If I Were Trump’s Pastor, This Is What I Would Encourage Him To Do

President Donald Trump is going through a very difficult time right now. His poll numbers are underwater on the economy, on health care, on tariffs, on the Epstein files, on immigration, on the war in Ukraine, on strikes on Venezuelan boats, etc. The Susie Wiles interviews with Vanity Fair reveal a Cabinet in chaos. Although I vigorously disagree with many of his policies, I must remember that Trump is a human being made in God’s image. He needs help because his mental and emotional state show wear and tear. President Trump went on a tirade in his tweet regarding Rob and Michele Reiner’s murder. Here it is for you to evaluate for yourself.

“A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before.” His post concluded, “May Rob and Michele rest in peace!“

Each president, in turn, needs to be the “Consoler-in-Chief” to bring the nation together after a tragedy. His tweet did not succeed. Instead of leading us into a national lament, Trump’s tirade became self-aggrandizing and praising of himself with phrases like “the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness.”

Almost universally, U.S. politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, appropriately criticized the president for his lack of normal human empathy. Trump claims to be a Christian, but he doesn’t seem to know much about Jesus nor his basic message of forgiveness. Trump has repeatedly claimed he has never confessed his sins to God nor asked for forgiveness from God. Trump is a deeply flawed person. So am I. Trump needs healing of his soul…and his entire being. We all do.

The president has a White House Faith Office led by Rev. Paula White. The staff in that office, in addition to their public duties, should provide the president with the best pastoral recommendations for his personal life. If I were pastor to the president, I would urge the following:

Mr. President, you need a deep, genuine conversion. The good news message is the same for all. Repent of your evil ways and believe in the Lord for the forgiveness of your sins. Be as honest as you can with God. Although you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, you can fool the Lord none of the time. The Good Book says, “if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” Become truthful. Make a list of your biggest mistakes, acknowledge them and turn away from them. Become reconciled with God.
Mr. President, my second exhortation is based on the first. “If you are presenting an offering to the Lord and you remember that someone has something against you, go and become reconciled with that person.” To the degree that it depends on you, reconcile yourself with the people in your life. Confess your sins to those you have offended. This includes your family and friends, but also your rivals and opponents.
Mr. President, ask key people to speak truth into your heart. We all have blind spots. I do…you do. We don’t see our flaws as others see them. You are surrounded by “yes” men and women who tell you what you want to hear but not what you need to hear. Therefore, ask key people to tell you the truth. I think Melania might be a good person to start with. Perhaps Ivanka. It would take great maturity on your part but invite Marjorie Taylor Greene or Mike Pence to point out your flaws to your face.

P.S. Mr. President, I listened to your speech to the nation last night. We all know your motivation was to shore up your sinking presidency. Like most politicians, you cherry pick the data. You highlight data that is favorable (ex. gasoline prices), but you ignore (ex. health care premium increases) or outright lie about the negative facts (ex. grocery price increases or that tariffs are taxes).

I hope and pray that you humbly learn to walk in the truth and experience substantial healing.

Is “Christian Nationalism” a Dangerous Heresy? Is It Faithful to Jesus?

“Christian Nationalism” is like the air we breathe. It is all around us, but we usually don’t see it. We can measure it in a variety of ways. We can even determine when it degenerates into smog that can be dangerous for our health. But, what is Christian Nationalism and is it a heresy? A working definition usually includes something like “a significant commitment by Christians (especially Christian leaders) to a national government or major political party. This formal or informal relationship frequently results in an alliance or “marriage” in which the religious believers receive some benefits, but the government/political party is the senior partner that receives the greatest benefits (votes, moral respectability, public stature of being above the law, internal cohesion, etc.) This alliance becomes heretical when it pushes believers to violate some of their most basic religious/ethical values.” Let’s look at two classical examples of Christian Nationalism before we turn to a more contemporary illustrstion.

Constantine reigned as Roman Emperor from 306 – 337 AD (at times shared, in other periods by himself). He was the first Emperor to convert to Christianity, although his knowledge of the faith seems to have been fairly limited. According to some traditions, he had a vision in 312 in which he saw a cross in the night sky and the words “with this cross you will conquer”. He then won the decisive battle of Milvian Bridge and converted to the faith shortly thereafter. In 313 the Edict of Milan de-criminalized Christianity throughout the empire and essentially ended the persecution against the faith (I approve of this edict because it promoted freedom of religion). Christianity continued to grow numerically. Decades later, in 380 AD, the Edict of Thessalonica promoted Christianity to become the official state religion of the Roman Empire. Although some Christians celebrated this act, I believe it was generally disastrous for the true faith. Freedom of religion disappeared as people in the Empire were forced to adopt Christianity. In addition, they violated an essential belief. The early church during the first three centuries had been almost universally pacifistic. Although they would die by the sword as martyrs, in faithful obedience to the teaching of Jesus, they would not kill with the sword. This all changed with the emergence of this “Christian Nationalism” in which their so-called “Christian” emperors commanded them to kill enemies of the empire. Tragically, many followers of Christ did not love those enemies, they killed them. Just War Theory began to develop to evaluate whether these killings were “justified” or not. In addition, the simple faith of humble disciples became transformed into ostentatious cathedrals, power broker bishops, and increasing neglect of widows, orphans, foreigners and the poor in general. Later atrocious examples of Christian Nationalism, such as the Spanish Inquisition, trace their roots to this Constantinian version of the faith.

Through various divisions in the church (including the Catholic/Orthodox schism and the Protestant Reformation), most Christians became aligned with national boundaries (for example, the Anglican Church in England). In the 1930s with Hitler’s rise to power, there was a Nazification of the Deutsche Cristen (German Christian) movement. This was a clear example of “Christian Nationalism” that approved of heretical practices antithetical to the teachings of Jesus (the persecution and slaughter of Jews, gypsies, and others, the idolatrous cult to Hitler, the “euthanasia” of handicapped people, etc.) Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer (one of my heroes of the faith) emerged to challenge these heresies. As an alternative of resistance, he helped form the “Confessing Church” based on the Bible and teachings of Jesus. He was accused of participating in a plot to assassinate Hitler and therefore imprisoned. He was hanged on April 9, 1945.

Now let’s turn to the United States. It is sometimes affirmed that our country was founded as a “Christian Nation”. The historical evidence does not support that claim. It is true that many of our ancestors were genuine followers of Jesus and many found religious freedom here that was denied to them in Europe, but our founding documents were written by those who were more “deist” (the belief in a watchmaker divinity who starts the clock, then walks away) than by theistic Christians. Thomas Jefferson was, by far, the most influential writer of these documents. In his “Jefferson Bible” he eliminated all references to the supernatural elements of the Bible….hardly orthodox Christianity. It might be worse if we had been a Christian nation, because our multiple sins against indigenous Americans and enslaved Africans should have caused us deep shame instead of our trying to justify them.

In contrast with Europe, the United States never had a national “State Church” although there were a variety of churches that flourished in the thirteen colonies. Some scholars call this phenomenon “civil religion”. Our money and songs have religiosity sprinkled all around with phrases such as “in God we trust”, “God bless America”, and “one nation under God”. These point to a benevolent deity who blesses our actions but rarely calls us to repentance or to a change in our national behavior.

The contemporary “Christian Nationalism” movement goes much further. About fifty years ago, changes started to take place in the Bible Belt. Most white evangelicals in the South had been Democrats (Including Billy Graham), but key people in the Reagan circles began to call these evangelicals to the Republican ranks based on the issue of abortion. If abortion was tantamount to murder, what was needed was the election of a Republican president who would appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court, who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion. As a consequence, for the last four decades, roughly 80% of white evangelical Christians have voted for the Republican presidential candidate in turn. Although they were essentially one issue voters (overturning abortion), they tended to adopt Republican perspectives on other issues (strong military, anti-immigrant, anti-environment, etc.). In my not-so-humble opinion, these perspectives do not always line up with the ethical teaching of Jesus. These negative tendencies of “Christian Nationalism” have reached a crescendo with the presidency of Trump. I believe much of this is due to a failure of evangelical leaders, like Franklin Graham. When confronted with Trump’s most obvious womanizing and racist actions, these leaders replied “Just hold your nose, and vote for him anyway, because you are really voting for conservative justices in the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe”. They were applying the sub-Christian maxim of “the end justifies the means” (the good end of overturning Roe justifies the election of a deeply flawed president). These leaders failed the church because they should have taught the full teaching and example of Jesus.

One of the most tragic aspects of Christian nationalism is that Christians tend to passionately defend governmental decisions and actions as if they had been ordered by God even when they are false and sinful.

Some of the most recent are the following:

House Speaker Johnson’s alibis why he didn’t swear in Representative Adelita Grijalva for over a month.
The stalling and coverup of the Epstein files. If Trump has nothing to hide, why do evangelicals appear to be protecting pedophiles?
Secretary Hegseth’s order to strike boats in the Caribbean and Pacific without the White House obtaining authorization from Congress. Merely saying we are in a war against drugs does not mean authorization to kill over 80 people in boats.
Back on April 16, 2016 Hegseth said, “I do think there have to be consequences for abject war crimes. If you’re doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that. That’s why the military said it won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief. There’s a standard, there’s an ethos, there’s a belief that we are above what so many things that our enemies or others would do.” This is the exact same policy that a group of six Democratic members of Congress cited in a video that they aired two weeks ago which enraged Hegseth and Trump who labeled their video as seditious and called for their deaths. Why can’t evangelicals acknowledge that this is hypocrisy?

We are in perilous times when “Christian Nationalism” poses a real threat to the Christian faith and to our country. It is so pervasive that it is frequently not even recognized. Let me end this post with a Sacred Cow, the Pledge of Allegiance. This is so commonplace that most people recite it without examining it. It’s a “no-brainer”. I suggest we do use our brains to ask tough questions. Why would followers of Jesus pledge allegiance to a country (led by flawed human authorities)? The early Christians declared Jesus was the Lord, the emperor was not. Faithful Christians in Germany did not pledge allegiance to Hitler’s Nazi agenda. Should Christians in Russia pledge allegiance to Putin’s authoritarian regime? Let’s respond with courage, clarity, truth and respect.

An Exhortation from the Word of God for Donald Trump…, and for Us

“Do not think more highly of yourselves than you should.” So wrote the Apostle Paul (Romans 12:3) around 55 AD to the followers of Jesus in the city of Rome. Although most Christians in the first century were poor and without much social power, this was not universally true. Rome was the capital of the Empire, and the Roman Empire was the most powerful empire of its day. It ruled the world with violence, arrogance and pride. Their citizens generally looked down upon their neighbors and considered others to be inferior human beings. It is tragically true that arrogance is contagious and that some of the Christians in Rome had also been infected with this pride. Therefore, the apostle exhorted them to re-evaluate themselves more carefully, more soberly, and more humbly. It shouldn’t be so difficult to acknowledge this pride, personally or nationally, but it is.

The United States is the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever known. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to equate might with right, or wealth with justice. The Bible frequently points out that wealth and power have been accumulated through violence and oppression (James 2:6). Politicians, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, proclaim that the United States is the best country in the world. This might make us feel good…, but it is not true. Our European ancestors acquired this land stewarded by indigenous nations through warfare and broken treaties. They wickedly enslaved Africans and became rich off of the labor of the slaves. Waves of immigrants came to out country seeking the “American Dream” and a better life for their children. Some saw their dreams come true, but others were grossly mistreated. In the Mexican American war, we acquired half of Mexico’s territory. Abraham Lincoln denounced this war as most unjust. I could go on and on, but this is enough to reveal some of our national faults.

Donald Trump, soon you will be sworn in as our 47^th president. Many will say that you are the most powerful man in the world…and maybe they are right. But do not think more highly of yourself that you should. You also will have to give account to God for your actions. Even presidents must bend the knee before the King of Kings. God does not ask you to enable the rich to become richer. He has other criteria. He told a Jewish king the message “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs 31:8-9). Mr. Trump, I suggest that God will use similar criteria for you.

Robert F. Kennedy: Criticisms from at least Three Constituencies

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated the people he wants to fill out his Cabinet. This is appropriate because he won the presidential election in November. (His claim of a landslide victory is false. He won 49.81% of the popular vote compared with 48.33% for Kamala Harris, the smallest margin of victory since 2000.) According to our Constitution, the President nominates candidates, and the Senate examines them and then approves or rejects each one, based upon their background, expertise, policies they would pursue, and their moral character. Some of his nominees are well qualified and should sail through the Senate. Nevertheless, other nominees are quite controversial and will probably not get confirmed. Most have not been properly vetted. Some, like Matt Gaetz, will withdraw their nomination or suffer the embarrassment of being rejected by the Republican controlled Senate. One of the most troubling is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who himself was a candidate for president, then threw his support to Trump. As compensation for his “loyalty”, Trump named him to become the Secretary of the powerful, sprawling Health and Human Services Department (HHS). He told RFK to “go wild” on health. Perhaps he is too “wild”. He has received sharp criticisms from at least these three constituencies.

The Medical Community – If he is confirmed, Kennedy would oversee 13 federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. RFK is so controversial because he has made many affirmations that are contrary to scientific evidence. For example, he is known as an “anti-vaxxer”, who urges people not to get vaccinated. He has claimed (without proof) that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine causes autism. He has just petitioned the FDA, through his lawyer, to revoke approval of the polio vaccine. The Salk polio vaccine has protected an estimated twenty million people from getting this dreaded disease. This past Monday, 77 Nobel laureates, from the fields of medicine, chemistry, physics, and economics wrote an open letter to the Senate, urging its members to reject the RFK nomination. The letter states that “placing Mr. Kennedy in charge of HHS would put the public’s health in jeopardy and undermine America’s global leadership in health science”.

The Pro-Lifers – Some pro-lifers are realizing that Trump’s support of pro-life issues was largely transactional. He manipulated them and he is not a true believer in their cause. An early indication was the platform of the Republican party. Trump promoted a change in the abortion plank which watered down its wording which had endured for decades. Now, the President-elect has nominated Kennedy to head up HHS. RFK has been pro-choice on abortion, yet he tried to walk that back when he was courting Republican voters. Significant pro-lifers are raising their voice against RFK. For example, former Vice-President Mike Pence wrote, “I believe the nomination of RFK Jr. to serve as Secretary of HHS is an abrupt departure from the pro-life record of our administration and should be deeply concerning to millions of pro-life Americans who have supported the Republican Party and our nominees for decades.” He added, “On behalf of tens of millions of pro-life Americans, I respectfully urge Senate Republicans to reject this nomination and give the American people a leader who will respect the sanctity of life as Secretary of Health and Human Services”. (Here I am not weighing in on the morality of abortion; I am just reporting that Pence sees the RFK nomination as a betrayal of the pro-life movement.)

Corn Farmers – RFK has been quite outspoken regarding the dangers of high-fructose corn syrup. He denounces that our high consumption of this corn syrup in many food products has been the major factor in childhood obesity and other illnesses. (The medical community largely agrees with RFK on this issue.) In one of his promo videos, he affirmed that high-fructose corn syrup “is just a formula for making you obese and diabetic”. The political controversy swirls around what he might do about corn syrup and how this might negatively affect the jobs of farmers. As Secretary of HHS, he could urge the elimination of farm subsidies for corn production. This would be devastating for rural farmers (rural folk are some of Trump’s most solid supporters). Senators from corn producing states have raised the alarm. Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican from Iowa, said, “I may have to spend a lot of time educating Kennedy about agriculture”.

U.S. Senators, you are responsible for seriously evaluating the experiential and moral fitness of each nominee and their mental judgment. Next week, Kennedy will be meeting with many of you. Please, do your job of serving the citizens by being rigorous in your evaluation of RFK.

The Matt Gaetz Nomination: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, your Christian Values are at Stake

A week ago, President elect Trump nominated Congressman Matt Gaetz to become the country’s Attorney General. Like other nominations, this process moves to the Senate so that the nominee can either be confirmed or rejected. Usually, the House of Representatives has nothing to do with this confirmation process, but in the Gaetz process, it does. Why? Gaetz is a very controversial nominee for many reasons. He does not have significant experience in prosecution of legal cases, a must for the position of Attorney General. Gaetz was largely responsible for getting rid of previous House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. In addition, he was being investigated by the House Ethics Committee for a wide range of allegations: violating sex trafficking laws, sharing inappropriate sexual images on the House floor, using campaign funds for his personal use, and accepting bribes! He has denied committing these crimes. The House Ethics Committee (composed of five Republicans and five Democrats) was moving forward last week to make public the results of their investigation. Trump then nominated Gaetz for the position of Attorney General. Gaetz abruptly resigned his position in the House (which was not required for nominees). He hoped the potentially damaging investigation report would never see the light of day. The current Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, now appears on the scene. First, Johnson confirms that, in his position as Speaker of the House, he has no role in the Senate process. Then, he meets with Trump. Johnson then immediately states that the House Ethics Committee’s report should be buried.

Johnson is very open about his faith in Jesus Christ. That is appropriate. Nevertheless, those of us who claim to believe in Jesus must strive to follow the Lord’s teaching. Jesus claimed to be the Truth and urged his disciples to speak the truth, promote the truth, and live out the truth. Mr. Johnson, by trying to bury the investigation report on the allegations against Gaetz, you are suppressing the truth. If Gaetz is innocent, he will be vindicated. If he is guilty, the Senate needs to know the facts before they vote on his nomination. Leading senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have demanded to see that report. I am a fellow follower of Jesus, and I urge you not to continue your suppression of the facts. Your values as a Christian are at stake.

The Evangelical Pro-life Movement: Its early history, Its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 2)

Evangelicals claim that their main convictions on all issues are (and should be) shaped by the Bible. It is appropriate, therefore, to explore the most relevant Biblical passages regarding the value of humanity and in particular, abortion. These texts come from the Hebrew Scriptures which are shared by the three largest monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree that “Every human being is created in the image of God, and therefore, has immense value” (Genesis 1:26-27). Being created in God’s image is precisely the reason why people’s lives are to be protected from the threat of murder (Genesis 9:6). This foundational truth is repeated and emphasized in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and in numerous additional passages in the Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic Scriptures. Nevertheless, they are not limited to their religious communities. They have influenced contemporary legislation prohibiting murder in every country in the world.

Today, there is an almost universal consensus regarding basic human rights and against murder. There is no such agreement regarding abortion. When does a fetus acquire the basic legal right to life? Theologians and ethicists generally land at three possible moments: at conception, at viability (about the beginning of the third trimester), or at birth. Sadly, the Bible does not directly address the topic of the human rights of a fetus. Nevertheless, here are two Biblical texts that provide some insights: Psalm 139:13-15 and Exodus 21:22-23.

Psalm 139:13-15

¹³For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
¹⁴I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
¹⁵My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. (NIV=New International Version of the Bible)

This passage is the most cited by the Christian pro-life movement. The entire psalm emphasizes that God knows us very well. God is all knowing and omnipresent. God knew the psalmist (and us, by implication) when we were in our mother’s womb (verse 13). Pro-lifers conclude that the fetus, who is known by God, must have full legal rights. It is not quite so simple. Every verse needs to be interpreted in its context. This passage utilizes Hebrew parallelism, where a second phrase repeats and clarifies a first phrase. In the passage before us, “in the depths of the earth” (verse 15) clarifies that God knows us not merely when we were fetuses, but God also knows us from the creation of the world. This cannot mean that my individual human rights began at creation. The psalmist’s purpose was not to address the legal status of the fetus, but he wrote to emphasize the foreknowledge of God. We should respect his purpose and not force his words to mean something the psalmist did not intend.

Exodus 21:22-23

²²When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shallbe fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. ²³If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life. (RSV=Revised Standard Version of the Bible)

There are some diverse meanings of these two verses. The more accepted scenario is that there is fight between a couple of men. A bystanding pregnant woman is accidentally hurt. The result is that she miscarriages and her fetus dies, but there is no additional harm caused to her. The punishment is a fine to be determined by judges in discussion with the husband. If the woman were to die (verse 23), then capital punishment could be considered. In this scenario, the woman has full human legal rights, but the fetus does not.

A second scenario describes a situation where the woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby and the mother are both ok. Punishment would be a monetary fine. If there were additional harm to the woman (or to her baby), the penalty could be greater (a life for a life).

I wish there wasn’t so much ambiguity on this passage. The first scenario suggests that a fetus does not have the same legal status as a born person. In the second scenario, the fetus does not die, so little light is shed on the abortion debate. Where Scripture is not dogmatic, we should not be dogmatic. A bit of humility would be most welcome for this vital debate. I hope that pro-lifers would be more compassionate and that pro-choice advocates would be less flippant about abortions. We need respectful discussion on such a serious topic.

The Evangelical Pro-Life Movement: Its early history, its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 1)

In my posts this week, I will address the Evangelical Pro-Life Movement. Today I will look at its early history. In Part 2, I will analyze some pertinent Biblical passages and in Part 3 I will explore the role abortion politics might play in the upcoming election.

History – We all know that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision took place in 1973 and essentially legalized abortions during the first two trimesters all across the country. Prior to that, states had their own policies. In my state of Ohio which prohibited abortions, those women who wanted an abortion would usually go to New York. Although most evangelicals are today in the pro-life camp, that was not the situation in the 1960s and 1970s.

In 1968 the evangelical flagship magazine Christianity Today (CT) co-sponsored a conference with the Christian Medical Society to analyze the ethical aspects regarding abortion. The final resolution illustrates a lack of consensus. “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed, but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”

Carl Henry, the founder and first editor of Christianity Today (and one of my professors at Trinity) stated, “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others”. The second editor of CT was Harold Lindsell. He also took a somewhat pro-choice position. He affirmed, “if there are compelling psychiatric reasons from a Christian point of view, mercy and prudence may favor a therapeutic abortion.”

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is not only the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, it is also one of the most conservative. Therefore, a look at the history of its stance on abortion reveals some surprises. At their 1971 Convention, the SBC delegates passed a resolution calling for the national legalization of abortion. They reaffirmed this pro-choice position in their 1974 and 1976 conventions.

W.A. Criswell was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas (the largest SBC congregation). Shortly after the Roe decision was announced, Criswell issued the following statement. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family who later became a staunch anti-abortionist, admitted in 1973 that the Holy Scriptures did not address the issue of abortion and therefore it was acceptable for a sincere evangelical Christian to believe that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being.”

Francis Schaeffer and other leaders of the Religious Right, tried to enlist Billy Graham in their antiabortion crusade in the late 1970s, but Graham, the most famous evangelical of the last century, turned them down. Graham affirmed, “I’m for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice…. Evangelists cannot be closely identified with any particular party or person. We have to stand in the middle to preach to all people, right and left.” (I believe that his son, Franklin Graham, should have listened to his father’s words of wisdom).

The quotes mentioned above should not be interpreted as necessarily justifying either a pro-choice or a pro-life position. Here they illustrate that followers of Jesus can and do disagree on important issues, including abortion. In Part 2, we will explore the most pertinent Biblical passages.