I had the privilege of attending the Evangelicals for Life Conference in Washington, DC last week. The conference was put on by Focus on the Family and our own Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. The conference is a relatively new annual conference that is held each year on the days surrounding the annual March for Life. I was challenged and encouraged by the conference and hope to be able to attend again in the future. Below are a few brief observations from #EFL2018.
1. Progress is being made in the fight against abortion.
No, Roe vs. Wade has not been overturned. Abortion is still legal in America all the way up to the point of birth–a shameful reality that puts us in elite company with China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Canada. But progress is being made. Abortion numbers are down. Pregnancy care centers outnumber abortion clinics by more than 4-1. As abortion facilities continue to shut down, the number of pregnancy care centers continues to increase.
We see some positive things happening in state governments. Various states continue to pass measures intended to limit and restrict abortions. Perhaps you are aware of some of those things in your state and can mention them here in the comments.
We also see a couple of bills being considered at the national level. One is called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This bill amends the federal criminal code to make it a crime for any person to perform or attempt to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks or more. There is scientific evidence that unborn babies past 20 weeks gestation are capable of feeling pain in the womb. This bill passed the House by a 237-189 margin and has been passed along to the Senate.
The other bill is called the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This bill amends the federal criminal code to require any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital. This bill passed the House by a 241-183 margin and has been passed along to the Senate.
We clearly have a long way to go, but progress is being made.
2. Senators James Lankford and Ben Sasse are the real deal.
Lots of politicians say that they are opposed to abortion. But for many their opposition to abortion seems to be little more than a plank in their platform to appease their base. Not so for Senators James Lankford and Ben Sasse, both of whom spoke at the conference. You can tell when a person knows what he is talking about and means what he says. Both of these Senators demonstrated a clear understanding of the pro-life position and genuine desire to stand up for life in the United States Senate. Senator Lankford is a former youth pastor and Senator Sasse told about how his mom had him praying outside of abortion clinics as a child. Pro-life advocates can be sure that we have at least two firm allies in James Lankford and Ben Sasse.
3. Being pro-life is more than being anti-abortion.
There was a clear focus on abortion at the conference. The conference was planned around the annual March for Life. But the conference also took a much broader approach to what it means to be pro-life. The image of God in every human being means that we must value and defend all human life. Issues such as adoption and foster care, mental illness and disability, racial justice, and immigration were talked about both from the platform in the main sessions and during the breakout sessions.
There are some who are very passionate about justice but seemingly give very little attention to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies each year. There are others who are very passionate about defending the unborn but seem to have little concern for immigrants or the racially oppressed. We must guard ourselves against the tendency to care only about those justice issues that are most comfortable for us. We must care for and defend all human life.
4. Focus on the Family is doing some encouraging and important work.
I have always been aware of Focus on the Family. I used to listen to Adventures in Odyssey on the radio as a kid. I certainly knew about the ministry of Dr. James Dobson, but I had never really followed the work of Focus on the Family since Jim Daly became its president in 2005. In fact, I didn’t really realize until recently that Dr. Dobson was no longer president. From what I saw at the conference, Jim Daly is doing important work with Focus on the Family.
I was also challenged and encouraged by Kelly Rosati, Focus’ vice president of Advocacy for Children. She oversees some of the ministries that were highlighted at the conference such as their Adoption and Orphan Care Initiative and Operation Ultrasound. Operation Ultrasound helps place ultrasound machines in pregnancy care centers in areas with high abortion rates. Since 2004, Option Ultrasound has saved an estimated 390,000 precious lives! $336,000 was raised during the conference for this ministry. You can still give by clicking the link in the tweet below.
We are praising God for the news that $336,000 was raised for pregnancy centers and ultrasound machines today! #EFL2018
Give to the cause: https://t.co/crw94A7EdF
— ERLC (@ERLC) January 20, 2018
I had a great time at the conference and hope to attend again sometime. I hope to get a post up soon with some reflections on my first March for Life.
Videos from some of the sessions are still available on the ERLC Facebook page. If you are going to choose just one to watch, I recommend this testimony from Eric Brown. Make sure you have a box of tissues ready. Eric and his wife found out at 20 weeks that their baby was diagnosed with alobar holoprosencephaly (HPE), a neural disease with low chances of survival. Despite a grim prognosis and a doctor’s encouragement to induce labor and end the pregnancy, the Browns opted to embrace life and hope. They decided to carry Baby Pearl to term. Eric shares his testimony about how his daughter Pearl has changed his life.
Good update.
God bless all working in the Pro-Life movement.
Just read the national media gave three times more coverage to the Women’s March last Saturday, than the March for Life last Friday.
And, have you noticed the media usually cannot say the word, “Pro-Life”?
David R. Brumbelow
Yes, it is always “anti abortion groups”.
This is all very good and exciting news and I and thank God for it! Thank you for this encouraging article!
However, I’m troubled that there is always something missing in our conversations about this – ministry to post-abortive women. I am absolutely, 100% against abortion in no uncertain terms. We should continue the good work mentioned above. But what about those women who ultimately choose abortion?
In my experience there are many post-abortive women who deeply and painfully regret their decision. In the moment they thought it was the best move to make for any number of reasons (fear, shame, perceived inability to care for the baby, etc.). They realize they made a bad and decision to have sex outside of marriage and they realize they selfishly took away a child’s life and now there is nothing they can do about it. They hear the anti-abortion message from the pulpit (as they should) and don’t disagree. But because of the shame of their sin they hide in the shadows of pain and never fully heal or receive the forgiveness of our Lord Jesus Christ and love from his people. How can we help these women?
I don’t have the answers, just a burden for both the unborn child who was killed and the women who did it but now regret it deeply.
Adrian Rogers once preached:
“Isaiah described today very much like our day. “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).
“What’s that like in America today? Well, there are certain Canaanites we don’t seem to be able to deal with. Drugs, crime, immorality, sexual perversion. Children live up to the expectations that we have to them, and we should be encouraging them to remain pure and live a righteous life. Our kids are falling off a cliff, and we’re running ambulances to the bottom of the cliff. We need some people today who will build some at the top to help these kids, to tell them what is right and what is wrong, that sin will take you further than you want to go, it’ll keep you longer than you want to stay and it will cost you more than you want to pay.”
I agree with him! We need people at the top of the hill warning people against sin and the destruction it reeks. I’m grateful that this is happening with things like Evangelicals for Life. But we still need some ambulances at the bottom of the cliff. How are we going about that with post-abortive women?
Hey Scott, thanks for the comment. I have found that most pregnancy care centers see the need to care for women who have had abortions and are doing the best they can. I know that both pregnancy care centers that I have worked with are doing things to care for these women. As for the church where I pastor, we actually had an abortion testimony on Sunday. The goal was to communicate that there is grace and healing after abortion. Our local pregnancy care center does a post-abortive Bible study that we always publicize in our church as well.
Adam:
Thank you for your report, and most of all for being there. I have never been able to go, but am glad this event continues to be held.
I agree with most of what you mentioned, but have a few comments.
1. It is a serious mistake to try and combine the fight against abortion with a basket of other issues. There are significant differences that Christians may have on these issues. Using slogans like “I am pro-life, from conception to death” or something similar, will hurt, not enhance the pro-life movement.
First, it is stealing the moniker “pro-life” and using it for other issues. The original people who opposed abortion from 1973 and in the early years came up with the term “pro-life.” It was fashioned and used instead of “anti-abortion” to show how those pioneers really felt.
People come along now and say “I’m pro-life” but they are taking that term and appropriating it for other purposes. That is not cricket. Especially among friends.
Why not be straightforward and come up with a different slogan, rather than trying to get emotional and verbal leverage by stealing a term created by others?
Second, Christians of good conscience may disagree on many issues. And Christians who are “pro-life” (as that term was originally used), may disagree on issues such as race relations, immigration, foster care, disability and mental illness. Those issues usually involve how much public money will be used and how it will be used, and what types of laws and remedies will be employed to address those issues. There are a lot of details there. The issue of abortion is simply whether the government is going to allow the killing of unborn human life. Disallowing the killing of unborn human beings requires no special remedies and no appropriation of public money. It is a simple, and easy common view around which many people may gather.
The minute we start introducing other issues that have their own complexities, we are trying to cram-down on certain people who don’t agree. That is divisive, and will divide the pro-life emphasis.
Third, the question of stopping people from killing the unborn and thus, giving the unborn the chance at life, is a fundamentally different question from the other issues. The right at a chance to live is different from the guaranty of, say, a generous welfare check.
I would easily agree that no one should kill an unborn child, and I would act to stop that (to the extent it is legal). If I were standing next to a homeless person on the street, I would use force to stop someone who wanted to shoot him. But I would not use force to strong arm passersby to steal cash from them so the homeless man could rent a hotel room and have a hot meal.
I want to see the pro-life movement continue to be strong. I don’t want it confused and watered down with a basket of other issues that are not as morally forceful. This will dishearten the pro-life movement, not make it stronger.
2. I am glad Lankford and Sasse are on-board with the pro-life cause. However, I do not want to see Sasse, especially, in higher office. Even some non-Christians have questioned Sasse’s actions on some matters.
We need to be careful to give blanket endorsements of people. Kind of reminds me of Huckaby when he first emerged. He was a Baptist pastor, so he was one of us. We had to vote for him!
3. The most historically significant thing that happened this term was something you neglected to mention. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, spoke to the pro-life march.
I have to ask. Was that omission intentional?
I am surprised that you would not mention that, especially since you took the time to mention Lankford and Sasse.
Trump is not perfect. But he showed up, which is something no other President has done.
That deserves a shout out.
It’s kind of like the Israelites cursing Darius after he allowed them to leave Persia to return to rebuild Jerusalem.
Also, Trump nominated Justice Gorsuch. If the Supreme Court ever changes its mind on the abortion issue, it will be because of actions like that.
Sometimes I feel like some Christians just can’t bring themselves to say something genuinely nice and warm about this President, even when he deserves it.
Please tell me that you just forgot to mention the President.
Anyway, thanks for the report.
Louis,
There has to be a connection of pro-life from life in the womb to life out of the womb. The baby born in unfortunate circumstances, because the mother chose life over abortion, is just as much in need of rescue and aid, as is their mom, than the child in the womb. That’s why you are hearing more about being pro-life womb to tomb. It is intellectually and morally inconsistent to value the life in the womb, but to say “fend for yourself” once th child is born. That’s the reason you are hearing this fleshing out of the pro-life position. It is hypocritical to do any other.
Very well said, Louis. Completely agree. Thank you.
Well, Adam:
Owe you a quick clarification. I see that you were reporting on a specific conference called an “Evangelical” conference. I guess you participated in the march, but that is what I was referring to.
My reference to President Trump was not directly applicable, except that I suppose the people that put this on (the ERLC and Focus on the Family) did not invite him, or if they did, he didn’t come.
So I apologize for getting the events confused.
I still believe that the President’s address of the Pro-Life March in D.C was a big story, and is something for which we should be grateful.
And I assume that the Pro-Life march was only about abortion, and not the other issues that the Evangelical Conference mixed in at their meeting.
Louis I think the events were in fact connected….
Louis,
I too am grateful for Adam’s presence there and his report here. Good work Adam. I agree with you that believers need to exercise caution about combining other emphases with the pro-life movement. This is a very valid concern. Thanks for articulating it well.
As for his mention of Lankford and Sasse it doesn’t sound like his giving them a blanket endorsement but only underscoring that their pro-life convictions are more than (political) skin-deep. Just how I read it.
Louis,
The criticism of Sen. Sasse is puzzling to me. The only people I know who have criticized him have been Trump syncophents like Sean Hannity and Todd Starnes who dislike his moral clarity on some of Trump’s negative actions. Would be interested to know if your criticism is based in Trump love or is there something I don’t know about.
Randy:
Good point.
Thanks.
Scott H:
I was thinking primarily of Mark Levin. Levin is. Jewish Conservative who initially supported Sasse.
Here’s a short assessment of Levin’s feelings.
https://youtu.be/GWI_wqS1sJM
I believe that evangelicals fall prey many times to polished guys who pontificate morally and are generally conservative and generally good guys in appearance. But who, despite appearances, are not really Conservative or reliable.
For me, Rubio is one of those guys. Don’t get me wrong. If Rubio won the nomination I would easily vote for him. But his waffling and his back room sellouts just make me question where he would really be when times get tough. Rubio just did it again in the tax cuts. After almost derailing the deal over something that should not have held up the deal, he voted for it. Then a couple of weeks after it passed, he expressed regrets about voting for it. But now that the tax package seems to be producing good results, I’m sure he’ll tack back to liking it.
Sasse gives me the same vibe.
I like lots of his positions, and I like the fact that he is pro life.
But I get really uncomfortable with him becoming kind of a moral arbiter in politics, especially when unbelievers like Levin, who supported him strongly in the beginning change their opinion because they doubt whether the person truly has the core reliability they project.
Louis,
I disagree with your analysis of Ben Sasse, But I do understand your skepticism.
I agree about Rubio.
Several months ago I briefly fell prey to Senator Flake and his faux “conservative outrage”.
I do though feel that Sasse and Lankford are the real deal. I’ve watched them for sometime and I’ve not been disappointed…
I would ask you if you would… To please demonstrate how exactly these two gentlemen have betrayed the conservative cause.
Of course I realize this whole line of discussion about people’s affirmation or skeptical regarding Sasse and Lankford is all a bit subjective – even Adam’s statements about them in article is itself is his subjective analysis and as we all know “gut feelings” often lead people of good faith in different directions.
People will certainly disagree with my agreeing with you about the “vibe” from Rubio for example.
Disagreement is not the end of the world.
If Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, et al don’t like someone who is GOP that’s a pretty good indication they are a decent individual who wants to work together with everyone- even across the aisle- to better the country for everyone.
So the fact that your questions about Sasse come from Levin, tells me all I need to know.
You would do well to reconsider who you allow to influence your opinions of people.
The reason the GOP is becoming what it is is allowing people like Levin to define who is a real “conservative” based on a scorched earth theory of government. Our government is based on working together and compromise. Not one group getting its way and rubbing it in the face of the “losers.”
Sasse, Lankford, Lindsey Graham, are examples of people on the GOP side who understand that and are vilified for it. In my mind, when I hear someone labeled a RINO that immediately becomes someone I want to support and listen to because it means they want to work with everyone to help our country.
The abysss take the culture wars and the Tea Party politics. They have broken our nation.
“You would do well to reconsider who you allow to influence your opinions of people.”
You realize that people almost certainly think the same thing about those who influence your opinions… Don’t you?
In the minds of many – putting Lindsey Graham in the same category as Lankford and Sasse does the latter two absolutely no favors.
Our government is based on working together and compromise. Not one group getting its way and rubbing it in the face of the “losers.”“
The GOP is certainly not the only party guilty of that tactic.
In fact, I’m reminded of a quote very similar to this that was made just a few years ago:
“ Well, Congressman Ryan, you lost and I won. You’re welcome to ride the bus with us but you’ll ride in the back.” – Barack Obama
I have to admit that I too, when someone is labeled a RINO, immediately view that person in a more favorable light. Especially in today’s political climate.
Ryan, in other words….
Republican/ reflective Trump hate will get us about as far toward good governance and real solutions as Democrat/ reflexive Obama hate has gotten us over the last few years.
It is humorous to me that any disagreement with Trump is automatically labeled as hate. I don’t hate him. I think he is unfit for office and unsupportable by people who follow Jesus based on his own words that come out of his own mouth.
I also strongly dislike and disagree with the court evangelicals who prop him up, excuse his actions, and act as if his every suggestion is ordained by God.
I am also strongly opposed to those who insist that my lack of support for him and his sycophants somehow makes me less than Christian especially when their arguments are based on pragmatism and proof texting.
I am also, finally, completely disgusted by those who bashed and trashed Bill Clinton for his moral failures and who demonized Barack Obama (who had many unbiblical policy positions) but who all of a sudden think we should respect the office of the President and defend his sexual indiscretions, his mysoginy, and his racist statements all in the name of having a seat at the table.
The hypocrisy is truly more than I can stomach
Ryan,
I must have touched a nerve – When I talked about hate I did not mean a hatred from your heart… I mean spewing hatred – in the sense of incessantly looking for reasons to continue not liking Trump to the point of intentionally ignoring any reasons to affirm any good policy actions whatsoever…
I do not disagree with a single thing you just posted about Donald Trump and the reasons that you do not support him and I am prettty much with you regarding the hypocrisy of many (not all) “evangelicals” who do… I stand with you there. I’ve been very clear on this forum where I stand on that.
But what you and some others consistently fail to be willing to do is to acknowledge and admit anything whatsoever good about Trump.
The FACTS are that even that if Trump is pandering, even if he doesn’t mean it from the bottom of his heart, he still, yes still, has done numerous things as president that have forwarded the pro-life movement.
A realistic looking at the facts (Ascertained from her lifetime in politics and what she taught for) would tell us that Hillary Clinton would not have been so. In fact she would have gone ahead long in the other direction. She clearly would enhance policies Supporting and enabling and funding This countries governmental infanticide (Which is absolutely led by the Democrat party by the way).
Also, Your utterly ridiculous comment ascribing to President Obama even a single bit of ”cred” relating to the saving of babies in the womb is absolutely ridiculous beyond any reason whatsoever and frankly you should Be ashamed for saying it! The man Advocated and supported partial-birth abortion and opposed laws requiring doctors to render medical care in failed abortion’s… Both in Illinois and his time is president for heavens sake!!!!
Anyway, My larger point though was that the same reflexive anti-Obama sentiment that pervaded the last eight years… Is on steroids now with Donald Trump… coming from all directions The far left, all Democrats, the media, many Republicans, and some virtue signaling Christians – It’s all really unproductive.
You don’t like Donald Trump fine… I don’t either… I’m convinced most Americans really don’t like him… But come on man – when he does something good it’s OK to admit it without adding qualifiers.
Step away from your sanctimonious prideful high horse that you think you are riding like Paul Revere – just for a second. If you can, and if you dare.
There’s plenty of issues and actions and comments with which to criticize Donald Trump… Thus far, policy wise, His support of the pro life movement is not one of them.
Well said Tarheel. Well said indeed.
I always find it interesting when the words “step away from your sanctimonious high horse ” or words like it are used. For heavens sake we are Christians. We are supposed to be on sanctimonious high horses from what I read in scripture. All Christians are to be. We are to strive for the highest of morals and want justice, not evil in any form.
I will admit it is hard for me to praise Trump for any good when his actions and decisions are so bad on so many important issues.
sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous
?saNG(k)t??m?n??s/Submit
adjectivederogatory
making a show of being morally superior to other people.
high horse definition. To be on one’s “high horse” is to be disdainful or conceited: “Sally got tired of Peter’s snobbery and finally told him to get off his high horse.”
Definitions matter.
Debbie, i apologize that my comment may have seemed snarky. I didn’t intend it to be.
It’s just the definitions don’t match what you were intending to say. You said, “We are to strive for the highest of morals and want justice, not evil in any form.”
You are exactly right in that comment. Again my apologies.
If I do not echo Les Prouty’s comment stating to Tarheel, “Well said Tarheel. Well said indeed,” I will feel like a wretched coward and hypocrite all day long.
The guy’s right. Say what you please, but the guy is right and so is Les Prouty for commending him.
Tarheel,
You make me laugh. I did not give, and would not give, Obama any cred for being pro-life or trying to prevent abortion. I simply said that abortions fell during his presidency. That’s a fact. In fact, as the article I posted notes, there is 0 correlation between who is in the Oval Office and the abortion rate. It has trended down since the Carter presidency.
Also, we have had a lot of “pro-life” presidents since RvW and a lot of “pro-choice” presidents as well. None of them have slowed the decline of abortions. Abortion rates continue to fall- no matter who is in the Oval Office, who they appoint to the Supreme Court, etc.
Abortion is a horror. The more people learn about it the more they hate it and move away from it. Hence the reason their is so much turmoil in the DNC over the issue of choice. The NARAL wing realizes they are losing the hearts and minds battle.
My point is you and others are giving Trump far too much credit. And putting far too much stock in his “pro-life” bonafides. “Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks…” and our President’s mouth breathes contempt for life on a regular basis. Even Les’ precious Haiti has been decried as a “s—-hole” whose people we don’t want here. That’s not pro-life. That’s a utilitarian, pragmatic view of life. It is inconsistent with a pro-life ethic.
How about you and others quit putting words in my mouth about Obama and actually deal with what I am saying. You know facts, instead of your defense of Trump because he is pandering to your interests.
At least from my high horse, I’m able to see the landscape you seem to want to ignore.
Ryan,
You don’t make me laugh.
I’m not defending trump. I’m simply giving credit where credit is due.
I wish you weren’t to arrogant and pompous to do so.
I am done with you and your smug condescension. I don’t need it. Nothing of value comes to my life through interaction with you. I’m walking away. You can have the parting shot if you desire.
Ryan,
I suppose if you didn’t loathe DT so much you might actually be able to think clearly. While abortions have steadily gone down (and we are talking REPORTED abortions) it’s pretty easy to see that during the pro baby slaughter years of Obama, this happened despite his best efforts. It’s also pretty easy to see that DT policies (Mexico policy e.g.) saves the lives of babies.
Tarheel said well how I think when I see your interactions and actually interact with you. You may be a fine fellow in person and perhaps one I would get along with fabulously. But here? You indeed come across as “arrogant and pompous” with “smug condescension.”
And this phrase you used? “Even Les’ precious Haiti has been decried as a “s—-hole”” The way you wrote that? Tells me all I need to know about interacting with you here. “Les’ precious Haiti…” Right.
Oh, and I’ve been there a lot. Have you? It is in so many ways a “s—-hole.” But maybe you wouldn’t know that. I know because I’m actually there trying to do something about it.
Tarheel:
I did not say anything negative about Lankford.
My comments about Sasse are above.
I am concerned about how evangelicals are susceptible to identity politics. They are easily manipulated in that regard.
And they are easily manipulated by certain types of moral arguments. Sometimes these are legitimate. Other times moral arguments are more along the lines of conversation stoppers that prevent true conversation and analysis.
Here’s another criticism of Senator Sasse’s failure to exercise wise leadership.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421047/republicans-have-needlessly-undermined-their-ability-resist-iran-deal-andrew-c
Ryan:
I don’t think there is any push back from any Evangelical on the question of whether it is right to kill an unborn human being. That clearly is a moral argument.
If people want to make the argument that some welfare state remedies for poverty etc., or race based remedies to address racial inequities, or certain immigration approaches are the equivalent of stopping the killing of unborn humans, it’s only going to go so far.
Stealing the “pro-life” slogan, and then indicting people who don’t agree is not going to make the case.
The reason that we are hearing some of these arguments now is that a new generation has come along. I saw a stat yesterday about millennials and how a large percentage of them like socialism and don’t think it’s important to live in a democracy.
This generation is removed in many years from the horrors of socialism and from the failed War on Poverty and the failure of the Great Society. These things catapulted Ronald Reagan into office.
This new generation doesn’t really know about this, or if they do, they really don’t have the intellectual underpinning to understand and evaluate many of these issues. They see them emotionally, and they make primarily emotional arguments.
These issues, which are being called “Pro-life” for the reasons I said above, have lots of facets. There are lots of proposals and options that can be made.
People who propose specific policy issues need to make the argument about specifics. Not merely moral pitches.
As Al Mohler said recently, quoting a few Old Testament verses (usually out of context), is not a basis for an immigration policy.
But that is what we see from many in the Evangelical community on these issues. And when someone disagree, it’s often a snide shout fest.
I respect you and the work you are doing. I look forward to dialoguing with you in the future.
Ryan:
I did not mention Ann Coulter or Glen Beck, and find it interesting that you felt the need to do so.
As to Levin, I note that did not engage (or maybe even listened to) Levin’s argument. Levin couldn’t be right on an issue or observation – because he’s Levin!
You’ll see that I have also linked to a piece in National Review that is critical of Sasse.
I know many young guys in ministry today (and there were plenty like this in the past) who are not really well read in many areas of politics and economics. It’s understandable. They are in ministry for a living, and that occupies most of their time, as it should.
But many of these guys are very loud about the things they are not that knowledgeable about.
I have respect for people and their rights to hold whatever view they decide to hold for themselves. I have many friends and family who do not see things as I do. But these people are not holding themselves out as advocates or trying to instruct the church on where it should be on these issues.
I believe that people in ministry who do so should really be knowledgeable and fair – and most of all – substantive. Not merely people who try to line up on a less offensive or most popular side of things.
It’s my observation that many young pastors, even the ones arguing in the political arena, basically decide their politics through mix of some Bible quotes, and then they select people “in the middle” because this keeps them from being associated with religious figures they don’t admire.
In fact, I would suspect that the folks I know who fit this bill would find it easier to stand on a platform or speak at a conference with Bernie Sanders or one of any number of liberal theologians from a major divinity school than they would Jerry Falwell Jr. or Robert Jeffress.
Their politics is heavily influenced, in my opinion, by group and personality identity.
A statement like, “If you rely on X for your opinions about this person, that’s all I need to know”, reflects the thinking.
It’s not the substance of what is being argued. It’s who’s making the argument!
The thing that drives them is appearing to be a certain way so as to be liked by their generation. Associating with people like Falwell and Jeffress would put them in the “Uncool Club.” And the thing they want to avoid is being in that club. It doesn’t matter that Falwell and Jeffress are their brothers in Christ, and that theologically there is not much difference. They will say all sorts of ill about the brothers to curry favor with the broader society.
I respect pastors who basically keep their politics to themselves. No one knows how may pastor voted. He’s never preached a political sermon in 25 years as pastor. He has never preached a sermon on immigration, poverty, race, or any of the political proposals made in that area.
And more importantly, he loves and associates with other Christians who believe and preach the Gospel, even though they might be on different places on the political spectrum.
My hope for this younger generation is that they will learn from guys like my pastor.
Louis,
Interesting take. Dead wrong but a cute theory.
I watched your Levin “video” (an excerpt from his radio show) and Read the nearly 3 year old McCarthy article from NR. Both focusing largely on disagreement with Sasse on the Iran deal.
Here’s why I don’t like Levin and why you being influenced by him tells me a lot. He’s all fire no substance. He’s angry so that he can rile up a following and make money. He doesn’t offer well thought out researched critiques. Just bile and venom. The McCarthy article at least had some research and substance to it and though I disagree with his conclusions (I think everyone has a chance to change their mind) I appreciate he made an argument from facts.
You talk about being well read and researched. And you assert that young evangelicals are embarrassed by the likes of the Jeffress and Falwell. You are half right. Young evangelicals and older ones like me are embarrassed by those guys. But it’s not because they are unpopular. It’s because they are hypocrites pedalling the Gospel for power and we know that because we are well read and studied in both current affairs and theology.
Trying to paint this as a generational divide or about trying to be “cool” is really unfortunate. This is about who gets to define American Christianity. A bunch of political opportunists following a mysoginistic racist and a host of secular talking heads and loud voices, or a group of people committed to following scripture even if it means they lose their place at the table, because theological faithfulness matters more than political power.
I know where I stand. I would hope at the end of the day you would stand with me.
Whew! I’m so glad I’m one of those Trump voters, though he was not my first Republican choice, who is “committed to following scripture even if it means they lose their place at the table, because theological faithfulness matters more than political power.” And I’m extremely happy and overjoyed that less babies are being slaughtered in the womb today because the Democrat didn’t win the election.
Oh and Louis thank you for your reasoned comments. Spot on brother.
Fewer babies were aborted under Obama as well. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/abortion-rate-declined/
The occupant of the Oval Office has nothing to do with abortion rates. But keep using that lie to make yourself feel better.
Yeah, that Obama was a champion for life, right? I mean one can tick off so many of his policies and enactments that reduced abortion, right. Go ahead Ryan. List them. But we both know you can’t and that the declines were in spite of O.
But Trump? Well…
“Like every Republican president since Ronald Reagan, Trump reinstated the largely popular Mexico City policy, which denies U.S. aid money to any international group that funds or promotes abortion. But he took the policy a step further, expanding it to cover nearly all U.S. foreign health spending, not just family-planning funds. The administration also moved to defund the United Nations Population Fund on similar grounds. [this one alone is huge for life]
The Trump administration drastically expanded the religious and conscience exemption to the Health and Human Services Department’s contraception mandate, which had been added to the Affordable Care Act to require that employers provide employees with subsidized birth control. This exemption enabled religious employers, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor — an order of charitable Catholic nuns — to avoid paying for abortifacient drugs, among other contraceptives.”
Surely Clinton would have done these too, right? Ha ha.
Here is a little more about the pro-life first year of Trump’s presidency.
https://www.sba-list.org/first100days
Ryan:
I definitely stand with you, as you are my brother in Christ.
We disagree, at times, on the best way to pursue goals. Many of those goals, we share. Some we may not, but that’s ok, too.
I agree with you that the younger generation sees this as a struggle about “who gets to define American Christianity”.
I have no interest in that battle because it is a quixotic and divisive effort.
There are so many varieties of belief, not only as to doctrine (which is my primary interest – in preserving the faith once delivered to the saints) but also as to issues involving this life.
I would be fine with trying to be the most faithful representative of the Christian faith that I can be, and not try to take on the task of being in the group that gets to “define Christianity in America.”
I feel that course involves too much shouting, name calling, ridicule, and ultimately exclusion and force.
I have no problem with any Christian expressing their political beliefs whatever they may be, but I always want to do the best I can contending for them in the right way.
Jesus clearly said that people will know we are His followers by the way we love one another.
We will not be known to be the followers of Jesus by the morally superior positions we take.
So I would have no problem standing with you, Danny Akin, Russell Moore, Dwight McKissack, Dave Miller, Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Robert Jeffress etc., so long as we all believe the Gospel and the Christian essentials.
As to my political beliefs, I try to base them in moral principles and wisdom, but I try to avoid ascribing my beliefs to Jesus. I still argue forcefully, but I don’t try to claim divine enlightenment on things where we have no clear direction.
Ryan,
I also wanted to weigh in on the “abortions went down under Obama” discussion.
I will assume the stats to be correct.
The fact that abortions may go up or down under a President is not consequential, unless we can connect something that President did to affect that change.
Also, pushing the point too strongly can have the effect of concluding that we don’t really need to be involved in these issues, because the good we might accomplish doesn’t move the needle.
It’s the same in economics and trying to track what changes helped people in poverty and which ones did not. The poverty rate is a pretty stubborn number.
Having new laws against bank robberies probably does nothing to stop them, but they are still good laws to have.
I’m willing to give Trump a little credit for Gorsuch. It cost him nothing and kept evangelicals in his pocket.
I am beyond dismayed by the recent Trump apologist activities of Franklin Graham. I have zero respect for the likes of Huckabee, Jeffress, and Falwell, but I love Samaritan’s Purse and Operation Christmas Child and Graham’s excuses for Trump’s rhetoric and behavior is incredibly disheartening.
Donald Trump and his evangelical sycophants are pulling the American church into the toilet. I have no idea if Trump’s policies are going to reduce the number of abortions, but whatever babies are being born or will be born, they are going to inherit a country where the church is a whole lot less salt and light than it should be. But hey, the stock market is up.