A funny thing happened during the 2024 election. While pro-Democrat voters and politicians have been taking time to reassess what went wrong, those who were pleased to see the “Red wave” also have some rethinking to do. In particular, Christians must recognize the shifts that occurred in this election and since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
For instance, it’s possible to make the case that the Republican Party that dominated this election cycle was, at least on the federal level, a new sort of GOP. Freed from the burden of Roe v. Wade and the need to push for pro-life reform, the Republican candidates could effectively distance themselves from the pro-life cause. The 2024 Republican Platform shifted from the 2016 and 2020 stance that affirmed the “fundamental right to life” of “the unborn child” to a commitment to “oppose Late-Term Abortion while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF.” In essence, the 2024 Republican Platform abandoned a strict pro-life position that recognizes life as beginning at conception. This change suggests the party’s abortion stance no longer serves its basic mission (i.e., winning elections).
From a political perspective, the 2024 Republican Platform had a pulse on the electorate. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, fourteen states, including several (i.e., Arizona, Missouri, and Montana), Donald Trump won en route to the presidency and voted in policies that protected abortion rights. Residents of Arizona, Missouri, and Montana voted in legislation that allows abortion prior to the baby’s viability outside the womb (normally around twenty-four weeks). They also voted to prevent the state from making additional laws that would protect the unborn prior to viability. Nevada passed a similar amendment, though it will not take effect unless it is passed again in 2026.
The abortion issue has been positioned as something of a watershed issue for Christians even though there is some 2016 research suggesting that abortion policy was less significant on voter decisions than the economy and national security. Still, abortion featured prominently in evangelical conversations about politics. Consider, for example, John MacArthur’s 2018 interview with Ben Shapiro, in which he notes that choosing between candidates is “challenging…but it is less challenging than it used to be” because “you have a party [Democrats] that advocates the killing of babies. I can’t vote for that. I don’t care who the other guy is.” While there is certainly a more progressive policy agenda regarding abortion in the Democrat Party, it seems clear from the Republican Platform that we no longer have a “pro-life party” whose policies align with biblical convictions about when life begins.
So, where does that leave us? What might the changes reflected in this year’s election alert Christians to underlying assumptions that Christians need to reconsider? We cannot compromise on our convictions related to life’s sanctity, but it seems likely that we have been too quick to think that conservative values would be as enduring as Christian convictions. We’ve been too quick to think that a legal solution curtailing freedom was the desired outcome for those whose lives are not determined by God.
While we should acknowledge that legislation on abortion does not align with God’s intended order, we should also acknowledge that a given society’s laws may only gesture toward that society’s understanding of the good. Laws reveal something about a given society. However, a specific law may not demonstrate what a given society believes about what is ideal. At times, laws are put in place to manage disorder and restrain evil rather than prohibit it.
When Jesus was asked why Moses commanded that the Israelites issue a certificate of divorce if marriage was to be a “one flesh” union (Matt 19:3-8), Jesus responded: “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning” (Matt. 19:8). He goes on to provide additional teaching on divorce that further limits the practice (19:9). In this interaction, we get a glimpse of the tension between the ideal and the law. Laws (even biblical laws) do not exist simply to establish moral ideals (though they sometimes do) but to manage a world disordered by sin. The law (even the biblical law) recognizes the frailty and fallenness of human beings by seeking to restrain evil through coercive means.
When Jesus spoke about divorce, He pointed to God’s ideal: a lifelong union between a man and a woman. However, He also acknowledged that Mosaic law permitted divorce to manage the realities of human sinfulness. In my estimation, we see similar provisions in the law when we read about, for example, laws on slavery (Exod 21:1-32). We might, to echo Jesus on divorce, say that slavery was not instituted “from the beginning.” It was something that arose as humans sought to navigate the challenges of a fallen world. So, while the law points us toward an ideal (cf. Lev 19:2, 17-18, 33-34), it also recognizes that humans are going to fail to live up to that ideal. As such, it makes provisions intended to limit the damage human sin does in a variety of instances (like divorce in Jesus’s day and, it would seem, abortion in our day).
This way of understanding the law provides a critical framework for approaching the current state of abortion legislation in the United States. By penalizing, prohibiting, regulating, and permitting certain behaviors, U. S. law not only reflects the values of our society but offers an interesting window into the challenges we are facing as a society. For example, given that (a) people can travel between states, (b) some states have more open procedures with regard to abortion, (c) federal legislation is unlikely to be forthcoming, and (d) people’s views on abortion are likely to differ within a given state, some of the policies passed in the 2024 election may reflect (a) the reality that it is still possible for those who want an abortion to get it in the United States and (b) the desire to make it less likely that those seeking an abortion will pursue riskier options to obtain an abortion.
From a theological perspective, we should certainly affirm that life begins at conception. However, Christians must also recognize that many people do not share that theological conviction. As such, it seems unlikely that the laws, which are now being determined by the people, would align with Christian convictions. The laws of many states do reflect a desire to constrain the choices of those who might otherwise take the practice of abortion to an absurd extreme.
Recognizing the law’s limitations does not mean Christians should abandon attempts to influence legislation. It does, however, mean that we should not expect more from the law than it can deliver. While it is appropriate for Christians to advocate for legislative change, we also need to recognize that there are many aspects of reality that the law simply cannot change. Law serves a purpose…we can’t do without it, but we must take care not to assume the law can accomplish what only the gospel can.
After overturning Roe v. Wade and giving states the authority to determine their own abortion policies, Christian action regarding abortion was necessarily diffused. Rather than a more central strategy aimed at overturning a federal statute, Christians would need to exert influence at the state level in all fifty states. Given some of the policies that were put in place post-Roe, it isn’t clear how Christians would influence state law. For example, Arizona, Colorado, and Missouri all passed constitutional measures preventing the state from enacting laws that would protect the unborn prior to 24 weeks (the time generally associated with “fetal viability”). Maryland’s “Question 1” affirms “an individual’s right to reproductive freedom” and “provides the State may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge, the right unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” The constitutional amendment passed with 75% of the vote.
Walking back, some of these amendments may be possible; however, there are other policy frameworks that might make abortion a less appealing option. A 2013 study showed that women seeking abortions did so for a number of different (often intersecting) reasons that included financial concerns, timing, social factors (e.g., challenges with their partner or a desire to focus on other children), and readiness to have a child from an emotional and mental health perspective. From a policy perspective, it may be beneficial for Christians concerned about abortion to consider what policies might influence the women who are choosing between a baby and an abortion. Policy frameworks related to expanded access to daycare, maternity leave, and tax credits for children could be used to dissuade those who might otherwise have considered abortion to carry a baby full term. Such matters would seem to fit with caring for those who are vulnerable, including pregnant women with inadequate familial and social support, within society.
Christians might also consider a different approach to sexual ethics. Again, while biblical teaching prohibits sex outside of marriage, this message may not resonate with those who do not acknowledge biblical authority. Helping unmarried women and men understand sex and child-rearing as both a privilege and a burden might give some people pause about engaging in sexual activity.
In the end, however, Christians need to consider alternative means of influence that shift the burden away from the law because the law, as necessary as it may be, is incapable of overcoming the hardness of the human heart. Not even the biblical law was able to control human sinfulness (Rom 8:3). The “heart of stone” must be turned to a “heart of flesh” (Ezek 36:26) because the heart of stone seeks to determine its own course, whereas the heart of flesh guided by the Holy Spirit will “cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules” (36:27). Does this mean that salvation makes us perfect? Of course not. It does, however, mean that our hearts are malleable so that when we sin, we recognize it as sin. It means that we are so eager to align with reality, particularly the reality of the Triune God, that we admit our wrongdoings even when doing so makes our lives more difficult.
Christian action in the political realm is crucial. Christians can certainly advocate for legislative changes that will promote justice and protect those who cannot protect themselves. Yet, such action must always emerge as a response to the God we serve. Our actions in the political and social realms, in other words, must emerge from our proclamation of the gospel. Laws are not trivial…they have their place, but the gospel is transformative. We need to remember that our efforts to reform legislation are provisional, whereas making disciples is eternal.
Photo Credit: ©Getty Images/Stevan Ovicigor
The views in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Salem Web Network.