A little over a year ago, she was a largely unknown governor of a state closer to Siberia than New York City. Today, Sarah Palin is one of the most polarizing political figures in recent memory. People either love her or hate her (as the customer reviews of her book on Amazon demonstrate).

With my GRE out of the way and my requirements for Graduation at SBTS completed, I decided late last week to go to Barnes and Noble to pick up a couple of books to read for pure enjoyment. Not for the blog. Not for school. Not for ministry. Just something to enjoy reading.

Sarah Palin’s autobiography looked intriguing to me. I enjoy politics. I like seeing the inner workings of a political campaign. At the same time, I understand that most autobiographies paint starry-eyed portraits of the protagonist. In the end, I decided to pick up Going Rogue.

Three things about this book stood out to me.

First, Alaska is a fascinating state. I expected to be bored silly by the first third of Going Rogue. I had no interest in reading Palin’s recollections of her ordinary life in Alaska.

But the stories from Palin’s childhood and teenage years showed me that there is no such thing as ordinary in Alaska. The state’s rugged terrain, fascinating history, and massive size (to cross the state you would have to drive a distance as long as Houston to Minneapolis) won me over. Palin’s “can-do” personality successfully represents the spirit of those braving the Alaskan wild.

Secondly, I was happy to see Palin’s unflinching articulation of a pro-life point of view. Palin’s pro-life stance is bolstered by her example. The mother of five children – including a baby with down syndrome – Palin does not just talk about life being a gift from God; her actions demonstrate that she holds fast to this truth.

One example is particularly memorable. In order to announce to her family and friends that God was blessing them with a fifth child (Trig, the baby with special needs), Palin pens a moving letter “from God” that describes this baby as a unique blessing. Whatever your political affiliation, Christians should appreciate the pro-life example that Palin puts forth.

One more aspect stands out to me after having read Going Rogue. In politics, there is always more than meets the eye. Palin’s account of the campaign trail provides a glimpse into the inner workings and outer facade of a national campaign.

But one would be foolish to expect there to be “more than meets the eye” in the campaign and then miss the fact that autobiographies of this sort also have an agenda and a purpose. Going Rogue is clearly intended to make a case for Palin’s political philosophy and clear up some of the rumors that have tarnished her reputation. But I have little doubt it also represents a savvy political move.

Politics is a dirty business. Seeing the media’s treatment of Palin’s children is sad. Sadder still is reading about Palin’s family being split into two locations, or her going weeks on end without seeing her husband. Try as she may to make it seem like she can be SuperMom and SuperGovernor (and then Super VP candidate), Palin has chosen a life of public service that comes with certain costs. At times, she nobly sacrifices her political ambition for her family. Other times, her family pays the price for her political endeavors.

To those who want to make Sarah Palin out to be the poster child of evangelical political engagement, I would offer a strong dose of caution. Yes, her autobiography is interesting. Yes, her stories are funny (Can you picture Joe Biden doing stretches and warm-ups before the debate?). Yes, her candidacy was a boost to John McCain’s lackluster campaign. I realize that she is pro-life and embodies many of the conservative values to which many evangelicals subscribe.

But we evangelicals are too quick to idolize political candidates that articulate our values. We should not join the adoring fans who uncritically embrace all that Palin does or says; neither should we join her opponents who demonize her and mock her family.

Going Rogue is an interesting story of a family caught in the crossfire of an intense national political campaign. Is it a one-sided portrayal of Palin and her family? Yes, obviously. But it is enjoyable nonetheless.

Today, I am interviewing Scott Klusendorf, founder of Life Training Institute and author of the new book, The Case for Life. We will be talking about some recent developments in the USA that influence the abortion debate (including the murder of George Tiller, the recent polls showing pro-life gains, and President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame).

Trevin Wax: Some people who advocate abortion rights are blaming the death of Dr. Tiller on anyone who is pro-life. How should pro-life Christians respond to this development?

Scott Klusendorf: While pro-lifers should condemn the killing of Dr. Tiller, they must not shrink back from proclaiming their fundamental message—namely, that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being.

Of course, our critics will say that by calling abortion killing, we are inciting violence against abortionists. This is nonsense.

As Andrew Coyne points out, suppose I’m an animal rights activist opposed to the sale of fur. If a deranged environmentalist firebombs a local clothing store, am I responsible?

Seriously, if people like Frank Schaeffer truly think that pro-life speech incites people to violence, they should step up and lead a campaign to ban all pro-life speech. Moreover, it does not follow that because a lone extremist kills an abortionist, the pro-life cause itself is unjust.

Dr. Martin Luther King, for example, used strong language to condemn the evil of racism during the 1960s. In response to his peaceful but confrontational tactics, racists unjustly blamed him for the violent unrest that sometimes followed his public demonstrations.

Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago argued that if Dr. King would stop exposing racial injustice, black people would be less likely to riot. The Mayor’s remarks were an outrage.

Are we to believe that a handful of rioters made Dr. King’s crusade for civil rights entirely unjust? In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, King rebuts this dishonest attempt to change the subject:

“In your statement you asserted that our actions, though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence….[I]t is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain…basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence….Non-violent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such a creative tension that a community…is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue so it can be no longer ignored.”

Finally, if it’s extreme to call elective abortion killing, then abortion-choice advocates bear partial responsibility for the stabbing of Dr. Tiller.

The fact is that pro-lifers aren’t the only ones who call abortion killing. Abortionists and their supporters have been saying so themselves for years.

For example, late-term abortionist Warren Hern, author of the book Abortion Practice, stated in a 1978 conference:

“We have reached a point in this particular technology [D&E abortion] where there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, generally a supporter of abortion-rights, describes dismemberment abortion this way:

“The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: it bleeds to death as it is torn from limb to limb. . . . The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. . . . Dr. [Leroy] Carhart [the abortionist who challenged Nebraska's partial-birth ban] has observed fetal heartbeat . . . with “extensive parts of the fetus removed,” . . . and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born “as a living child with one arm.” . . . At the conclusion of a D&E abortion . . . the abortionist is left with “a tray full of pieces.”

Trevin Wax: Recent polls show that, for the first time since Roe v. Wade, a majority of Americans claim the label “pro-life.” What does this mean for the pro-life movement? How do you interpret these statistics?

Scott Klusendorf: First, the bad news: I’m skeptical that there’s been much real movement toward the pro-life view. In fact, if you look at a summary of polling data over the last 30 years, the numbers really haven’t changed that much. I think pro-lifers like to pick and choose the polls they site.

True, support for late-term abortion has dropped thanks largely to the debate over partial-birth abortion, but a majority of Americans still support first-trimester abortion.

Now for the good news: Based on my experience in the field (not on any empirical data I’ve compiled), people are more willing to give us a hearing. Fifteen years ago, crowds on college campuses were more hostile, even nasty at times, but not so much now. In fact, my recent debates with Nadine Strossen (President of the ACLU from the mid-1980s until last Fall) solicited insightful questions from those attending, but never nasty remarks.

Of course, you still get your occasional abortion crusader bent on shutting-up pro-lifers (rather than refuting their arguments), but they are fewer in number than they were during the late 80s and early 90s.

Thus, the objective for pro-life advocates is clear: We must become very skilled at making a gracious, yet persuasive, case for life in the public square. That is not all we must do, but it’s certainly essential if we are to win. That’s precisely why wrote my book The Case for Life.

Trevin Wax: President Obama recently made remarks at Notre Dame about abortion. What were your impressions of his speech?

Scott Klusendorf: Rhetorically, it was excellent. I also appreciated his observation that finding middle ground on abortion is difficult. He’s right about that.

Look, either you believe that each and every human being in virtue of his humanity has an equal right to life or you don’t. Sadly, the President does not believe that, as evidenced by his refusal to protect not only unborn humans, but those born alive as well.

However, what surprised me most was his complete refusal to present any argument whatsoever justifying his pro-abortion choice views. There’s not one mention of his preference for tax-funded abortions both here and abroad, his votes to keep partial-birth abortion legal, and his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would undo virtually all limits on abortion. Indeed, many of his statements were question-begging regarding the status of the unborn.

Speaking of the abortion controversy, he used the nouns “we” and “our” when referencing our duty to understand our fellow humans but never once said whether “we” and “our” also included “them,” meaning the unborn. On embryonic stem-cell research, the President said that “those who speak out against research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardship can be relieved.”

Question: Would the President argue this way if the proposal on the table was killing two-year olds to relieve the suffering of five-year olds? Never in a million years. Only by assuming the embryos in question were not human could he argue this way.But that is precisely the point he refused to address in his speech.

If I were a thoughtful defender of abortion, Obama’s speech would leave me worried that my side had truly run out of arguments. And that, rather than inconsistent polling data, is what gives me the most hope for the future.

Trevin Wax: How does President Obama’s admission there are moral and ethical aspects of the abortion debate help the pro-life cause?

Scott Klusendorf: It exposes the vacuous logic in the President’s position. He says abortion is a “heart-wrenching decision” and we should seek to reduce it.

But why is it heart-wrenching? And why seek to reduce it? If elective abortion does not take the life of a defenseless human being, why worry about the number of abortions each year?

This is liberal doublespeak: You implicitly condemn abortion with your words, but make sure there’s not one shred of legal protection granted to unborn human beings.

True, the President did speak of moral aspects to the abortion debate, but he did so with a faulty appeal to moral equivalency. He said we should “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Let’s be clear: For Obama, women can only achieve equality by trampling on the rights of their unborn offspring. That’s what he means by equality. But never once did he say why treating the unborn human this way is morally and legally permissible.

And if the President truly cares about “sound science,” how about starting with the undeniable scientific truth that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings? In short, Obama is adept at saying one thing and doing another.

Trevin Wax: You’ve said before there are “fascist” themes that sometimes come out in the way liberals address abortion. Did you detect any such themes in the President’s speech?

Scott Klusendorf: Possibly. I define fascism in this case as an attempt by government to shut down legitimate debate on important public policy matters.

Consider Obama’s call for a “sensible conscience clause” policy for doctors opposed to abortion. The key word, of course, is “sensible.”

We already have policies leftover from the Bush Administration that protect doctors from performing or referring for abortion procedures. All indications are that Obama does not want to revise these policies; he want to revoke them, forcing pro-life doctors to either participate in abortion or go out of business. What else is that but an attempt to silence legitimate debate on abortion?

Trevin Wax: What do you hope to accomplish with your book The Case for Life?

Scott Klusendorf: In a sentence, I hope to give pro-life Christians the tools of thought needed to make a gracious and persuasive case for their views in the marketplace of ideas.

As I state in the introduction to the book, I do not pretend to have written an exhaustive defense of the pro-life view. That’s been done already by selected authors I cite throughout the text.

My purpose is different. This book will take those sophisticated pro-life defenses and put them in a form that hopefully equips and inspires lay Christians (with or without academic sophistication) to engage the debate with friends, coworkers, and fellow believers.

Admittedly, a book about pro-life apologetics may not appeal to some lay Christians. It seems many believers would rather focus on end times rather than these times. That’s a mistake. Humans who ignore questions about truth and human value may soon learn what it really means to be left behind.

For more information about Scott Klusendorf, check out his book, The Case for Life (reviewed here) and his website.

When living in Romania, I always looked forward to the arrival of World magazine at the mailbox in our apartment building. Back then, the magazine was printed and mailed weekly, but international postal service slowed things down. I usually wound up with two or three copies at the same time (and several weeks late).

But I didn’t mind if the magazines came in bundles and were late. World was my way of staying on top of the cultural and political developments in the United States. I read each issue from cover-to-cover when it arrived, always intrigued by the conservative Christian perspective on the news.

Today, I am privileged to interview Dr. Marvin Olasky, the editor-in-chief for World. In this interview, I ask him about the history of this great magazine and the direction that World is headed. You can check out World online here. 

Trevin Wax: Several Christian print publications have recently moved exclusively to online content. How is World doing during this economic recession and the current decline of printed news material?

Marvin Olasky: Our circulation is holding steady at a time when that of many other publications is declining so we’re grateful to God, and to our readers.

Trevin Wax: What is your role as editor-in-chief of World? What are some of your responsibilities?

Marvin Olasky: I try to look ahead and lead the staff in setting the overall course of the magazine, and I also try to write a lot. I used to read every article prior to publication, but editor Mindy Belz and managing editor Tim Lamer are terrific and I no longer have to do that.

Trevin Wax: The World Journalism Institute has been seeking to develop journalistic talent in young writers. How has this project gone? Are evangelicals making inroads into journalism outside of Christian circles?

Marvin Olasky: No major inroads in print publications or broadcast media, but given time there may be. The new frontier is electronic, of course, and I’m hopeful that we’ll see some strong inroads there.

Trevin Wax: I have long admired World for publishing letters to the editor that are quite critical – either of political stances or cultural engagement (movie reviews, etc.). What have been some of the more controversial positions that World has taken throughout the years?

Marvin Olasky: The two most controversial were probably our exposure and criticism of plans to make the NIV a “gender-neutral” Bible in 1997, and our exposure and criticism of Ralph Reed’s involvement with the corrupt deeds of lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2005 and 2006. We’re journalists, but some Christian organizations expect us to do public relations for them, and when we don’t, some sparks always fly.

Trevin Wax: How is World different today than when it began?

Marvin Olasky: Bigger and I hope better, with a firm embrace of biblical objectivity, but with the same theological principles.

Trevin Wax: Where do you see World in ten years? What changes should readers expect? In what direction is the magazine headed?

Marvin Olasky: We’ll continue to be faithful to the Bible, I hope and pray, with some new, young writers and editors grafted into World. We’ll continue to expand our online presence and will try to be ready to respond to technological changes that may surprise all of us.

To find out more about World magazine or to request a subscription, click here.

My wife and I recently rented a 2007 documentary about abortion in the United States entitled Lake of Fire. It is directed by Tony Kaye, a British filmmaker who spent 15 years putting this documentary together.

Let me say up front that everyone interested in the debate over abortion in America should rent this documentary. Let me warn you in advance that there are some gruesome images, including footage of three abortions. There is also an indecent scene featuring a pro-abortion woman’s rock band that you will want to forward past.

But here are some of my thoughts on the film:

One of the important quotes in the film is that “when it comes to abortion, everybody’s right.” Kaye shows a surprising amount of sympathy for the pro-life movement, but he also empathizes with the women who choose abortion and the people who provide abortions as well.

The first half of the film seems to lean towards the pro-life view. By the end of the film, the balance has shifted in favor of abortion choice. The people that Tony Kaye chose to interview on the pro-life side turn out to be rather radical. And they are all men. So for the most part, the fanatics he films are on the pro-life side (although he does offer some footage of fanatical pro-abortion people as well).

The second half of the film is less helpful. Kaye spends an inordinate amount of time interviewing people who think Christian conservatives are seeking to reconstruct a Christian society based upon Old Testament laws. The conspiracy theories fly left and right, and they are never contradicted by any sane evangelical Christian.

There are also some ridiculous statements accepted at face value. Take for example the statement that “The Roman Catholic Church never had a position on when a fetus becomes a person.” (Did Nancy Pelosi happen to view this documentary before her embarrassing comments about Catholic theology?) 

Or the statement of Noam Chomsky, who at one point says that “Everyone agrees infanticide is wrong.” Not true, Noam! Professor Peter Singer, one of the very people Kaye interviews for this documentary, believes that infanticide is acceptable. But we are never alerted to extremism on the left, only on the right.

But let me give Kaye some credit. He has the guts to show an abortion. The first abortion video is especially horrific. The cameras zero in on the doctor piecing back together the baby after the abortion is completed. At one point, we briefly see the doctor measuring the baby’s dismembered foot and head. (Unfortunately, the fact that Kaye chose to film the documentary in black and white mutes the horror of seeing the bloodbath taking place in the abortion clinic.)

Kaye also interviews Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe), who explains her role in the legalization of abortion. She then explains how she came to the pro-life position. She mentions a friend who worked in an abortion clinic and once opened up the freezer. “They were babies, man!” Norma cries. It is one of the most powerful scenes in the film.

The Problem with Kaye’s Documentary

Kaye spent fifteen years making this film, which means that the majority of footage he has of pro-life activists are those of the early 1990′s. He focuses exclusively upon the people protesting abortion clinics, and those who are responsible for bombing abortion clinics and murdering abortionists.

Never once does Kaye enter a crisis pregnancy center to talk to women who are helping other women through difficult circumstances. The only compassionate women in this film are those on the pro-abortion side. The only angry men in this film are on the pro-life side.

Kaye spends a great deal of time “exposing” the Right’s agenda to reconstruct a Christian society (a conspiracy theory that may be true of a tiny group of extremist Christians). But never does he point to the deception of Planned Parenthood, including the frequent cover-ups of statutory rape. Neither does he give us any history of Planned Parenthood, or the cause of eugenics promoted by founder Margaret Sanger.

The Problem with the Anti-Abortion Protesters

Then, there is the problem of the pro-lifers in Kaye’s film.  While they do not represent the majority of pro-life activists today, they exist. And they shine light on many of the problems that plague the pro-life movement.

Problem #1: They are all Law and no Gospel.

You don’t see the anti-abortion protesters ever offering grace or forgiveness or mercy. You do not see compassion. You see anger. And you see an abberant view of the Old Testament Law that needs to be corrected. Some of the protesters believe we should execute homosexuals, abortionists, blasphemers, etc. In other words, “all the sinners deserve to be executed.”

Never once do we catch a glimpse of the grace revealed in the cross of Jesus Christ, in which our Savior was executed in our place. Simply put, there is no gospel here. I wonder how many of these people have actually experienced the grace of God.

Problem #2: Conflating Too Many Issues

Kaye may not be fair in pairing up extreme right-wingers with nice-looking, moderates on the abortion side. But I can’t blame him for exposing the agenda that comes across in his conversations on the pro-life side. The protesters talk about the NRA and the need to abolish the IRS. They condemn homosexuality and say we need to go “back to the Bible.” They talk about the founding of our nation by Christians.

In other words, they conflate too many issues. Instead of focusing on the abortion issue as a matter of justice for the oppressed, they link abortion to all the other perceived societal woes of America and use abortion as a springboard to condemn all the sins in the land. I wish that Kaye had found people who could articulate the pro-life view in a winsome way and with the ability to make careful distinctions.

Conclusion

Do I recommend Lake of Fire ? Yes. It is a thoughtful documentary that shows the worst of both sides. It is less biased than one might expect. Despite the flaws in Kaye’s presentation, Lake of Fire wrestles with the issues at stake and does not shy away from the hard truths that people on both sides of this debate face.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

My children will not grow up in a country where race is considered a barrier to the presidency.

That fact by itself made me glad as I watched Barack Obama sworn in as the 44th president of the United States yesterday. It gave me a great sense of satisfaction to think about how far our country has come from the days of separate water fountains and lynch mobs.

But the thrill of seeing an era of sinful racism put behind us has faded quickly, for me at least. I hate to be the one to pop the balloon of our collective national pride in this historic moment, but I sense that we as Americans are facing the rise of a new national sin – one that is more subtle and even deadlier than the sins of our past – one that is common to all other empires that have risen and fallen throughout the ages:

A smug sense of self-righteous superiority that usurps the rightful throne of God.

Watching the news over the past few days has been almost sickening. No, it’s not the average citizens fawning over Obama as if he were the Messiah. Or the over-hyped statements from reporters trying in some way to capture the “historic nature” of the events and speeches taking place. Annoying as the now blatantly subjective news coverage has been, that is not what has bothered me the most.

Instead, the truly troubling aspect of the new era we have just inaugurated is the underlying assumption among so many in our country that now, finally, we have truly arrived. A new age has dawned!

We are now above racism in our land. We have put behind us the terrible sins of our past and we are moving forward into a new world of hope and peace. We have recaptured the moral high ground in our world. We are unstoppable, unbeatable, unassailable!

We deceive ourselves. Our rhetoric reveals an imperalistic mindset grounded in smug self-righteousness and a false sense of superiority.

World, look at us now! We are the biggest. We are the best. And we are nice now. We are above racism. We are above the sins of our forefathers. We are above the notion of sin itself.

We are so enlightened that the writers of our newsweeklies can thumb their noses at six thousand years of human history (and almost every other civilization in the world today) and decide that same-sex marriage should be legalized.

We are so enlightened that we can eliminate whatever might stand in the way of our sexual exploits or prosperity-seeking, even if that means the sacrifice of another 50 million unborn children.

We are so enlightened that we can restore Science back in its proper place (meaning that it’s okay to create human life in order to destroy it, as long as we, the powerful, can benefit somehow).

We are the enlightened ones who bring justice and freedom and peace to the world.

You could hear it in Bush’s audacious speech after 9/11, in which he claimed that “we will eliminate evil from the world.”

You could hear it in John McCain’s claim at one of the 2008 debates that the “United States of America is the greatest force for good in the world.”

You can hear it even now in the speeches of Barack Obama: We are the world-changers.

Behind the clamor of the adoring media and the sight of swooning fans in Washington, D.C. – we can see that what truly unites us as a nation is a sense of superiority over the rest of the world, a belief in America as our savior, a naïve assumption that our cause is always right.

The Tower of Babel is going up right before our eyes.

But how many leaders have to come and go before we realize the truth that only Jesus Christ is Lord?

How many examples of government injustice have to take place before we realize that Christ’s Church is still the greatest force for good in the world?

How many towers have to fall before we realize the truth that his kingdom is the one that will never fail?

We live in a day when hope has dawned, yes. But not because we have elected a new president. Let the Church never forget:

Peace has broken out because of the cross – God’s resolution to our war against him. Hope has dawned because the tomb of a certain first-century Jew has been emptied of its contents. Justice will reign because of the Church who anticipates his return and dominion.

Nations rise and fall, but the Word of the Lord stands firm forever.

Click here to listen to Bill Feltner’s radio interview with Trevin regarding this post.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

The 2008 presidential election represents a major setback for the pro-life cause. President Obama will likely replace two or three judges on the Supreme Court. His replacements are sure to maintain the majority opinion that favors Roe vs. Wade.

Despite this major setback, the ascendancy of Obama to the highest office in the land fills me with tremendous hope that the abortion debate will be turned around in this country. Why? 

Just consider where our country was regarding race relations forty years ago. How many people fighting for civil rights in 1968 could have foreseen a day when an African-American could be elected president? We have seen a cultural shift (in the right direction) that is unprecedented – and all of this change has taken place within a single generation.

Who is to say that within the next forty years the tide of public opinion could not shift dramatically in favor of the pro-life movement?

Perhaps we will have to change strategies and no longer pin our hopes on overturning Roe vs. Wade. After all, overturning Roe vs. Wade would not end the abortion debate; it would merely return the issue to the states. We might win many state victories, and yet still not see abortion outlawed in the country.

No… the way forward for the pro-life cause is by continuing to work to change public opinion on this matter of justice for the oppressed. We have several avenues of changing the debate: 

Science: Ultrasound technology continues to prove what science has told us all along – the unborn is not merely a “fetus”, but a human being.

Media: One way the civil rights movement gained ground among average citizens was by lampooning racists (think All in the Family) and by showing African-Americans in a positive light (think The Cosby Show). It is vitally important that people with pro-life convictions use the media to take the horror of abortion and the beauty of life to the common voter. We have already seen good progress in this area (the episode of House in which a baby in the womb grasps the doctor’s finger during surgery, movies like Bella and Juno). We also need good writers. Where is the Harriet Beecher Stowe of today who can write a book that will change the debate on abortion much like Uncle Tom’s Cabin changed the debate on slavery?

Grassroots: The church has already been very active at the grassroots level, making sure that women make informed choices and have ample financial and emotional support during their pregnancy. Pregnancy support centers are on the front lines in the battle against abortion. We must continue to win people to our cause on the local level through these centers.

History: We need to inform others of the history of abortion, especially the cause of eugenics promoted by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. How ironic that the first African-American president would promote the organization whose original intention was to weed out the black population from the gene pool by strategically placing abortion clinics in the inner city!

Our Children: Forty years from now, many of us will have children who will be engaged in this debate. Will they be as passionate for the pro-life cause as we are? Last night, as my wife and I were discussing Obama’s views on abortion, our four-year-old son piped up.

“Daddy, what’s abortion?”

“Well, son… do you remember when your sister (our four-month-old) was still in Mommy’s tummy?”

“Yeah.”

“Some people think it’s okay to kill a baby if it’s still in the mommy’s tummy.”

I didn’t know how else to explain it except in the starkest, simplest terms possible. His eyes got big, and he looked down at his sister. And I’ll never forget the brief look of horror that crossed his face as the reality of abortion sunk in. And then the big question: “Why? Why would anyone kill a baby?”

When I put my son to bed last night, I could not help but wonder if his generation might be the one to end this barbaric practice once and for all. But it will take honest teaching of the issues at stake – and nothing communicates the horror of abortion more than breaking down the concept to a small child.

As I hear of evangelicals shifting away from single-issue politics, part of me rejoices. A variety of issues cry out for Christian concern. But my prayer is that even as some evangelicals broaden the agenda, God will raise up single-minded leaders like William Wilberforce – people who will shake us out of our complacency and give us a passion for standing up for the voiceless.

Forty years ago, no one thought we could see the day when an African-American man would be president. But Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream.

Evangelicals who are disappointed in the setbacks of the 2008 Election need to hang on to the dream.

The voiceless depend on our voices.

The powerless depend on our power.

Those in danger depend on our protection.

The faithful should never give up hope. We shall overcome…

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Related Posts:
Why We Are Pro-Life
Clinton Lashes out at Pro-Lifers

I knew I had to buy this book when I saw that both Chuck Colson and Ron Sider were recommending it. Healing for a Broken World: Christian Perspectives on Public Policy (Crossway, 2008) by Steve Monsma helps evangelicals consider how our Christian faith influences our view of politics and public policy.

Monsma calls us to a biblically-informed view of public policy. He writes:

“The truly important thing is that we approach public-policy issues humbly and with our minds shaped by biblically-based principles, not by the various political idols of our day.” (11)

Monsma warns us of the traps awaiting well-intentioned evangelicals who participate in the political sphere. Some evangelicals fail to prioritize the right issues. Others may have a narrow goal of seeing Christianity recognized in public life instead of seeing freedom for all religions as a civic responsibility. A few evangelicals throw up their hands in despair, convinced that political solutions to our country’s problems are too complex.

In order to help us avoid these traps, Monsma lays a foundation of biblical principles that should undergird all our political involvement. Three principles are key: justice, solidarity, and civil society. These principles frame the rest of the book, but Monsma concentrates on the principle of solidarity when he is speaking of specific political problems.

Monsma writes about abortion, immigration, religious freedom, human rights, the environment and other hot-button political issues. Readers might be frustrated that Monsma does not always come down forcefully with regard to specific political proposals. He sees how Christians might disagree as to how justice, solidarity and civil society are best preserved. Monsma seeks to offer a framework to help us think about these issues rather than taking a ”This is the Christian approach” position that silences healthy discussion.

The chapter on poverty helpfully steers between the call to full responsibility and full dependence. He is right to see that the poor need help at a deeper level than a mere handout. My only quibble with Monsma’s treatment of poverty is that he accepts at face-value the government’s definition of poverty. Perhaps it is my experience in Romania with people who are truly destitute that makes me question the government’s poverty line.

The chapter on church and state is thoughtful in its approach to the role of the Church in civil society. But surprisingly, Monsma never deals with the issue of Muslim Law. The growth of the Muslim population in Europe and the United States has led to a resurgence of interest in Muslim Law that is not at all separate  from the State. Monsma helps us understand the issues at stake in Church/State debates, but does not address the growing concern about Mosque/State relations.

The chapter on the environment is biblically sound. But there is no discussion about whether or not global warming is man-made. I find this omission unfortunate, since determining the cause is key to how evangelicals decide how to address climate change.

The chapter on human rights is terrific. The principle of solidarity frames the discussion. Monsma peppers the chapter with good stories that are designed to shake us out of complacency and lead us to action on behalf of the persecuted in our world.

Overall, Healing for a Broken World is a much-needed book. I appreciate Monsma’s treatment of these political issues. He manages to bring more light than heat to these issues – a true feat indeed in our polarized political climate today. I suspect that some may be disappointed in this book, having expected more concrete expressions of political passion. But I, for one, think we could use a few more cool heads.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Wolf Blitzer “beams in” reporter Jessica Yellin via hologram from Chicago. A first for TV. How cool is that?

A long and grueling election season is about to end. Today, Americans will elect the 44th president of the United Staes.

No matter who is declared the victor tomorrow, Christians must remember three things:

1. We TRUST in the God appoints rulers and leaders over us.

No election takes God by surprise. He puts leaders over us. He is in control. He appoints rulers and kings. God is sovereign and his good purposes will not be thwarted.

2. We PRAY for those who rule over us.

The Apostle Paul’s instruction to us to pray for our leaders is not based on the worthiness of the leader. After all, he was speaking of an empire that sometimes persecuted Christians. No… prayer for our leaders is church-focused. We pray that the Church will have the freedom to be the Church – to witness to the Savior who is coming again.

3. We TESTIFY to the world that God has appointed Jesus as Messiah and Lord over all.

The climax of Peter’s sermon at Pentecost and the startling message of the gospel is that Jesus of Nazareth, crucified for our sins and raised for our justification, is the true Lord of the world. Presidents come and go. Empires rise and fall. Kings and rulers and earthly authorities will pass away. But Jesus Christ is the everlasting King.

Jesus is not elected “king” – at least not by us. God the Father has elected him, has appointed him King of the world and is now calling out a people to live under his reign.

Many evangelicals are wringing their hands about this election, worried about the outcome, scared of what might be in the near future. But if we truly believe what we say we believe – that Jesus Christ is Lord and over all earthly authorities – then the kingship of our Christ is not in question, the sovereignty of our God is not under threat, and our highest loyalty to the kingdom of God is not up for grabs.

Our mission stays the same:

Trust in our sovereign God.

Pray for our earthly leaders.

Testify to the world’s true King.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

This is a Catholic Vote 2008 video that expresses very well the evangelical belief that some issues (like abortion) are more important than others (like high gas prices).