Over the last few months, Vice President Kamala Harris has radically reshaped the political conversation around abortion, sliding into the pulpit of orthodoxy. Throughout the course of her campaign, Vice President Harris has boldly asserted that, “One does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree: The government, and certainly Donald Trump, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body.”  Notice, she does not appeal to the authority of other religious leaders, saying as, “Pastor so and so said.”  Nor does she claim that her understanding of faith is compatible with abortion, inviting other religious people to join her. Rather, she presents herself as a religious authority. In other words, her language does not convey that she hopes conservative evangelicals will find a church that aligns with her party’s platform. Rather, she is telling them and all people of faith what should be true of every church or place of worship. Namely, no Christian or religious person should object to a woman getting an abortion because to quote the Vice President  “that decision does not require anyone to abandon their faith or their beliefs.” To disagree with her is no longer to disagree with a political party or ones’ government but with the God of the universe.

My Main Concern is Not

My main concern today is not to debate the morality of abortion which is firmly fixed in my mind nor the need for Christians to oppose the practice. Abortion is murder. I lament that liberals and even a growing number of conservatives long to normalize this brutal culture of death, using duplicitous language of “healthcare.” Without reservation, I believe Christians should advocate for life across the political spectrum. Tax rates, housing prices, and issues pertaining to the quality of one’s life count for nothing if one is not alive to pay taxes or buy homes.

Neither a conservative, evangelical pastor’s opposition to nor a Democratic Presidential Candidate’s support of abortion is noteworthy.

My Main Concern

But what is and what I object to is Vice President Harris’ defense of abortion with an appeal to a governmental defined religious orthodoxy. I oppose not only to the content of her orthodoxy, but her very use of orthodoxy. In other words, I do not wish to replace the Vice President’s political forays into theological orthodoxy with those of a candidate more closely aligned with my theological convictions. For example, I acknowledge that most non-evangelicals who identify as some form of “Christian” disagree with the pro-life position. Though I hope to win those churches back to the apostolic faith of Jesus, I also believe that the government has no authority to tell those affiliated with the Sparkle Creed or any other religious creed what is or is not an acceptable tenant of their faith.

Faith Still Belongs

I am also not advocating that those with religious opinions should retreat from the public square or deny that their faiths have a shaping influence on their actions. Without question, one’s faith and worldview will have a profound effect on one’s personal and public ethic. I long for pro-life politicians to unapologetically live out their religious convictions in the public square through the creation of laws that promote life, understanding that those of liberal faiths can do the same with their convictions. I do not object to the enforcement of a public ethic (though I long for that ethic to reflect God’s righteous standards), but with proscribing that all people should conform their faith to that ethic.

The Separation of Church and State

By invoking the language of orthodoxy, Vice-President Harris is straining the bounds of the separation of church and state. To borrow the language of the hour, she is toying with the idea of establishing a leftist “Christian” or perhaps more accurately stated leftist “Religious Nationalism.”

When Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase “a wall of eternal separation” to describe the relationship between the state and the church in 1802, he had in mind the very overreach committed by the Harris Campaign. He wrote, “religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god…the legitimate powers of government reach action only and not opinions.” The state and those running the state have the right to enforce laws that reflect the ethic that flows from their religious views but possess no religious authority to bind the consciences of its citizens to the particular religious views of those in power. Politicians are not prophets.

The Biblical View

While ideas of religious freedom have a foundation in American political history and theory, they also have a biblical foundation. Except when coerced by the state, the church does not look to the state for instruction on what is or is not orthodox. Rather, the church claims a God given right to determine its own doctrine in accordance with Scripture and then to share those doctrines with both its surrounding culture and the state. “Your word is a Lamp unto my feet and light to my path (Ps 119:105).”  

When it comes to religion, the state should not inform the pastor of God’s will. The pastor should inform the state. To quote the British theologian John Stott, the church should function as the “nation’s conscience.” Operating in this vein, Nathan rebuked King David for his sexual sin and murder. Elijah condemned Ahab for his unjust grab of land. Isaiah scolded Hezekiah for his foolish foreign policy. Jesus rebuked Pilate for assuming divine authority. And Paul pleaded with Felix to embrace Jesus as his savior.

In other words, the church should share God’s principles with those in power. It should praise leaders when they repeal unjust laws that condemn shoplifters to life sentences. Conversely, the church should call those who pass a bill that legalizes infanticide to repentance. As Lloyd-Jones notes, “The church is here to show that according to biblical teaching, the general consensus of opinion is not the basis on which you arrive at moral decisions, either with regard to homosexuality, or with regard to divorce, or abortion, or birth control, or any one of these questions.” The state should not preach to the church. The church should preach to the state, reminding those in power to “Serve the Lord with fear (Ps. 2:11).”

For the sake of the United States and its faith community, I encourage Vice President Harris to abandon her usurpation of the pulpit, and to sit once again in the pew.