On Monday, April 1st, IRD hosted a panel discussion on “Engaging Young Evangelicals: Have We Lost the Culture Wars?” I had the opportunity to share some comments alongside our distinguished panelists, Andrew Walker of the Heritage Foundation, Eric Teetsel of the Manhattan Declaration, and Jessica Prol of Family Research Council. Below is a transcript of my remarks. Please check back later for video of the full event!
I’m going to share with you a sketch of what the Evangelical Left looks like and why it might be that young Evangelicals are susceptible to sacrificing on issues like sanctity of life, marriage, and religious liberty. Most often the message is not presented as “abandon your pro-life convictions, abandon traditional Christian teaching, and come over here and advocate for climate control and pacifism, and these sorts of things.” It’s not presented in that way; it’s wrapped in the language of developing a “consistent ethic of life,” and we hear this all the time from groups like Sojourners, Jim Wallis of Sojourners, Shane Claiborne, and those want to claim the label of “Evangelical,” and that’s debatable, but they say, “Well of course we want to protect the unborn, of course we believe that Christians are called to do that, but that’s not the only thing. Other things we should focus on include protecting the environment, reducing poverty through welfare initiatives, things like this.”
But that message forgets there is a hierarchy of issues. We must prioritize protecting the unborn above all else because it ultimately expresses why we care about protecting human life, why do we want a consistent ethic of life, that should be the first thing. The unborn are the most vulnerable and flattening the hierarchy of social and political concerns obscures that and confuses that truth.
The most recent example I’ve seen of this was the Justice Conference in Philadelphia this February. It was a huge conference, about 5,000 people in attendance, with many more satellite locations where the conference was shown all over the country. Most people who attended were probably between the ages of 18 and 30, and most would probably identify themselves as Evangelical. Walking through the exhibitor room, there was not a single national pro-life organization there. There was one pregnancy care clinic from the local area, but there was not a single pro-life organization out of about 200 exhibitors. Further, as far as the speakers at the conference, there was one mention of abortion in China, but not one mention of abortion domestically. This was a two day conference with many speakers.
More than that, they featured Sheryl WuDunn, an activist working on solving the oppression of women worldwide. She spoke on that issue and talked about the imbalanced gender ratio in China but did not mention, not a single time did she mention sex-selective abortion, which is absolutely the major cause of the imbalanced gender ratio, but she didn’t mention it once. She’s not a Christian, so that’s her perspective. However, the fact that she was there, featured as a major speaker was very problematic. There was no point where that could be countered, no question and answer session, so I don’t know what understanding these people attending the conference have of that issue, but they left without an accurate portrayal of it. This is a Christian conference, this is a conference that presents itself as “our generation pursuing justice in the name of Christ.” That was very disturbing to me, but it illustrates what we’re dealing with. It’s a very insidious movement to try and pull away young Evangelicals from traditional teachings into cultural acquiescence, and it’s happening in very subtle ways.
Why would any young Evangelical be susceptible to this? Don’t we all know what the Church teaches, what the Bible teaches on life? Well, I think that most young Evangelicals do still affirm more conservative viewpoints, most would still vote more conservatively, but they tend to, a lot of times, privatize their beliefs. We see that most often with the marriage issue. They want to be able to say, “Well sure I believe that homosexual practice is a sin, but I wouldn’t want to impose my view on the rest of society that doesn’t share my opinions and beliefs.” This is very, very common. I hear this all the time and I think it comes from a number of reasons.
We already have a very weakened understanding of what marriage is in our culture. Young evangelicals haven’t grown up in a time when homosexuality is viewed as aberrant behavior. They have grown up in a time when it’s just another option and they may not agree that it’s right, but their parents, or their friends’ parents are divorced, or they’re cohabiting, or their friends are having sex before they’re married. There are very loose definitions of what proper relationships are, and this confusion is just in the water.
Also, messages of tolerance and acceptance are in the water and are what we’ve grown up hearing. Contrary to popular opinion and belief, our churches doesn’t always teach very clearly what a biblical view of marriage. So it’s not that young Evangelicals are growing up hearing solid teachings on what God’s plan for sexuality and marriage is, because that’s not always talked about very often. Then they go to high school, or college, even if it’s at a Christian college, opposing ideas and it sounds mean to say that “I don’t believe that marriage should be redefined as two persons of the same sex.” There’s not a strong foundation that they have to resist those trends.
I think one tangible step to take is to present a stronger message of why we are committed to protecting life, first of all. What is it about the Christian view of the human person as created in the Image of God, and how ought that affect our interaction with public life. Two, what is the Christian teaching of marriage? How has God designed marriage, and why does that matter? Why does it matter that we affirm design in public as well? Arguments about marriage aren’t necessarily going to be persuasive in the rest of society. Depending on what polls you look at, between 60 and 80 percent of the broader population of Millennials affirm same-sex marriage. We don’t’ know where trends are going in the future, nobody knows for sure what will happen, but that’s the situation.
To stand up against cultural pressure is a very challenging thing and young Christians need a lot of courage to do that. So while arguments aren’t going to change the culture, we need to make sure young Evangelicals have the arguments so they can give a solid answer and know why they believe the convictions they do.
So what do we do about this? How do we counter the Evangelical Left? I think, honestly, that we need to capture the imagination, use story to say: “No, it’s not true that in the past we haven’t had a consistent ethic of life.” We have had a consistent ethic of life. This largely is the media portrayal of the so called “religious right” and their “culture wars” caring about the unborn only until they’re born and then we don’t care about them anymore. That’s absolutely not true and we know that, but I don’t think that your average young Evangelical who hears these media stories all the time necessarily knows they’re not true.
We really need to be writing stories, telling stories of people who dedicate their lives to serving Christ by caring for the unborn, poor, and other vulnerable among us. These faithful, every day, average believers represent the majority of the much maligned Evangelicals. We also should look at what the new initiative, Marriage Generation is doing, highlighting stories of marriage and family among young people. Sharing these stories shows there is an positive and beautiful alternative way of life despite the brokenness and moral confusion around us. Let’s find more ways to tell the stories of faithful Christians already living a consistent ethic of life.
Comment by Marco Bell on April 4, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Kristin Rudolph writes cogent, and considerate articles, and I think she might be the best voice for her generation. I believe that her personal charge for correcting the dialog within the Millennial generation is admirable and ambitious, however, I think there will be fewer Christian comrades from which to recruit.
I realize that for Evangelicals of all ages, the sanctity of Life is paramount, but given the difficult choices already facing many young people today, ie: School, Employment, Debt, etc.. the outside chance of becoming pregnant doesn’t help but add stress to an otherwise trying time. That is why under such traumatic circumstances, abortion IS an answer.
Just as most sperm die, so do some fertilized eggs. Like most treatable conditions that warrant early detection, this condition also can be dealt with successfully. If abortions are not your choice, then by all means, avoid getting one, but don’t expect your religious dictates to be thrust upon the rest of society.
Sorry for the rant, but some unchallenged comments provoke it.
Comment by mvktr2 on April 12, 2013 at 3:47 am
The issue of abortion boils down to one simple truth. If the unborn is an unliving fetuses then abort away, it’s just a glob of cells. If the unborn is living then abortion without mincing words is murder. Judge Andrew Napolitano in an interview with ReasonTV explains this understanding with unmatched precision (wonderful stuff worth the 20 mins it takes to watch it – the abortion bit is at the almost half-way point). The non-aggression principal applies beautifully to the unborn.
Taking into account what scripture instructs along with biological understanding when such words were written (considering 6000 years ago a woman wouldn’t have generally known she was pregnant till the 6th week-morning sickness and wouldn’t have been relatively sure till the 2nd cycle was missed) and what we know about a developing embryo and child as well as how we define life … anything with a heartbeat is living, period! When a medical technician check’s one’s vital signs they check blood pressure and heart rates, both derivatives of heart function. To cease the heartbeat of a child unborn or not is murder. To stop the heartbeat of a chick inside an egg before it hatches is the same as killing that chick even though it is yet to be hatched. Abortion is not nearly so complicated an issue if one simply applies a realistic philosophy to it as you would any issue.
However such issues become more complicated when we look deeper (I know I’m contradicting myself, but life is full of contradictions). What of ectopic pregnancies or GTT/molar pregnancies. These are different and wholly difficult situations virtually devoid of easy answers for those believing the unborn to be alive. I know pastors who’ve had such discussions, those are tough tough situations.
Thankfully ours is a faith of grace. God pours out his grace upon those whom earnestly seek his will even when they come to wrong answers. No, death or murder isn’t acceptable no matter if we’re talking about the child or the mother, but grace finds a way. I have my suspicions that a higher percentage of death row inmates will find their way to heaven than senators or many other respected groups in our society. 😉 Grace is amazing and mysterious!
Comment by sandytnaylor on April 4, 2013 at 5:40 pm
In other words, in your view, a young woman just accidentally “gets pregnant,” and killing the unborn child is her right? She has no control over who she sleeps with? No awareness of a dozen methods of birth control? In other words, women are so stupid about sex and so devoid of any sense of responsibility, but, happily, abortion clinics exist to help the naive dimwits cope with their “treatable condition.” Wow, that’s really deep and really compassionate. For a feminist you sure don’t have a high opinion of women’s intelligence. Are they like animals in heat, no control over their sexual urges, unable to take precautions against pregnancy? I mean, God forbid one of the poor dears would have to endure the “stress” of pregnancy, since she has no control over these things. I’m glad I’m not one of those stupid women you describe.
I’ve never read such a blatantly cruel, coldhearted statement in my entire life. You talk about abortion as if it were as meaningless and trivial as getting a flat tire fixed. What a pity, to have such a cold attitude toward a living human being. It’s what repels me about liberalism, this false front of “concern” over this callous indifference to life. At least people like you tend to have few children, or none. Flippancy about killing a human being is repulsive. If you think an unplanned pregnancy is “traumatic,” consider that it goes way beyond “trauma” for the child.
Comment by fairfaxian on April 4, 2013 at 7:56 pm
Hey Sandy,
What did you expect from Marco? Look at how he refers to the baby: as a “fertilized egg” or a “condition”. With women being so busy and having such jam-packed schedules, sometimes pregnancy just slips in there. What else can you do but fix that condition?
Comment by sandytnaylor on April 4, 2013 at 9:02 pm
Trust me, I don’t expect any cogent arguments (nor any human warmth) from the “artsy” types, for them it’s all about recreational sex with multiple partners, and anything that gets in the way of that can be destroyed, just like they were tossing away a used kleenex. Ironic that artists pose as so “sensitive,” but in practice they have the morals of drunken frat boys. There is a coldness in artists, like they objectify other human beings. I hope there are a few exceptions but I’ve yet to meet any.
Comment by Marco Bell on April 6, 2013 at 10:23 am
I always appreciate the exchange between opposing minds, such as Sandy and Fairfaxian, so thank you in advance.
Sandy, if you’ve never had an unplanned pregnancy, then I doubt you can testify to the personal predicament that some women face. Yes, “accidental pregnancy”, happens, even among married couples that already have the “sanctioned approval” of Church and Society. These very personal decisions are not to be decided by anyone but the holder of the womb, so why do so many RR people stand in the way of law abiding personal freedoms?
When babies are born into conditions that are less than ideal, lots of factors are at play that tend to bode poorly for all concerned. Abortion is legal and lawful for free Americans that value the BIG picture over the situational impediments.
Whether you feel that this practical choice is “flippant” or “callous”, it’s still not your body, but the bodies of individuals dealing with their own personal problems.
Freedom of Choice is still central to most Americans.
I’ve known many women that have made this choice, and they’ve told me, it’s never easy, but it was vital to their overall plan for their life.
If fixing an unwanted pregnancy isn’t something you would choose abortion to rectify it by, then simply don’t choose that method…Period!
In my defense, I am a very compassionate individual who supports the Rights of others, and I have never resorted to calling you names. I still don’t know what expletive must have been used when you (Sandy) claimed I used a profanity. Was the phrase “Pissing Match”, the one? I wouldn’t think anyone to be THAT sensitive, but I could be wrong.
I’ll proudly stand my ground in full Liberal garb if it helps the cause for Social Equality. And I would expect nothing less of you, in your camp, for your causes.
I enjoy our engagements, not to try and convert, but to further my understanding of how others rationalize their beliefs. I’m doing this to understand myself as much as trying to understand you (all). So let’s not distill our differences by describing one’s professional occupation as a determiner to one’s political bent.
If I were an Accountant, would my support for abortion rights be construed as financially driven?
Yes, I am an Artist, as might you also be, but I don’t see how that has anything to do with our ability to discuss matters like these. Stereotyping is a cheap and tawdry practice.
Comment by Donnie on April 8, 2013 at 9:51 am
This, in a nutshell, is everything wrong with our society today. The idea that it’s OK to murder a baby because of a career path, or whatever reason, is plain evil.
I find it telling that the woman who originally fought for abortion rights has since became a Christian and is fighting to overturn Roe V Wade. If only leaders of the mainline denominations would take such a Christian approach!
Comment by sandytnaylor on April 8, 2013 at 9:57 am
That old line “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one” is just plain stupid. “If you don’t like murder, don’t kill people. If you don’t like theft, don’t steal. If you don’t like pollution, don’t dump your garbage in the lake.” That is a warped view of morality. Using your guideline, if I see my neighbor killing his wife, I shouldn’t intervene – I mean, that’s his personal “choice,” isn’t it, and I shouldn’t interfere, because, as you put it, it’s not MY body, so I have no right to intervene, right? Maybe his wife was causing some problems in his life, so he decided to kill her – which is the same rationale as these poor oppressed women who decide to kill their own children, isn’t it? The poor guy might be in a “personal predicament,” as you put it, and that makes it OK to kill, as you said. “Freedom of choice” matters to Americans – your words.
Let’s say you lived next door to me (horrid thought), and I see someone in your home attacking you. I shouldn’t interfere, right? I don’t believe in attacking people, so I don’t attack people, but if someone else wants to attack you, that’s his choice. Following your brilliant logic, the cops shouldn’t interfere either, and we ought to get rid of those restrictive laws that prohibit assault and battery – those are matters of “choice,” right, and government can’t restrict “choice.” You’re for “Social Equality” – great! Let’s make the serial killer equal to the law-abiding citizen. Empty out the prisons, we’re restricting the choices of all those poor inmates, bless their little hearts.
I don’t know how people like you can look at yourselves in the mirror. You talk about “choice” like killing a baby or not killing it is like choosing Coke or Pepsi. Call yourself “compassionate” if you like, words are not realities. Killing is wrong, period. Liberals claim they are all for the “vulnerable” and the “marginalized.” Well guess what, an unborn child is about as “vulnerable” as it gets. A baby in the womb is a thousand times more “vulnerable” than some career-obsessed, narcissistic woman who hates anything that might interfere with her shopping plans. I don’t have that type in my circle of friends, fortunately, preferring to associate with people who think other human beings matter and have some basic sense of decency. Your comments show that you obviously never meet that sort of person, and you think pro-lifers are such morons that you can use your buzzwords like “choice” and we’ll cave in to your brilliant moral analysis, assured by your frequent use of “compassion.” When the human conscience dies, the mind follows.
Pingback by Idiot Wind: a Response to Barnabas Piper | Juicy Ecumenism - The Institute on Religion & Democracy's Blog on April 8, 2013 at 12:15 pm
[…] Kristin Rudolph has recently observed, my fellow Millennials are an emotionally-driven and mostly unserious generation. This is cause for […]
Comment by Marco Bell on April 8, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Donnie and SandyTNaylor,
I’m sorry you find “My type of people” to be so vile and indifferent to Life, that we would choose to support Womens’ Rights over the unborn baby.
Firstly, I guess I can be glad I didn’t initially refer to the unborn fetus as a “viable mass”, as that would have really sent somebody over the edge.
If every conception were to come to term, and be delivered, we would be over-run with humans. I suppose God decides whether all, or some, will be born.
We have as a society, decided that during different phases of embryonic development, the fetus is not a full functioning human being, so therein lies part of the grey area that has most Anti-Choice people upset.
I am assuming that you (all) believe that Life (an existence that deserves full legal autonomy) must begin at conception? May I presume that you would find it acceptable to abort if the baby were deformed or permanently compromised?
These decisions are not solely my belief, but that of millions of other fine people.
If during the first trimester, a fetus (unborn baby) is deemed unwanted by it’s mother, should her only choice be to carry it to term because she’s not allowed an abortion? Or will individuals like yourselves step up to adopt those newborns?
The comparison Sandy made to assaulting or killing one’s spouse has NO relative comparison to the subject, since we have laws that protect against murder. Maybe if the unborn baby were given a Social Security number at conception, there might be due process and legal protection?
At the risk of being crude, the baby isn’t conscious to these wranglings and will never know what has happened. I warned you that this might sound crude. “Nip it in the bud”.
Why is it acceptable for wild animals to determine which of their offspring live or die? I believe that too many people have been forced into raising kids that never should have been born. Perhaps sterilization is a better approach? Unless you have some reason to protect every sperm out there?
Sorry that you feel that I must not have any Christian friends, but I do, and they don’t treat me as a pariah to society. I think you (Sandy) may have taken the phrase Social Equality to a new level referring to emptying prisons of inmates.
But that’s another subject. All I’m trying to do here, is to understand why some people (like you), don’t let pregnant women make their own choices, but would rather make abortion illegal.
Bless you!
Sincerely,
Marco
Comment by Donnie on April 8, 2013 at 8:24 pm
I would assume you’re not bothered by the fact that 51 million babies have been murdered since Roe V Wade became the law of the land? 51 million…
Comment by ericvlytle on April 9, 2013 at 9:06 am
Marcos thinks humans ought to be like “wild animals” and decide which of their children live or die. Sorry, but I’m not a wild animal. Pretty much sums up the liberal view of human life, doesn’t it? Kill your kids – heck, animals do it. We’re just animals on two legs, aren’t we? that’s why liberals have no morals in regard to sex – just do it, we’re the same as dogs or pigs. Funny, my vet told me it upsets him when he’s spaying a dog or cat and discovers it is already pregnant, meaning he has to abort the unborns, and yet some doctors, the scum of the earth, make a nice living aborting humans all day long.
I married my girlfriend after she got pregnant, and we’ve been together 24 years and have 3 kids. In Marco’s wonderful world where human beings act like wild animals I would’ve rushed her to an abortion clinic and taken care of the “problem,” except we don’t call the baby a “problem,” we named her Kathleen, and when she got old enough she learned about why we got married instead of aborting her, and she’s glad and so are we. Not being control freaks and not being supremely selfish, we didn’t see killing as the way to deal with what Marco calls an “unplanned pregnancy.” People who are loving and compassionate don’t kill other human beings and don’t regard unborn children as “problems.” There is no way to “spin” abortion and make it OK. The only upside to the abortion situation is that the worst kind of women, the most selfish and and uncaring and promiscuous ones, are the ones not having babies.
Comment by Marco Bell on April 9, 2013 at 10:55 am
Eric,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and your choices in life seem to have been made according to your convictions… as have mine.
I’m happy that you and your family have managed to navigate life’s trials and tribulations with grace and acceptance… as have mine.
Your attitude seems reasonable and prudent, and probably would square with your politics and religion… as have mine.
So here we are, in America, the land of the free and home of the brave. So why should it seem like there is such a vast abyss between us?
Hopefully, you’ve noticed that I don’t resort to name-calling or stereotyping people for their personal choices or even quirks. I DO find it entertaining to read all of the labels that you and others attach to people (like me), who strive to promote social justice, peace, love and understanding.
I never tire of hearing opinions from those whose positions differ from mine, and I hope you’ll keep me informed should anything change in your camp.
I’m reminded of a famous quote from an anonymous source in New Orleans:
“Consider that you might be wrong!” I love this conundrum in human behavioral
studies, and until (your) Lord arrives to claim whatever it is that’s left, I’ll be excitedly awaiting our next exchange, OR rapture, which ever comes first!
Sincerely,
Marco (the apparent devil, (little-D). See, I can resort to name-calling too!)
ps. Make no mistake about it, I DO NOT wish to change the way you think.
I like you, and I wish you the very best, as I need people like you to support your end of the “Spectrum”. Thanks again.
Pingback by Idiot Wind: A Response to Barnabas Piper on April 9, 2013 at 11:03 pm
[…] Kristin Rudolph has recently observed, my fellow Millennials are an emotionally-driven and mostly unserious generation. This is cause for […]
Comment by mvktr2 on April 12, 2013 at 5:02 am
Seeing both the introductory blurb and the discourse here I yearn for a more philosophically cogent body of Christ. The intro page states, “At the same time, the IRD has challenged church leaders who categorically oppose every U.S. military action since the 1960s. We respect a genuine pacifism that is willing to pay the price of not resisting evil. But we dispute the dishonest quasi-pacifism that pretends that all dangers could be averted by disarming our nation and appeasing its enemies. Within denominations that affirm the just war tradition, the IRD has contested the pacifist and quasi-pacifist minority that has tried to monopolize the church’s social witness.”
One need not be a pacifist to resist aggressive international militarism. America is no longer simply a country, it’s an empire with more than 1000 foreign military installations to prove it! There is a rapidly growing group of believers whom increasingly object to American militarism and imperialism. So you think America is simply a force for good around the world promoting the democratic way of life and defending American interest? Wake up and smell the lies. If the former were the case then please explain CIA overthrowing 6 democratically elected heads of state in the western hemisphere alone in the past 55 years, most often inserting a pro-american dictator? Pinochet anyone? Then add in an additional 11 heads of state in the eastern hemisphere during the same time period. Nothing like installing a brutal dictator that murders tens of thousands of political prisoners over 2 decades then playing the victim when revolutionary blowback finds your embassy in Tehran overrun with angry desperate people tired of being under the thumb of a foreign government’s lackey… ring any bells … Shah of Iran?
Let us at least be factually accurate. I’m a staunch believer in the non-aggression principal. People such as Ron Paul aren’t isolationist as they are described by party hacks and partisan pseudo journalist. In fact the opposite is true. Rather than instituting crippling Iraqi style sanctions, a tactic of seeking to isolate a nation, which are in fact an act of war and in Iraq’s case resulted in over 1,000,000 deaths of innocent individuals alternative avenues should be explored. You did know the first two heads of the UN sanction efforts upon Iraq both resigned and both referred to their effect as ‘genocidal’ don’t you? Or is that too much for the jingoistic nationalistic mind to conceive. Want to know the difference in the American relationship with China which was slaughtering American GIs in the 1950s and trading with American companies less than three decades later and the U.S. relationship with Iran who’s government was overthrown by the US and has never massively caused U.S. casualties like China? Approach, that’s all, that’s it. Perhaps the Iranians are harder to deal with but it’s worth noting that Switzerland isn’t the target of ‘rogue states’ and terrorist simply because they mind their own business.
The mindset can be broken down further to the individual. Chris Kyle the heralded U.S. sniper whom was tragically gunned down by a fellow former warrior whom he was trying to help tells about their rules of engagement in the early days of the Iraq war. Their ROEs (rules of engagement) were to shoot on sight any male armed or unarmed whom looked to be between the ages of 15 and 65. Kyle said they were orders he and his company executed very well. Sadly this is what passes for a hero in our jingoistic American culture. I wonder how many christian ministers got up in their pulpit in the weeks following Kyle’s death and used his ‘service’ to the military and the U.S. as a positive example.
A final note on the defense of democracy this organization is dedicated to. Democracies like all forms of government no matter how free or tyrannical claim to possess legitimate authority granted to them by their people. Logic dictates one can not grant a right or authority one does not first possess. How then does a government legitimately exercise rights individuals do not possess? The answer logically is they can not. For example, I can not grant to one neighbor legal use of another neighbor’s property. By extension 5 people can’t get together and decide to grant to one neighbor legal use of another neighbor’s property. Nor can 50 or 500 or 5000 or 5 million people grant such a right because they do not individually possess that right. Through the magic of government however such actions become codified in law with fancy names like imminent domain where property is seized for ‘the common good’. Democracy is simply another means of coercive government. Heck our state governments don’t even consider us the legitmate owners of property we purchased and paid taxes on. Oh sure our name goes on a registry at the court house. Yet every year they come around like a veritable mob boss looking for their vigorish known as property tax. Fail to pay and they’ll send a reminder. Fail to pay for long enough and finally armed men with the full ‘legal authority’ to murder you on that property should you resist are dispatched to restore order. Pax-Americana!
‘Does it ever enter into what’s left of your brain when you’re swilling cheap beer and waving the American flag on the 4th of July that you’re exponentially less free today than the revolutionary founders were under the rule of King George?’ – Larken Rose
Comment by Marco Bell on April 12, 2013 at 11:22 am
Thank you MVKTR2, for such a clear and qualifying statement regarding American pride misspent. Very Good! I couldn’t have said it better!