Trevin Wax: Sarah, thanks for stopping by. Tell us a little about yourself.

Sarah Pulliam Bailey: During the day, I am online editor for Christianity Today, where I write and edit for the print and online magazine. I tend to focus on news, update our blogs and social media, and pursue book interviews, profiles, and features. On the side, I write 2-3 times a week for GetReligion.org, where we critique mainstream coverage of religion news. I also write a monthly column for the Indianapolis Star on culture and politics. I grew up in Indianapolis, went to Wheaton College, and now I live in Green Bay where my husband works for the newspaper. Needless to say, my day is filled with journalism, especially of the religion variety. On the side, I attempt to cook and enjoy a good board game with friends.

Trevin Wax: Let’s start with your work on GetReligion, which has recently become one of my favorite blogs. The tagline for that site is “the press just doesn’t get religion…” Why do you think this is the case? What are the main blind spots that the press has when it comes to religion reporting?

Sarah Pulliam Bailey: Reporters work really well with concrete data, numbers that prove some thesis or trend. It’s difficult to capture religion because you can’t always quantify it. Journalists don’t always know what to do when someone says they did something because “it was God’s will” or “God called me to do this.” We’re told to capture who, what, where, when, why, and how questions, but reporters often gloss over the “why” question. Why would people give away money, why would people volunteer their time, why would they hold certain beliefs about politics, money, sex, family, entertainment, etc. Sometimes reporters just miss one of the key factors in a story.

We often stumble across interesting stories that miss an underlying religion angle, what we call a ghost. Sometimes it might be skepticism (such as in sports writing) or sometimes it’s ignorance. A 2007 Pew report suggested that 8 percent of journalists say they attend a church or synagogue weekly and 29 percent of them never attend services. You do not have to be religious to report on religion or find religion angles, but your personal experience might impact how important you think religion could be in a story. Then we often see stories that just miss the mark, such as calling Jim Wallis a face of the religious right. Even for those data-driven reporters, there are several sociology, political science, history, etc. scholars offering research or “expert advice” on recent trends to keep reports accurate.

Trevin Wax: I wonder how detrimental this oversight is to reporting on other issues. I’m often amazed at how the Middle East conflicts are so often conceived of in purely secular terms, as if religion is not a key factor in the battles raging in other parts of the world. Stephen Prothero has pointed this out in God is Not One. Many Americans tend to think that religion is relegated to the realm of speculation and private spirituality, and many journalists appear to follow that pattern in how they report on news stories in other parts of the world. Do you think “not getting religion” hinders our ability to understand some of the world’s great conflicts?

Sarah Pulliam Bailey: Yes, I think your point is key: journalists often look at international events through a political or economic lens. I’m amazed at how many events are seen through election coverage (“Libya a political challenge for Obama“) and not through other factors, such as religion. For instance, the local response to the Japan earthquake is likely very different from the Haiti earthquake, just based on the religiosity of the people impacted. Even if a story has foreign policy implications, some reporters underestimate the impact religion plays in another country’s leadership. Most religion reporters are locally or nationally focused, so we don’t see much international religion coverage from those who are on the religion beat. Newsrooms have time, budget, and manpower constraints, and a story on Justin Bieber’s haircut will probably see many more hits than an angle on Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. However, Reuters’ FaithWorld blog is one mainstream outlet that does a nice job at finding the international religion angles.

Trevin Wax: Occasionally, the media does pick up on a religion story, but it’s usually about something sensational. So you get media outlets camped out in the yard of a tiny church where Terry Jones plans to burn a Koran, or they take out of context the pope’s quote about Christian names and make it out that he is condemning other kinds of names. Is there an anti-Christian bent that causes media outlets to jump on stories like this? Or is it a desire to be first in reporting the most sensationalist news out there?

Sarah Pulliam Bailey: Pew recently released its annual report that includes the state of religion coverage. Last year it doubled–to just 2 percent of overall coverage. Of course, these are stories that are particularly focused on religion, as opposed to a story that might have an underlying religious angles (Haiti earthquake, for instance). The top five were the Park 51 controversy, the Catholic abuse scandal, Terry Jones, religion and the Obama administration, and Sept. 11. It’s interesting to see a few items like Park 51 covered so heavily and then dropped almost completely.

I don’t necessarily see evidence of an anti-Christian bent from most reporters, but there are probably elements that contribute to why they cover Christianity a certain way. For instance, the Terry Jones story was partly fueled by statements from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (again, that political filter). Or Pope Benedict XVI statements are often poorly translated due to language and distance constraints or theological and historical misunderstandings. Plus, there aren’t always obvious leadership structures. For instance, Protestants don’t have someone like Pope Benedict XVI to determine when something is significant, so the diversity can be confusing.

Occasionally, we’ll see an agenda-driven reporter or someone who just doesn’t understand Christianity or religion broadly, but it depends on the outlet. There probably is some pressure to jump on something before the next reporter, and it might get messy if the outlet doesn’t have a religion reporter or editor on staff who is at least guiding the coverage. When you see a quick blog post or tweet take off, it’s hard not to want to follow-up with more full-blown coverage, even if it might not be the most important story to cover.

Trevin Wax: A lot of attention in the blogosphere in recent weeks has gone to Rob Bell’s Love Wins and the controversy surrounding the semi-universalist beliefs put forth there. Martin Bashir of MSNBC interviewed Rob in a rather confrontational manner, and his interview raised some bigger questions about how journalists treat pastors and religious figures. Some folks have complained that left-leaning religious leaders are given softballs, whereas traditional Catholic or conservative evangelical leaders are asked tough questions, framed in a no-win situation for the leader. How do the assumptions of a television host influence the way interviews are done with religious leaders?

Sarah Pulliam Bailey: You’re right that Martin Bashir was pretty confrontational in his interview with Rob Bell, and we’ve had some discussion about whether it was appropriate. On one hand, it was refreshing to see someone challenge Bell after seeing some softball interviews but on the other, he was pretty pushy in such a short interview.

Part of a journalist’s challenge is to figure out what’s new, so if conservative leaders reiterate what’s been said for thousands of years, the reporter might feel the need to come up with more provocative questions to break new ground. If a more left-leaning religious leader says something provocative to begin with, the reporter might just feel like throwing softballs will make it a spicy interview anyway. There’s an underlying journalistic challenge that might shape the way reporters do interviews.

It’s clear that Bashir has some theological background that informed the way he conducted the interview. He asked the kinds of questions that someone without religious background would probably not know to ask. Some might argue that the questions risk going over the head of most MSNBC viewers, so it’s better to have someone who is less theologically literate. But regardless of Bashir’s approach, the kinds of questions assume a more intelligent audience that raises the interview past the surface level. Someone with a religious background might be more attuned to the theological issues, but any journalist can become more literate in these areas.

Trevin Wax: Sarah, thank you for the good discussion on the media and religion. And keep up the good work in your writing and reporting!

I do worry, however, that some people might hear Jared’s point as saying something to the effect: “It’s more important to change hearts; therefore, let’s not busy ourselves with seeking to enact legislation.” Within the cultural climate I mentioned yesterday (where young evangelicals are less inclined to seek cultural change through the political process), I fear that we may be backing away from seeking legislative victories when they are right within our grasp.

Not long ago, I saw a clip from The View in which the hosts were discussing a new Oklahoma law that requires women to see an ultrasound before choosing abortion. Elisabeth Hasselback defended the law, but then acted as if it were misguided to seek this sort of abortion legislation. She said something like: “Change a law or change a heart? I’d rather change a heart.”

Put me on record saying, I’d like to change both. The moment we dichotomize changing laws and changing hearts is the moment we postpone the day abortion is illegal.

So, even though I agree that changing laws doesn’t ultimately solve the problem (yes, yes, yes – on all of Jared’s points), I want to make sure that we do not in any way downplay, denigrate, or discourage Christians who are actually seeking to change laws. All over the country we’ve seen a decline in the number of abortions where legislation has been enacted. Whether it’s in the form of parental notification, 24-hour waiting periods, banning late-term abortions, etc., we’ve made significant progress in pushing back the murderous rage of the Evil One against the children.

It’s one thing to say, as Jared does, that we would happily line up to cast a vote ending Roe v. Wade. It’s another thing entirely to be on the front lines of creating and passing legislation that does indeed decrease abortion. If all we say is, “I’ll vote to end it when it’s on the ballot,” the ballot will never arrive because no one will think it’s productive or effective to work at ending abortion from the legal angle.

Let’s imagine a different scenario. Pretend you live in the Deep South in the 1960′s, and you say, “I’d like to see civil rights enacted, and if I had the chance, I’d vote for it. But we need to be more concerned with individual hearts than with enacting legislation.” If we had taken that approach in the 60′s, then the Civil Rights Act would have never gone into effect. Even today, we wouldn’t have civil rights, as there are still racists out there whose hearts have yet to be changed.

Likewise, if we sought to change hearts before passing laws against human trafficking, the evil of the sex slave business would only increase. Don’t get me wrong. I believe the gospel is powerful enough to regenerate the pimp and his prostitute, the businessman with a double life and the woman who has been forced into subjugation. But it’s irresponsible for us to downplay the good work – even the legislative work – being done by Christians who want to make it harder for this kind of evil to flourish.

In the same way, there is more than one front in the battle against abortion.

So, I urge my missional pastor friends: by all means, preach the gospel of forgiveness. Preach against moralism and legalism. Offer the balm of the gospel to those who have had abortions. Let’s tirelessly seek to change the hearts of people who would snatch a baby’s right to life.

But let us never place a barrier between changing laws and changing hearts. We need to do both. And while it may not be every Christian’s responsibility to work to change the law, we must be thankful for those who are on the front-lines of the legal battle. Their work in squashing opportunities for the Evil One to snatch away more children is a crucial part of the fight for life.

The whole of Jesus’ teaching and activity is abundantly instructive to rulers. Welcomed into the city of man, the Eucharistic city models and teaches rulers to rule like Jesus.

• “Turn the other cheek” gives instruction not about self-defense but about honor and shame. To slap someone on the right cheek, you have to slap back-handed, and a back-handed slap expresses contempt, not threat. Is this relevant to political ethics? Of course. The Roman Empire was built on a system of honor, insult and retaliation. Before Rome, Thucydides knew that wars arose from “fear, honor, and interest.” Remove retaliation and defense of honor from international politics, and a fair number of the world’s wars would have been prevented. There would have been a lot of slapping but not nearly so much shooting.
• The Eucharistic city would teach rulers to agree with their adversaries quickly, to defuse domestic and international disputes before they explode.
• What if rulers were instructed not to look at a woman lustfully? That would also prevent some wars, keep presidents busy with papers and things at their desks, protect state secrets, save money and divisive scandals. The church would insist that rulers be faithful to their wives and not put them away for expediency or a page girl (or boy).
• The church would insist on honesty and truth telling, urging rulers to speak the truth even when it is painful.
• The church would insist that a ruler not do alms or pray or fast or do any good things to be seen by others, especially by others with cameras – a rule that would revolutionize modern politics.
• Rulers would be instructed to love enemies and do good to all. Obama would be seeking the best for the Republican Party, Ms. Anonymous Republican would be doing her best to serve the president. A ruler would have to stand firm against the antics of tyrants, not out of hatred but out of love, to prevent the tyrant from doing great evil to himself and others. If the tyrant attacked, the ruler would have to defend his people out of love for them and out of love for his enemy. Punishments would be acts of love for the victims, the public and the punished, just as a father disciplines his son in love. The church would insist that the ruler not use his legitimate powers of force for unjust ends, on pain of excommunication.
• The church would urge rulers not to lose sleep over budget shortfalls or stock market declines, and exhort them instead to store up treasure in heaven by acts of mercy and justice.
• The church would urge rulers to beware their own blind spots and remove logs from their eyes so they can see rightly in order to judge.
• The church would remind a ruler that she will face a Judge who will inquire what she had done for the homeless, the weak, the sick, the imprisoned, the hungry.
• At the extreme, a ruler might place himself on a cross, sacrifice his political future and his reputation, for the sake of righteousness. In certain kinds of politics, he would be the first soldier, the first to fly against the enemy, because being the leader means you get to die first. In great extremity, he might follow Jeremiah’s example and submit to conquest, defeat, deportation – endure a national crucifixion to preserve a people for future rebirth.

Peter Leithart, from Defending Constantine (338-339)

I hope this email finds you well and enjoying the new year.

Until recently, aside from iTunes on my PC, I haven’t been much of an Apple-product user.  A couple months ago, however, I was given an iPad as a gift. At the same time, I entered a new avenue of service and switched to a Mac desktop computer. The switch from PC to Mac has been great. Both the iPad and my desktop computer are designed to give me the best online experience possible. Thank you for your leadership of Apple and your desire to serve your customers.

Though I am a satisfied Apple customer, I must admit that I am perplexed by a recent decision of your company. Please know that I am not one to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to special causes, boycotts and protests. I’m so new to this kind of email that I’m not even sure what the standard protocol is for registering this sort of complaint.

But I feel compelled to respond to Apple’s recent decision to remove the Manhattan Declaration app from the iPad and iPhone. As you know, the Manhattan Declaration is a carefully articulated statement from a large group of Christian leaders who publicly affirm the historic Christian perspective on three hotly debated issues of our time, including the definition of marriage. I’ve joined the almost 500,000 other signers who have found this document to be a clear and compelling representation of Christianity’s witness concerning these issues.

Knowing that these topics are debated in the public square, I was not surprised to see that some groups protested the inclusion of the Manhattan Declaration app on the iPad. The Christian perspective on sexuality has long been controversial, just as it was in the Roman era two thousand years ago. I was also not surprised to see that Apple responded to the initial complaints by pulling the app. One of the things I admire about your company is that your leaders truly listen and respond to customer comments.

What did surprise me, however, is that Apple did not reinstate the Manhattan Declaration app after giving it a second look. My surprise turned to shock when I read the rationale:

Apple cannot post this version to the App Store because it contains content that is likely to expose a group to harm.

I know that Apple has a policy prohibiting apps that contain “references or commentary about a religious, cultural or ethnic group that are defamatory, offensive, mean-spirited or likely to expose the targeted group to harm or violence.”

But I am shocked that Apple would consider the Manhattan Declaration “defamatory” or “mean-spirited.” Even a cursory reading of the declaration reveals numerous references to the fact that all people – including those adopt behaviors Christians consider immoral – are made in the image of God and deserve respect and care. For example:

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts.

I doubt that the decision-makers at Apple saw this statement as “mean-spirited.” Instead, it appears they pulled the app because they believe this point of view to be mean-spirited and hateful, no matter how compassionately framed. That is what concerns me. It doesn’t bother me that people disagree with the Christian conviction that the only legitimate sexual expression is reserved for husbands and wives within the covenant of marriage. That conviction has often been contested. What concerns me is that Apple has implicitly labeled this perspective as “mean-spirited” and ‘hateful,” and has chosen to exclude from the public conversation a large number of Christians who have biblically-informed convictions on this matter.

By taking this action, Apple muzzles Christians and labels our convictions “harmful.” Society says one thing about sexuality. Christians beg to differ. But apparently, according to Apple, to differ is to hate. Please consider the ramifications of adopting this kind of policy. Consider what it means for religious people of all faiths.

Christians believe that all sexual expression outside of the marriage covenant to be immoral. Yes, this means that we consider adultery to be immoral, as well as sex before marriage. If I live next door to an unmarried heterosexual couple, I will not condone their living arrangements. But the fact that I disagree with their sexual behavior does not mean I hate them. It doesn’t mean I won’t be there for them in their time of crisis. How could I fulfill Christ’s command to love my neighbor if I were to ignore or neglect people who believe differently than me? As a Christian, I am commanded to love my neighbor. I am also commanded to follow Christ, whose moral pronunciations in the Sermon on the Mount are so zealous that all of us are shown to be what we are – sexual sinners needing salvation. And that salvation comes only through the death and resurrection of Jesus, in whom we are to put our trust.

In the case of homosexuality, it appears that some people in our society have chosen to base their identity upon their sexual desires and behaviors. Then, whenever their desires are questioned or behaviors are condemned, they perceive the disagreement to be a direct attack upon their very identity.

Christians approach this issue differently. We believe people are more than their sexual urges. Though sexuality is important, it does not define us. In fact, we believe that human dignity is diminished whenever we define ourselves by sexual urges and behaviors. Consider this: married men are sometimes attracted to multiple women who are not their wives. Does this mean they should self-identify as polygamists? Not at all. And surely you wouldn’t consider it hateful for Christians to encourage married men to not act on their desires in an effort to remain faithful to their spouses. It is the Christian way, after all.

Christianity provides a distinct, even if minority, position on sexuality. It upholds a vision of sexual flourishing within the context of marriage between a man and woman. Apple has chosen to muzzle the Christian perspective on sexuality by removing the Manhattan Declaration app. I understand the concern to protect minority groups from harm, including those who identify themselves as homosexuals. But surely you can distinguish between hateful “gay-bashing” and principled, civil dissent regarding the legal definition of marriage.

Steve, I know that Apple is your company and you can do what you want. I’ve admired the way you’ve sought to keep people “free from porn,” even when it has cost you customers. I only ask that you will reconsider your decision to ban the Manhattan Declaration from your app store. Please consider the implications for civil discourse, debate, and free speech.

Sincerely,

Trevin Wax

(Emailed to steve@apple.com on January 7, 2011)

That’s a good word, and it’s one I’ve heeded many times. When the blog world erupts in controversy over an issue,  I often ask friends for counsel before entering the discussion. There’s a time to speak up, and there’s a time to hold back. Unfortunately, our world seems to know only of “speaking up.”

My family recently received a promotion from our cable company which gave us cable for six months. How nice to see the news channels again! I thought. A few days later, I was already exhausted from the war of words spilling from the television speakers into our living room. How did I ever watch this?

In the midst of the television commotion, one host stands out from the crowd. Larry King asks penetrating questions in a polite manner, but he never pretends to be unbiased. If you look at how he frames his questions, you can figure out his personal views rather quickly. Still, Larry is always respectful. When he has multiple guests, they don’t talk over one another. Larry doesn’t play the role of umpire between extremists on every side. He keeps the tone civil.

That’s probably why his ratings are down. People must prefer Jerry-Springer political shows that degenerate into a shouting match between sensationalist guests. So now, Larry is about to hang up his suspenders after more than 25 years on the air. Who will take his place? More than likely, he will be replaced with another fiery TV personality who chooses high-decibal guests – none of whom know the art of restraint.

Restraint is a lost virtue in contemporary American society.

But Trevin, you say. Aren’t there times we need to make our opinions known? Don’t we need to speak up? Of course. There are times we need to make our voices heard. There is a time for speech, even loud protest. Restraint is not always a virtue.

But most of us could benefit from the wisdom of timely restraint. Our problem isn’t that we are too quiet. No… we inhabit a world in which the dam of restraint has broken down, unleashing a flood of angry words. So now, the virtue of timely restraint is so uncommon that we don’t know what to do with it when we see it.

Take George W. Bush. Upon the release of his autobiography, the former president made the rounds on all the news channels to promote his book. Though he was vilified by people on both sides of the political aisle, Bush never once lashed out against his opponents. When asked about Obama’s constant criticism of his policies, Bush shrugged and said, “It’s a political tactic.” It was clear he didn’t take it personally and neither would he fight back. In his book, Bush writes compassionately about the anti-war protestors, some of which said unspeakable things about him and his family.

Reporters tried to goad Bush into a fight. Tell us what you think about Palin! Tell us what you really think about McCain. What do you say about the Tea Party and Obama? Each time, he resisted. “You’re trying to get me back in the swamp,” he said. He made it clear that he would not join the cacophony of competing voices. “I don’t think it’s good for the country,” he said. Perhaps we Americans should heed that word.

But didn’t Jesus lash out at his opponents? you say. Why do we have to bow before some idealistic code of civility? Good question. Yes, Jesus called his opponents snakes and vipers and whitewashed tombs. He even called King Herod a fox.

But I don’t think that we are emulate Jesus’ manner of discourse in every respect. Christ had one thing we don’t have: perfect knowledge. He could see into the hearts of his opponents. He alone had a God’s-eye view. His judgment was always right. Because we don’t have exhaustive knowledge, and because we can’t see into the hearts of people, Jesus tells us to “judge not” and to not call someone else “a fool.”

So I hope to follow the model of timely restraint, praying for the wisdom to know when to hold back and when to speak up. After all, I don’t want to be one of the people Jesus describes as surprised on the last day: surprised I was wrong when I thought for sure I was right.

Trevin Wax: Let’s talk about November. What are your predictions? Will this be a repeat of 1994?

Joe Carter: I expect that the Republicans will gain a majority in the House but that the Democrats will retain a narrow edge (1-3 seats) in the Senate. But even if the GOP were able to gain control over the entire legislature it would not be nearly as significant as the “Republican Revolution” of 1994.

Fifteen years ago, the mood was much different. The Democrats had retained majority control of the House since 1952. The Republican representatives in 1994 had a lot of pent up energy and frustration and were willing to make bold moves.

Today, the attitude is much different. The GOP only lost control of the House and Senate in 2007. They know that without a filibuster-proof, veto-overriding majority, they won’t be able to accomplish much. The best we can expect is gridlock and obstructionism. As a conservative, I’m all for impeding the expansion and power of the federal government. But it won’t be a winning message in 2012.

Trevin Wax: What role is the Tea Party playing in all this? In what I’ve seen, the Tea Party seems to be an outlet for pent-up frustrations on the part of many conservatives. But since the Tea Party is a protest movement, I wonder how well it’s going to play in general elections when you’ve got to be constructive and visionary.

Matthew Lee Anderson: Trevin, you’re right about the Tea Party being an outlet. But I see no reason to doubt that their energy will carry straight over into the generals. 2008 was a change election, and in one sense, 2010 is as well.

Joe is right that conservatives had a lot of pent-up frustrations in 1994 that were unleashed in and through policies and governance. It’s a different situation, of course, but we have to remember that the limited-government libertarians who drive the Tea Parties have a lot more than 2 years of anger to release. Though they don’t say it as often, there was a lot of frustration with Bush’s economic policies that has then been transferred to Obama’s even worse economic policies.

The real question for the Tea Party folks, though, is whether they can do anything other than win elections. The problem of conservatives’ failure to govern has been around a long time, and I suspect it will continue long into the future. Getting your people into office is only the first step, and whether the Tea Party will have the endurance to sustain the pressure to actually get things done is an open question.

Joe Carter: At this stage of the election, there is only one way that the Tea Party can really do to affect the outcome: increase voter turnout. How they’ll be able to make an impact after the election – or if they will at all – still remains to be seen.

Trevin Wax: Sarah Palin has been making headlines with her endorsements and her seeming embrace of the Tea Party ethos. Yet she didn’t do too well at the Values Voter Summit. A lot of conservatives really like her, but I get the feeling that a much smaller number have the confidence to get behind her if she decides to run for president. What do you make of Palin?

Joe Carter: Palin came along at a time when the Republican party needed its own Obama – an attractive, charismatic candidate that few people know much about and could project their own beliefs onto. But now that the Left is starting to realize that they may have made the wrong choice in electing an unqualified candidate, the Right is growing cautious about making the same mistake.

A lot of people (including me) rationalized our support of Palin as a VP candidate by claiming that she could “grow in office.” But after two years of seeing her in the spotlight, many of us are having second thoughts.

She has a negligible amount of experience in governance – a term as mayor of a small city and two years as a governor of a modestly populated state. Her resigning as governor didn’t instill much confidence in her ability to handle the pressures of elected office. And, despite pleas for her to do her homework, she has failed to distinguish herself in any area of public policy. The country has too many complex problems to let a neophyte candidate replace the current underprepared President.

Also, she is completely unelectable. By nominating Palin, the GOP would be signaling that they realize that they can’t defeat Obama in 2012 and have decided to exploit her popularity to fill the campaign coffers in preparation for 2016.

Matthew Lee Anderson: What Joe said, and this… Palin is probably the Republicans’s best and most effective political talent, but John McCain ruined her for conservatives. Had she not been turned into an instant celebrity, she would have had a few more years of governance and she would have had to work much harder to build the sort of coalition that she now controls. And that would have meant building an organization rather than a fan base, and potentially working a lot harder to demonstrate that she is a serious policy thinker in addition to a savvy speechmaker.

When it became easy for Palin, she lost the pressure to become a credible Presidential candidate. That sort of short-sightedness has been the Republicans’ loss, as she has the sort of charisma and easygoing image that is required in our media-saturated political environment.

Trevin Wax: There’s been a lot of talk about the GOP’s Pledge to America, specifically the lack of focus on social issues. Do you think we’re seeing a turn away from social issues and toward economic policy within the Republican Party? If so, what does this mean for conservative Christians who care deeply about the moral values of our society?

Joe Carter: The GOP has been trying to turn away from social issues for years (as I’ve complained about incessantly since 2003). Very few representatives in Congress care deeply about those issues. Most see them as, at best, a distraction, and, at worst, the reason the party doesn’t appeal to “independents” (read: liberal-leaning libertarians).

Unfortunately, too many conservatives give them a pass and make excuses for them. Economic issues are indeed a primary concern (when are they not?) but that does not mean the Republicans cannot also focus on social issues. When the Democrats are in power they manage to deal with both at the same time.

If conservative Christians don’t hold the GOP accountable they will soon find themselves persona non grata, just as we are now with the Democratic Party.

Matthew Lee Anderson: To build on Joe’s point about social conservatives’ relationship to the Republican party, at the Values Voter Summit last weekend, there was lots of talk about limited government and economic conservatism, to plenty of cheers. Yet if a social conservative were to go in front of the Club for Growth, one of the main economic conservative organizations, and talk about abortion, they’d be completely ignored. So the disconnect is very, very real.

Social conservatives have started making the case that economic conservatism actually depends upon strong families, growing demographics, low crime rates, and all the other issues social conservatives have historically thought about. And I think that’s a good strategy. But it needs to be combined with the sort of political savvy that really pushes Republicans to give more than lip service to social conservatives, as they so often do.

Trevin Wax: Glenn Beck has certainly gathered a following. Mitt Romney has (at least) a chance at becoming the Republican nominee for president. How does Francis Schaeffer’s idea of co-belligerence work in this scenario? Is it working? I worry that some evangelicals don’t think theologically enough to understand the difference between working side-by-side on certain political issues and standing shoulder-to-shoulder on the gospel.

Matthew Lee Anderson: I suspect the theological problems run both directions, and that Mormons also don’t understand enough of the differences or what’s at stake in those differences, which simply muddies the water even more. But evangelicals who want to be political co-belligerents with Mormons (as I do) need to think through not only our own political theology a lot more carefully, but Mormon political theology as well.

Marriage is a great example here. Mormons have a very different view of marriage than has existed in most of church history. How much of that plays out into their defense of traditional marriage, and how much of that matters? I have no idea, as that’s a recent realization for me. But I suspect it matters some, and that if evangelicals want to preserve the distinctiveness of Christian theology in its relationship to marriage, we need to be judicious about how we align ourselves with those who agree with ballot initiatives like Proposition 8.

In other words, if we’re going to be co-belligerents – and we most definitely should be – we should do so without secularizing our own views on the matter, which is a constant temptation for Christians who wish to interact in the public square.

Joe Carter: I think Matt is right. All of us—Christians as well as our religious co-belligerents—need to develop a more robust political theology.

Civil religionism is simply insufficient. Civil religion requires that we all get on the same page by setting aisde the God we really believe in and refer to a generic deistic entity that is palatable in the public square. But this is something Christians should not do. We should not hesitate to proclaim the name of Jesus.

We have both general revelation (mediate and immediate) and special revelation. We can agree on the general revelation aspects, which is why we can work as co-belligerents. But we can’t set aside what God has shown us through special revelation. Anyone who rejects Christ has rejected God. Jesus made it clear that there’s no way around that. Whatever Being that the other traditions are talking about, it ain’t the true God.

However, rather than letting that fact this divide us, this should simply be acknowledged, accepted, and factored into our approach to co-belligerency. We have to stop thinking that we all have to worship the “same God” – however unclear our understanding of him – in order to work together. We also have to stop thinking that our political alliances prevent us from spreading the gospel message that the triune God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – and not the tritheistic god of Joseph Smith – is the only way to salvation. It would be better for us to lose our nation than to lose the souls of our fellow citizens because we refused to share the Gospel.

Trevin Wax: A sobering word to end on, Joe. Thanks to both of you for this stimulating conversation!

At the outset, let me be clear. Christians create and critique books; we don’t burn them. We have always been on the front lines of increasing literacy, that we might open the world of books (and especially the Bible) to everyone everywhere. The actions of this tiny church in Florida do not represent the views of the vast majority of Christians.

The frustrating part of this story is the fact that it is a story. It tells us very little about how evangelicals view their Muslim neighbors and very much about the media’s willingness to seize any opportunity to create and maintain chaos.

Think about it. Is this church’s actions going to cause conflict between Muslims and Christians? Yes. But only because newspapers and TV talking heads blew up the story for the world to see.

Is the imagery of Koran-burning going to hurt the perception of American Christians in other parts of the world? Absolutely. But only because the news media has asked that question and seared that picture into our imagination. Even if the church decided to call off the bonfire, the damage is already done.

In a day of 24/7 news, journalists feel constant pressure to stay on top of stories like this, even if they are manufactured and promoted by other news outlets. How could they keep from reporting this story, especially when they had the chance to increase sympathy for Muslims, heap scorn on evangelicals, and cause conflict before September 11? It was the perfect story to accomplish all three tasks.

When I think about the obligatory condemnations coming from military commanders, politicians and leaders, I shake my head at how much time and energy has been wasted here. If Saddleback Church were burning books, you’d have a story. But traveling to the fringe and honoring such actions with this much media attention only exacerbates the problem and causes other fringe groups to try the same tactics.

(By the way, does anyone notice that whenever radical Muslims act out journalists are quick to remind us that most Muslims are not this way? And yet when fringe Christian groups do silly things, journalists use the occasion to take a swipe at evangelicals?)

Regardless of the media’s creation of this story, evangelicals need to remember that it’s not book burning that brings lasting change; it’s the gospel. And the gospel is spread not by fanning the flames of hatred toward those in false religions, but by churches proclaiming good news and demonstrating this news through self-sacrifice and love.

Much more effective than the book-burning antics of a tiny church is the testimony of men and women who choose to surrender their bodies to the flames of persecution rather than deny the One who has redeemed them. Christ calls us to lay our lives on the altar, not someone else’s books.

Here’s one reason to pray for our leaders:

JAMES K. POLK (1845/1849)

ABRAHAM LINCOLN (1860/1865)

WOODROW WILSON (1913/1920)

JIMMY CARTER (1976/1980)

RONALD REAGAN (1980/1989)

GEORGE H.W. BUSH (1988/1992)

BILL CLINTON (1992/2000)

GEORGE W. BUSH (2000/2008)

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.

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.