One Evangelical’s Take on Bristol Palin’s Pregnancy
Posted on September 1, 2008
The Evangelical referenced in the subject line is myself, the author of this post. Looking at STACLU’s sitemeter for oh, the past ten minutes, makes it clear that many will be coming to this site to see how conservatives and perhaps self-proclaimed Evangelicals will react to the news of Governor Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy.
I’ll do my best, and try to be brief. My purpose is not to convince anyone of the validity of what the Christian Right thinks (I am neither a pastor nor qualified to explain to the world whether or not American Christians today are doctrinally sound); my purpose is only to to explain to you what one politically-engaged, Bible-believing right-winger makes of all this. I hope I am clear on that point.
Having said that, I am neither distressed nor disappointed in Governor Palin over this. One presumes that Governor and Mr. Palin did not promote or encourage teen pregnancy for their own daughter. One presumes that they love their daughter and want the best for her. One presumes that Bristol was taught and encouraged to avoid pregnancy, and probably sex period, before marriage. That is a presumption, but probably a pretty good one. If these presumptions are correct, then it is not the Governor’s moral weaknesses or judgment that is at issue. The other side of that coin is that suggesting that her teenager’s judgment is somehow an issue in a presidential election is both absurd and unprecedented.
Many on the Left will say that this makes the Governor a hypocrite, and make people like me hypocrites for supporting her. Those people will be operating with a different definition for the word hypocrisy than the one I know. For Governor Palin to be a hypocrite in this situation would require two things to be true. The first is quite unlikely, and the other is impossible to a Believer.
First, does it make the Governor a hypocrite because she is pro-life, and reportedly in favor of abstinence education (I don’t have all the details on that yet), yet has a daughter who did not make it to the finish line in the abstinence department? No, it does not, because A) the baby will be born, B) the mother is expected to grow up fast and face the consequences of her choices, C) it looks like the mother and father of the unborn child are to be married. That last one is particularly important, because what many on the Left really don’t get about abstinence is that it is not about condemning sex, it is about elevating it into the perfection of God’s plan, as being meant for marriage. Thus point C makes the Governor’s response quite un-hypocritical. Finally, it strains the imagination to suggest that Palin would take a public position on the value of abstinence for the citizens of Alaska and yet secretly hope that her own daughter ignores all that. I don’t think I should have the burden of proof on that one.
I said there were two things that would have to be true in order for Evangelicals to see any of this as hypocrisy, and here is the second, and I suggest impossible thing. I know that some on the Left will want to see a reaction from Believers to be conflicted between supporting a political party and what they will assume to be our natural inclinations to engage in some manner of stoning or burning over the fact that the child of a candidate has, not to put too fine a point on it, committed a sin. The Left will be disappointed in this regard. One of the most succinct, solemn, and striking passages in the Scriptures is the statement that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Therefore, if I take the position that the mere existence of a sin somewhere in the Governor’s family is a deal-breaker, then I have to take the position that I can never support anyone, ever, or I have to take the position that God’s Word is incorrect or a lie. I can take none of those positions.
What one is left with then, as a human Believer, is an analysis of the magnitude of the transgression, its consequences, and how the players deal with it. In those respects the Governor has done nothing to offend this particular Evangelical, and has in fact done much to recommend her. Speaking purely as a political conservative for a moment, it is also a breath of fresh air to see this family speak of its relatively common problems in a positive way, talking about how they will handle things, instead of indulging the instincts of the Left to inflate it into some larger narrative about funding for social programs, etc., etc., and throwing blame upon the collective society for every individual circumstance.
Lastly, let me address a couple of sentences to young Bristol if she happens to see this post (and frankly I hope she doesn’t have to read too much about this out here in the blogosphere). I have a 17-year-old son. He’s had the same girlfriend for over a year, and I am not unaware that, despite my son’s goodness and intelligence and upbringing that something I do not expect to happen is not, strictly speaking, impossible. I imagine that your parents expressed the same values that I’ve expressed to him. I imagine that your parents endeavored to explain, as I have, the vast difference between the costs and benefits, both spiritually and in our immediate lives, of following God’s plan or straying from it. I imagine that, like my son, you really do understand those things and desire to do your best. I am sorry that our political system is such that you have become, I hope briefly, a public issue.
This post became longer than I’d first intended it to be. But if readers on the Left are drawn to it because you want to know what at least one Born Again, conservative blogger thinks about this, now you know.
» Filed Under News, Parenting, Sarah Palin, religion
Trackback URL
Comments
21 Responses to “One Evangelical’s Take on Bristol Palin’s Pregnancy”
Leave a Reply
Nice, McCain. What kind of soldier uses a pregnant 17-year-old girl as a political shield? You knew what this was going to do, how it would divert attention away from your policies. You are throwing her under the bus.
I too am not distressed. Or elated, as Lucas seems to be.
I frankly think it is none of my business.
End of story.
Speaking as one politically-engaged, ACLU-believing left-winger, I agree with you almost completely. Gov. Palin’s family is her own business, and nothing I’ve seen in the news by her or her family suggests that there is any hypocrisy involved (beyond what one expects of any politician, I suppose).
I am particularly charmed that Gov. Palin appears to be treating the whole affair as an educational experience for her daughter (and her family; and perhaps for the country, who knows? We could probably use some straight talk about the importance of family support and education).
But to talk of hypocrisy is to ignore the glaring fact that the kid business is perennially uncertain. That’s a family truth, which makes it a family value in my book.
No, the reasons why I will vote for Obama have nothing to do with the character of either Republican candidate; we appear to have 4 high-minded and very honest candidates this year (again, with the usual political indulgences granted). Something of a novelty, actually.
The only thing I don’t like about Gov. Palin is her regrettable stand on that Creationist nonsense; I’d worry about having someone that ignorant in a position to influence national health and education policy.
Although I’m not a Christian and therefore have no moral opinion, the behavior all around seems to me to accord with what Jesus preached, which is how *I* identify real Christians, of whom I’m glad to say I know a number. Not a whole lot, though.
I am not a Republican or Democrat but, I know if OBAMA’S daughter got pregnant out wedlock the McCAIN blogger’s and LIMBAUGH’ HANNITY’ would be rubbing this thing in Michelle OBAMA’S face. I am a christian who believes in ABSTINENCE, PRO-LIFE, ANTI-GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGE and ADOPTION. A lot of Republicans are HYPOCRITES and a lot of Democrats are misinformed as to what the BIBLE says about ABORTION, GAYS AND LESBIANS, AND SEX outside of marriage. McCAIN and BUSH have been caught using profanity and McCAIN admitted he committed ADULTERY many times!!!!!! My 23 year old COLLEGE graduate born-again christian daughter got pregnant out of wedlock too despite being taught otherwise!!!!!! She repented and is now married.. WE ARE ALL FORGIVEN IF WE REPENT!!!!! I JOHN 1:9
I expect the libs to cry hypocrisy but it would only be so if Palin encouraged her daughter to have an abortion. Otherwise, she’s being consistent with her views. She also expects the daughter and the father of the child to be responsible. Nothing hypocritical there.
Dear Mr. Lawler:
I appreciate your well-expressed reply.
I’m a 56 year-old woman who got pregnant at 17. I got married, as expected at that time, and divorced a few years later. We were 17 year-olds trying to be adults when really still just children….. I guess we were practicing serial monogomy, as so many in our culture do.
As some psycologists will agree, what happens to mothers happens to daughters. My daughter also got pregnant at 17 – but lost her baby at 23 weeks. I don’t know if this was a blessing or not – it certainly was tragic and heartbreaking. It was a hard lesson.
I believe my daughter got pregnant so young because, as a young mother, I was too self-absorbed to give her the time, attention, and love necessary for any child. I believe I got pregnant at 17 because of a series of family upheavils (transfers, moves, promotions, deaths, etc.) that took all of my parents’ time and energy. They had very little left emotionally for their own childrens’ acting out, which were really cries for support and love, which had to be found elsewhere.
I am not suggesting anything, but questioning whether Governor Palin has been able to give her own family the time and attention that she has given her career.
Well said! I would go even further and say Bristol (and Barack and Joe and John and Sarah and Mr. Lawler, etc., etc., etc.), you are a creation of infinite worth and I have no doubt a beautiful person, with the fingerprints of God all over your life. Jesus loves you, this I know, and just as he speaks to me from the pages of the Bible, all too often (daily I would estimate), he says to me, does no one condemn you? Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more. And be sure to love your neighbor as yourself. For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
I invite Mr. Lawler to check out Ms. Palin’s comments about creationism more carefully. She is for the topic being discussed in the classroom. She is not for evolution not being taught. A far cry from an extreme or particularly religious position.
Incidentally, gotta love what evolution does for the 15 year old psychie. “OK, class, in our sophomore Biology class this year we will be talking about the random lucky stuff that has happened over billions of years in order for you, a member of the species ‘homo sapiens’, to be here today. And by the way, if a different sperm had made it to the egg first, you wouldn’t be you – there would be no you. Now, don’t you all feel so inspired and infused with a sense of self-worth and purpose in this world? All right, have a great weekend and see you on Monday!”
Evolution, natural selection, big bang, etc. may be the best attempt at an a-religious explanation of the universe and its conscientious inhabitants, but that doesn’t make them all-encompassing. They provide no explanation for the purpose of anything. Indeed, in such a world, there is no real purpose for anything. It all just happens. I’m sure Mr. Lawler has etched out a very internally meaningful exientence nonetheless.
I would also like Mr. Lawler to deal with one of the fundamental paradoxes, and really hypocrises, of many in the ACLU-type camp. What is the paradox? Well, if we are not endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, then on what basis do we establish, maintain, and defend those rights (civil liberties)? What is the fundamental basis of individual rights? If the existence or non-existence of each person is a random dice-roll of cells and chromosomes, then we really shouldn’t have any innate rights, should we? By definition, we can’t with a clear conscience simply ascribe to ourself inalienable rights, can we? (In other words, if we made them up for ourselves, then are they really inalienable?)
Think about that one for a while, and come up with an intellectually honest answer for yourself. (Don’t worry, I don’t really expect to change your mind with such a simple argument.)
Go Bristol! Go McCain/Palin!
I think conservative right wing people are hypocrites because look how they attacked jamie Lynn Spears on the very issue and handle Sarah Palin’s issue with “kitten gloves”.
While we are on the subject of families, you right wing conservatives are saying GAY FAMILIES are ruining the moral fabric of American society? I don’t see gay teens having teenage pregancies and getting married. I don’t see gay parents (who are denied marriage)spiking the divorce rates because they were too young for marriage but had to get married because they got pregnant yet you trash them for wanting fairness.
There are two BIG QUESTIONS left out here
1) What sort of Mother would knowingly subject her daughter to such harsh conditions of media scrutiny in exchange for a shot for a VP position? Is she that self centered that she doesn’t see that her family is in crisis and needs her most?
2) What does this say about John McCain and Transparency? You know the USA is sick of secret deals that BUSH/CHENEY have been making. John McCain said he knew all along.
I’m sorry but this doesn’t wash…please explain to me the Republican stand on Moral, Family and Ethical Values? This is an honest question….please answer
I sincerely wished that more Conservatives had the type of profound intelligence that you display through your honest, powerful writing. I deplore hypocrisy and love seeing truth unfold in our lives. If I were to vote republican – NO WAY THIS YEAR – I would gladly vote for a leader who had your style of insight.
The reason why this story matters is that if the lie of “abstinence education” doesn’t even work in Sarah Palin’s own house, why should she — or anyone else on the religious right — expect it to work anywhere else?
What this story shows, in very personal terms, is that a misguided public policy based on religious beliefs is dooming our nation to unwanted pregnancies. If Sarah Palin can’t see that or learn from even her own daughter’s experiences, it demonstrates a person rigid in their beliefs who can’t even learn from experience or scientific study — a trait common to the Bush administration and its refusal to follow established science and instead force science to conform to its doctrine.
We cannot afford to have more people like this in charge of our nation. Their public policy — on every front — ignores reality and forces their religious beliefs and the terrible polices that stem from them on the rest of us.
I’m a Christian. It’s not Bristol’s pregnancy that bothers me as much as the fact that her mother knew about it and made a decision to further her own ambitions knowing this would put her daughter in the national spotlight. The McCain camp chose this woman to attract other women partly on the basis of her being a mother. Well, after a few days observation, I think many mothers will be appalled at Sarah Palin’s actions.
Shame on her. Her daughter should’ve come first!
In Re: Rob Greene on September 1st, 2008 6:54 pm
Who is Jamie Lynn Spears? I think I’ve heard of her. Is her mother a governor or future vice-president or something?
And thank you for some of the other comments. I really appreciate all that.
To RobinL, I sincerely ask how it would be putting her daughter first to shut down her engagement with the world and cease being a public figure. I’m pretty old school about traditional roles and such, at least I thought I was, but comments like that confound me a bit. Is a Christian woman not to serve her country? I was never taught that. Is a Christian woman who is succeeding in influencing the culture for good to cease doing so because a family member stumbled? I was never taught that either.
To Michael, I’d ask what the alternative is. If abstinence teaching/philosophy sometimes fails, that doesn’t mean, by itself, that it is a lie. Just because a car breaks down now and then doesn’t mean that cars don’t by and large get you where you are going. What’s the alternative? Actively teach that everyone get pregnant as soon as possible in life?
Anyway, I like these comments. Everyone, mostly, seems sincere (particularly Mr. Lawler, I’d add) and thoughtful about the whole thing. That’s a good sign.
What if Chelsea Clinton had done this?
For ArrMatey TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ON JAMIE LYNN SPEARS
Jamie Lynn Spears is the 16 year old sister to Britanny Spears (singer)who announced she was pregnant by her boyfriend. The religious right attacked her and her mother Lynn Bridges. Ironically, the news broke just as mother Lynn Bridges was to release a parenting book (no, I don’t make these things up).
It was also noted and unclear as to where the act of conception took place. If it happened in California, where Jamie Lynn was shooting her tv series, it would have constituted statory rape.
The religious right attacked the family in the media as bring down family values, morals and ethics. They said this family set a poor example for America’s youth.
So, my point was the double standards now since Sarah Palin’s daughter is pregnant, the religious conservatives take a softer tone on their own.
I hope this helps give you insight to why I wrote my comments.
There are certain biblical principles that are grounded in truth. We as Christians are to show love to all without sacrificing true principles. The Lord forgave the woman taken in adultery and told her to sin no more. He called the phony religious leaders whited sepulchers full of dead men’s bones.For a Jew this was a real putdown to say the least.
Because someone claims to be a Christian conservative doesn’t give them automatic credibility in what they say.
Rob Greene, you took me seriously. I apologize.
ArrMatey,
;O)
“I don’t see gay teens having teenage pregancies and getting married.”
Quite possibly the funniest thing I have read all day. Thanks Rob Greene.
@tyler gruber: “I invite Mr. Lawler to check out Ms. Palin’s comments about creationism more carefully. She is for the topic being discussed in the classroom.”
I haven’t checked out her comments, but if your description is accurate, that’s what I was afraid of. I meant what I said: Creationism is ignorance. It has nothing to do with either science or religion. Evolution doesn’t bother Catholics; why should it bother Evangelicals?
Even atheistic biologists (I know many; I’m a professor at the University of Michigan) will admit that studying evolution gives them a religious thrill occasionally. Any God worthy of human worship is capable of creating the laws of evolution just as easily as the laws of physics (which are, for some reason, not controversial among Evangelicals, though I would expect the Big Bang to be considered non-Biblical).
Any scientist — I mean *any* scientist who makes their living doing and publishing research — will agree that Creationism is simply rural ignorance. And it’s certainly not necessary for any variety of Christianity. It’s embarassing; it just makes Christians look dumb unnecessarily.
It has about the same value and validity as Magick. Would you like Aleister Crowley or Harry Potter to be required reading and discussion fodder in science classes?
I wouldn’t. I like to keep a strong distinction between what is demonstrable and what is not. There’s room for both, but don’t confuse them.
That said, I’d like to thank you[pl] for all the kind words I’ve seen here (and no doubt prayers and blessings). I was inspired in the first instance by the good sense and welcoming tone of the original poster, whose name (as I’m sure he would have preferred) I find that I can’t find easily here.
… and, as for the ACLU, I didn’t notice *that* until I happened to glance at the top of the page, which I usually don’t, since I’m trained like all Americans to avoid making eye contact with advertising. Let’s not go there, hmmmm?
Why are Republicans afraid to mention Larry Sinclair?