Americans have long lamented the decline of civil debates, where two people on opposite sides of an issue talk through their disagreements in a calm and productive manner for the benefit of a third party. Such debates require a level of rhetorical skill, wit, and command of the issues that many powerful politicians do not have. So, they simply avoid them. One candidate is out to change that, and not in the way one might expect.

On Wednesday, U.S. Senate hopeful James Talarico (D) sat down with Texas voters at a CNN “Town Hall” of sorts. Those voters posed tough questions, and Talarico responded. It was a combination of retail politics and civil debate that suited Talarico’s talents perfectly. But the main feature of civil debate and the reason why it is so highly prized is the way that talking through an issue brings clarity to the positions. This is especially true when a candidate’s positions are monstrous and indefensible, as is Talarico’s support for abortion, which he allegedly bases on Christian values.

In the televised exchange, a Catholic voter asked Talarico to respond to Catholic concerns about his support for abortion. Talarico responded:

“I can respect anyone, like you, who is consistently pro-life. And I actually think there is common ground we can find here. We may come to different moral and ethical conclusions when it comes to the question of, ‘should abortion be legal or not?’ It sounds like you and I do come to a different conclusion. That’s okay. We’re both Christians. And the Bible is silent on abortion. It means you and I both have to look at different Scripture to try and come to a conclusion.”

This is a credible-sounding answer, of sorts. On ethical issues to which Scripture does not speak clearly (e.g. immigration), Christians should look at different texts to reach a conclusion, and they should humbly extend charity to others who make different inferences from Scripture.

But Talarico’s response is not valid in the case of abortion. After politely listening to Talarico hem and haw for another two minutes, the woman who asked the original question replied, “I just want to add that the Bible is not silent on abortion. There is the Ten Commandments. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ [Exodus 20:13]. And as Catholics, we take great insult, sometimes, when it’s spouted that way” (and Protestants do too).

With more time, perhaps this lady could have added that the Bible not only prohibits the taking of innocent human life, but it also affirms that life begins in the womb. From David’s confession, “You knitted me together in my mother's womb” (Psalm 139:13) to the unborn John the Baptist leaping in the presence of the unborn Jesus of Nazareth (Luke 1:41), Scripture affirms the humanity of the unborn with one voice.

The Ten Commandments mic-drop was this Catholic voter’s uncompromising answer to Talarico’s attempts to manufacture common ground. The candidate had suggested:

“What I think we can do is come together on actually reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies and the number of abortions. … We treat it as a philosophical debate, or a theological debate, when actually it’s a public policy problem. Because I also want to see fewer unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. I want to see fewer abortions. So, you and I actually have the same goal.”

If reducing abortions (or even caring about the safety of women) is really Talarico’s goal, then he should support federal enforcement of the Comstock Act to prohibit the shipping of abortion pills through the mail. Instead, he chose in the next breath to attack Texas’s law protecting the unborn from death by abortion, falsely claiming that the law took more lives than it saved.

It should be noted that Talarico’s proposition has the virtue of sounding attractive. Shouldn’t pro-life Christians be willing to forge any alliances in the ultimate goal of inching toward the elimination of abortion? Here, a biblical precedent may be helpful. When the returned exiles of Israel set about building the temple, the Samaritans proposed to build alongside them. Israel’s leaders responded, “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the Lord, the God of Israel” (Ezra 4:3).

How harsh! Where is the spirit of ecumenism? Is this simply an instance of Jewish xenophobia, something Scripture records but does not mean for us to imitate? The key lies in facts not reported in Ezra. The author of 2 Kings testifies that the Samaritans, who were relocated to the land of Israel after the northern tribes went into exile, practiced syncretism. “They feared the Lord but also served their own gods, after the manner of the nations from among whom they had been carried away. To this day they do according to the former manner” (2 Kings 17:33-34). If the Jews had accepted the Samaritans’ help in building the temple, they would have had to accept them into the covenant community. And this was unacceptable while the Samaritans still worshiped other gods alongside Yahweh.

The point is this: some people claim to worship the true God, but their doctrine and practice tell a different story. Christians should be wary of cooperating with such people. In a nation like America, political cooperation may be acceptable or even necessary. But clear moral issues like abortion present a line that must not be blurred.

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers,” Paul exhorted the church in Corinth. His initial concern had little to do with intermarriage and everything to do with protecting the church from clever rhetoricians who sought to use the label of “Christian” as a means of personal profit. “For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-15).

What partnership can pro-life, Bible-believing Christians form with politicians who want to make abortion legal everywhere, and who even deny that the Bible condemns it? “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). When someone makes a claim based on Scripture (e.g., “the Bible is silent on abortion”), always check their claim according to Scripture, and then respond accordingly.