Pastor/blogger Rob Harrison has the best analysis I've seen of evangelicals' response to Bristol Palin, and to unwed pregnancy in general. It's so good I wish I could repost the whole thing, but I'll settle for a couple of excerpts.

I'm reluctant to give props to David Frum, who looks more like a giant wooden horse every time I see his byline, but he did a much better job than [Jon] Swift on this issue in an article he wrote six months ago for Canada's National Post.  He opened his piece in a manner Swift would no doubt approve—"Whoever imagined that we would see a Republican convention rapturously applaud an unwed teen mother?"—but then went on to actually think about what that really meant, and what it really tells us:

That moment confirmed a dramatic evolution in American politics: the transformation of the pro-life movement from an unambiguously conservative force into something more complex. . . .

The pro-life movement has come to terms with the sexual revolution. So long as unwed parenthood is considered disgraceful, many unwed mothers will choose abortion to escape disgrace. And so, step by step, the pro-life movement has evolved to an accepting—even welcoming—attitude toward pregnancy outside marriage.

As I wrote about Frum's article at the time, though I think "welcoming" is an overstatement,

Frum has captured and crystallized something of which I was aware—in my own attitudes and approach to ministry, no less than in the lives of others—but which I hadn't consciously thought about. Put simply, when pro-life concerns cross with the concern for other issues, the tie goes to the baby.

The truth is, Frum is (if you'll excuse the pun) dead right on this subject.  Sure, time was that conservative Christians in this country stigmatized teen pregnancy and disapproved of it as hard as we could; and then folks started pointing out that we weren't really discouraging teenagers from getting pregnant—all we were doing was driving them into the ungentle hands of the abortion industry.  Collectively, we took a look at ourselves and realized that the critics were right; and over time, we by and large decided that we could live with teenage pregnancy and teen single motherhood—just don't kill the baby.

That's the message on which most evangelicals in America have settled, when it comes to kids like Bristol Palin:  just don't kill the baby, and we'll do what we can to support you and help you out.  Why else have we started crisis pregnancy centers all over the place?  We didn't have a utopian choice here, we had the choice of two evils; we stared it dead in the face, thought about it for a while, and picked the lesser one.  This is the bargain we made, and I believe it's done more to reduce the abortion rate in this country than any government policy, even as it's boosted the rate of illegitimacy.

Harrison goes on to offer some sobering thoughts about the downside of the bargain, and what we need to do about it:

I don't remember exactly how many weddings I've done (it's not a huge number), but I remember how many couples I've married who were virgins on their wedding night:  one.  Is this a good thing?  No.  Is it reality?  Yes.  Will it be changing any time soon?  No.  And if we're going to make any headway against it, is it going to be through a return to older tactics?  Will we accomplish anything by trying to scare teens away from sex and making examples of girls who get pregnant?  No.  No, we're not—it isn't going to happen.

Our culture is sex-saturated, we're flooded with erotic stimuli, and there's a powerful cultural push toward sexual activity—combined, alas, with other trends that are pushing the average marriage age later and later—and we aren't going to be able to shovel our way out of this flood by making a negative case.  There is nothing to be gained by making a pariah and a target out of girls like Bristol Palin, and whatever you may think about evangelical Christians, we're smart enough to see that.  We need to keep working on rolling back this tide, but we aren't going to do it that way. . . .

Read more.

(Image © Fox News Channel)

Comments

[Rob Harrison]

Thanks for the link and the nod -- much appreciated.

[Jason Taylor]

I don't think that's it at all. I think it's that Bristol doesn't give the impression of claiming she did nothing wrong, or of dodging the consequences. She just looks like someone who made a mistake and is trying to make it up.

[labrialumn]

This is nonsense on several levels.

First, teen pregnancy wasn't shamed - unwed sex was. Consider the Feast Day of the Annunciation next Wednesday.

Secondly, shame is a powerful force for good when it is aligned with God's law. God's law has a teaching function for the lost as well as believers, as to what is right or wrong (1 Timothy 1).

The evangelical response to Bristol Palin's betrothed pregnancy was exactly as it has always been for Christians - forgiveness for repentance. Care and concern for those who need it.

The Egregious Frum is as you say, a wooden horse. An enemy of genuine conservatism. He either doesn't know what he is talking about, or doesn't care.

God's holy standards may *never* be relaxed "it would be better for such a one to have a millstone tied around her neck and cast into the sea" It is that God's forgiveness and mercy are no less than His holiness and justice.

By making it seem not shameful to sleep around before marriage, countless lives and souls are lost. That some 'Christian' women murdered their babies in response only shows that they were unsaved in the first place, and chose to commit an even greater sin rather than to humbly repent and be forgiven - which would also have led to the father being confronted and offered the chance of repentance and forgiveness.

We've been talking about the Great Evangelical Disaster recently here at the Point. That evangelicals in positions of responsibility don't even have their basic Christian doctrine down only highlights the real core problems.

[Rob Harrison]

Actually, I've seen people complain quite a bit about the interview she did with Greta Van Susteren, that she didn't really take responsibility or show that she understood what she'd done wrong, that she was "glamorizing" teen pregnancy, and so on; and the support people offered her wasn't and hasn't been conditional. Going all the way back to the convention, the responses from ordinary conservative Christians to Bristol Palin have been along the lines of "This happens in lots of families, and here's how we deal with it," rather than "Well, let's see if she responds appropriately."

[becky]

Saving babies is good but in so many of these cases we are seeing them being kept and raised by a single mother who is barely able to take care of herself. I am pro-life and want to see abortion end. But I do have a problem with how little shame there is on the part of the unwed parents. Haven't we heard of schools where teen aged girls are intentionally getting pregnant? Didn't I just read that something like 40% of US births are now to unwed parents? You just have to wonder what the long term effects are going to be for these children and for society at large.

[Robert Van de Water]

All,

There is a great deal to say on this subject and, unfortunately, I don't have a great deal of time. A few brief comments are going to have to suffice.

I remember I was once watching an amazing evangelist (I cannot now remember his name). After seeing him a few times, I heard his testimony. I remember thinking, "That guy was a murderer? And here I thought he was a righteous man of God." And I looked down on him for quite some time.

After some period of time and study, I came back to thinking about that man. "Why does God use a murderer like that more than me? I am better than him. I never murdered anybody." I went to God and sought for answers.

What I found astonished me. Do you know that Paul was consenting in the death of Stephen? That Moses murdered an Egyptian? That David was also a murderer? Murderers, it seemed, are quite frequently used by God. Why?

It was shortly after this that I finally realized the true import of what Christ said. "If you even call your brother a fool, you have committed murder in your heart" The horrible truth was that God did not look at me as better than Moses or David or Paul merely because I had not murdered anybody. When God looked at me apart from Christ, he saw a man who was a murderer and worse in his heart.

There was once a woman who got pregnant out of wedlock and bore the shame of other "righteous" women who looked down on her for her evil transgression. Of course, if you know the Scripture you know that this woman was more favored than any other woman in history and was the mother of Jesus Christ . . .

Is it possible that just as I should not look down my nose on murderers like Paul and Moses and David we, as Christians, should not look down on Bristol Palin? What sins have we committed in our hearts? What would we have done in their circumstances? Are we certain that God looks at us as better (apart from the righteousness of his Son) than those rotten sinners? Maybe when the Lord said, "judge not yest ye be judged" he meant that we were not to go evaluating other people's lives without any knowledge of their challenges or circumstances?

I would like to share some ideas on how the church could fight immorality by ridding itself of the moral relativism that Mr. Harrison denies we embrace, but this will have to wait for another time.

[Jason Taylor]

Actually Robert, balence is so often needed on that subject not least in our over-permissive age that this is a good place to put it. How in practice, does one go about hating sin and loving sinners?

[David]

"By making it seem not shameful to sleep around before marriage, countless lives and souls are lost."

Labrialumn, I get the "lives lost" part; can you support the "souls lost" part?

Jason, both hating and loving are activities of the mind. "Just do it". We tend to put the horse before the cart - wanting to exhibit the right behavior before we achieve the right state of mind/heart. Do you agree with God that sex before marriage is a sin? If yes, then you hate that sin. Do you want what is best for Bristol Palin? If yes, then you love her. If you aren't sure what to say about her, or to her, then just be still and let God do the talking.

[labrialumn]

David,
The vast majority of Christians, including the Lutherans, Wesleyans, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians do not believe that the Bible teaches eternal security.

Willfully, defiantly unrepentant sin does damn.

We are to 'judge not' as the context clearly shows, a person's eternal destination because a person can always repent, or fall away, and we need to pray that they repent and stay faithful to Christ.

The dominant reason that teens and college students reject their faith in Christ is sexual immorality.

When we fail to preach both Law and Gospel, we are not preaching the Gospel. If we minimize the wrongness of sin, we minimize the power of the Gospel.

[Robert Van de Water]

Jason,

I have been unable to respond to you for quite some time. I hope it is not too late.

There are two questions here. One that you asked and one that you didn't ask. You asked, "How in practice, does one go about hating sin and loving sinners?" Let's take this one first.

I once knew a family who had a son with a drug/alcohol addiction problem. This family handled things very well. They loved this young man as well as they could according to 1 Corinthians 13. They "hoped all things, believed all things and did not let their love fail." Whenever this young man came to a family event, they made sure to make him welcome. Whenever he asked for help, they helped him if his need was legitimate (school, rent, food, clothing). Did he lie to them and take advantage? Yes. Did they continue to hope all things and bear all things? Yes. Every time he asked for legitimate help, they did their best to make sure they met the legitimate need without enabling the addictive behavior. They prayed for him and called him on his birthday. They made him feel as welcome as possible and made it clear that the drugs and alcohol were not welcome. Their patience and love was rewarded when, after a horrific car accident, this young man cleaned up his life.

Many Christians don't like this idea because it seems to punish them for the sins of another. In fact, however, this is loving another like Jesus loved you. Has not Jesus born the penalty of your sins? I understand and share the reluctance of Christians who do not want to love in this way, but I cannot deny the imperative of Scripture for personal convenience.

The question that you did not ask but I think meant to ask was, "how do we stand for righteousness in the world?" Let us take the example of extra-marital sex.

When we (as the body of Christ) tell the world that extra-marital sex is wrong, non-Christians naturally ask why. All too often our responses are based on a poor understanding of the Bible. We argue, for example, that the reason that extra-marital sex is wrong is because God will throw you in hell if you do it. We argue, for example, that the reason that extra-marital sex is wrong is that you could have a baby out of wedlock or catch an STD. We argue, for example, that marriage is the perfect union meant for men and women and that once you get married you will remain in perpetual bliss forever. This is not sound reasoning and the world knows it all too well.

What if we took a different, realistic and non-fear based approach? What if we took as our guiding principle, "It is your kindness that leads us to repentance oh Lord"? What if we had a love based theology (Christian) and not a fear based theology (Mosaic)?

C.S. Lewis said in the Screwtape letters that sex is just another way for God to get that awful "love" thing involved again. He was exactly right. What if we told people that God wants you to learn how to love *one* person in all the world in a way that approximates the way he loves everybody? What if we told people that learning to love as Christ loves through the institution of marriage is not easy, but one of the hardest things that you will ever do? What if we told people that the reason that God gets angry with extra-marital sex is that it perverts the gift that God intended to help us love one another into a means of selfish gratification that causes endless amounts of injury and harm? Has not every living adult experienced the pain of divorce or breakup with a boyfriend/girlfriend? Would not every human being know that we spoke the truth and were not trying to scare them into submission to a command we ourselves did not understand?

I submit that a grown up and adult theology based on reason is the way we stand up for righteousness in the world.