our intimate linkage and responsibility to nonhuman creatures.  The Judeo-Christian theology that affirms humankind as the uniquely created image bearers of God does not give us grounds to treat other parts of God’s creation with disdain or as simply a backdrop in the human drama.  Instead, we are responsible to use our platform as image bearers to represent the benevolent rule and character of God to His creation (Genesis 1: 26-28; 2:15). Therefore, poisoning of stream water by mercury from power plant emissions that indirectly and unintentionally harms both fish and my neighbor who ingests the fish is a violation of two major biblical commands -- biblical dominion and stewardship over God’s creatures whom He created for His glory (Revelation 4:11); and, violation of the command to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 2:39).

A third objection to a more comprehensive pro-life stand may be called the argument of “murky or confused science.”  The argument of the EEN that mercury poisoning, like abortion, “threatens and impedes life” must be substantiated by good scientific data.  In addition to Rev. Hescox’s testimony before the Energy & Commerce Committee on behalf of EEN, the committee heard testimony from Julie Goodman, a toxicologist (Ph.D. Johns Hopkins University) who stated that, although implementation of MACT standards for mercury is projected to “reduce the disease burden in America to such an extent that it will translate to tens of billions of dollars saved, …the largest benefits from [MACT] are derived not from reducing mercury, but from reducing fine particulate matter (PM2.5).”[vii]  Goodman then added:

Despite the vast array of peer-reviewed scientific literature on the topic, EPA based its calculations on only two PM2.5 epidemiology studies that reported statistical associations between PM2.5 reductions and health benefits and assumed a causal relationship.

I am aware of no rebuttal to this scientifically documented testimony which cautions against adopting an environmental policy based on an apparently biased selection of scientific reports, which furthermore, suggest benefits not from mercury reduction but from reduction in particulate matter.  It is still possible that additional scientific data may provide justification for lowering mercury emissions.  Although our technology allows us to detect minute levels of toxic chemicals, there is also need to identify what the threshold levels for toxicity in the blood are and whether or not these are being exceeded under current standards.

In conclusion, the arguments from “terminology” and “theology” do not provide strong reasons to oppose the EEN’s call to extend the pro-life boundary to include “… anything that threatens and impedes life, especially impacts on the unborn and young children.…”[viii] However, the argument from “science” suggests that the jury still needs further data and time to decide whether there is indeed a legitimate threat to life under current standards.  Meanwhile, I believe that Christians who are committed to the sanctity of human life should agree to respectful discourse with others who seek to raise awareness of our ethical responsibility toward the health and well being of both humans and the non-human creation which provides the context of human life and welfare.  

---

[i]  Evangelical Environmental Network:  http://creationcare.org/view.php?id=513

[ii] Institute on Religion and Democracy,  http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2291

[iii] Silvius, J. E.  2001. Conservation: Protecting Bald Eagles and Babies.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/june11/42.93.html

[iv] Tony Perkins as quoted in WORLD,  February 25, 2012

[v] The Christian Post, February 21, 2012.

 http://global.christianpost.com/news/god-calls-pro-life-evangelicals-to-combat-mercury-pollution-64973/

[vi] Koukl, Greg.  “What Exodus 21:22 Says about Abortion."   Solid Ground , Jan./Feb., 2010

[vii] Goodman, Julie L.  1012.  EPA's Assessment of Health Benefits Associated with PM2.5 Reductions for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.  See http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/hhrg-112-if03-wstate-jgoodman-20120208.pdf

[viii]  Mitch Hescox as quoted in WORLD,  February 25, 2012

Pro-Environment But Pro-Choice: Contradiction and Categories

This entry in Oikonomia features a link to the CedarEthics podcast in which Dr. Dennis Sullivan, Director of the Center for Bioethics at Cedarville University invited me to discuss a rather puzzling pattern in our culture. First, let me frame the issue using many of Dr. Sullivan’s opening remarks. Then you can go to the podcast link below and listen.

Dr. Sullivan notes that former President George Bush was notably pro-life in his outlook. This means that he was opposed to abortion, embryo-destructive research, and euthanasia, among other things. In contrast, Mr. Bush was not recognized for a strong stand on environmental protection. He opposed U.S. ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, and he favored opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling, positions that angered environmental activists.

However, the inauguration of Barack Obama as our new president has led to sweeping political changes, and his views on certain key ethical concerns are dramatically different than his predecessor. For example, he has stated that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate many legal limitations on abortions, including parental notification laws and waiting periods, and would even overturn our present ban on partial birth abortion. By the time you read this, the president may already have signed an executive order to permit government funding of embryonic stem cell research, something the Bush Administration would not permit. One the other hand, Dr. Sullivan points out that our new president is considered by many to be a friend to the environment and in favor of more controls on pollution and greater protection for natural resources. The two presidents appear to be quite representative of the views of their respective supporters.

So, it seems that being pro-life means also being anti-environment, if our national discourse is any indication. My discussion with Dr. Sullivan on the CedarEthics Podcast addressed the question, “Why do both of these ethical concerns live at opposite sides of the political spectrum?” Please click on the link below, listen, reflect on the points being made, and reply if you would like to comment or raise a question.

CedarEthics Podcast - Pro-Life or Pro-Environment: Poles Apart? (16)