Our denomination follows a solidly conservative, Biblical, and evangelical statement of faith; you can read it here on our website, or at www.efca.org. And as a general rule, we don't wade deep into politics, if at all.  We do not endorse candidates, and I as pastor don't tell people how to vote though I will share my personal opinion. When I preach, I stick to the Bible text, and deliberately steer a middle course. I make it a policy to not make fun of political viewpoints I don't agree with.

We're a church that welcomes Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Undecideds, as long as their goal is to seek God and learn His inspired, inerrant word. We even welcome Louisville Cardinal fans.

However: the sacred nature of human life is not one of those "agree to disagree" areas. "Thou shalt not kill" is one of God's universal, timeless, and unbreakable codes. We could no sooner ignore or excuse deviation from "Thou shalt not kill" than we could ignore "Do not commit adultery". Humanists don't care about the ten commandments, or make excuses for ignoring them. But a dedicated Christian bows to the moral laws of God, and does so in Jesus' name.

We accept that Moses was God's prophet, in part because of his miraculous prophecies, his miraculous deliverances, and especially because Jesus, the Son of God, said Moses was God's prophet. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, and because the Spirit of God guided his stylus, Moses' five books are without error. In addition, there is nothing allegorical or mythological to be found in Genesis, especially the first three chapters. 

This means that God created human beings in His own image. It also means that God's rules on killing apply to all people. We know from Moses' writings that God did not forbid every form of killing. God gave permission to kill animals for food. He permitted killing a human being if it was for self-defense, or for defense of an innocent person being attacked, or in a war, or as punishment for a crime. 

None of these exceptions apply to unborn children.

I can see a situation when a mother's life must be saved by ending an unborn infant's life, as in the case of a tubal pregnancy, which, if allowed to proceed, would surely cause the death of child and mother. That would fall, sadly, under the Law's exception of saving an innocent life. But defense against a physical attack by a criminal, or against an enemy soldier? War? Capital punishment for a crime? None of these things apply to a baby.

Nor does the circumstance of the baby's conception. Should the innocent baby die, because the manner in which she came into being was involuntary, or criminal? No. Two wrongs never make a right. If we kill a baby because she was conceived by rape, then we have created two victims of evil. 

Retorting that pro-lifers then have an obligation to help provide for the mother is true, but confuses the issue. Christians have done more for the unborn over history than any other group. It's devout Christians who throughout history have started orphanages, founded hospitals, funded charitable foundations for the needy. It was Christians in the early centuries of the Church who snuck up the mountains to rescue abandoned babies left to die by their Roman parents. 

Are there bigger applications of being pro-life than just saving babies (as if "just saving babies" is a light issue)? Yes. Being pro-life also means opposing police brutality against minorities. It means opposing the Ku Klux Klan and similar hate groups. It means developing Bible-based policies about war; standing against unnecessary wars; and prosecuting war-crimes such as what happened at My Lai and Abu Ghraib. It also means welcoming refugees.

But supporting the breaking of God's iron-clad commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" is never an option for a Christian.