Values Voter Update - November 2010

The voters spoke out in the most recent election, this past Tuesday, and the U.S. House of Representatives will now have a Republican majority. The Senate will have a more balanced makeup as a result of the vote. A number of governor's races went to Republicans, as well, plus state legislatures are seeing an increase in Republican representation.

But is this a Republican resurgence? Not necessarily. One can interpret that the election represented a repudiation of the current course of our government. There was a definite anti-incumbency and anti-establishment feel in the results. Polling data showed that voters were distressed with Democrats, but not necessarily enamored with Republicans, either. The clear signal was that voters wanted a change, and definitely not the type of "change" that had been the mantra of the campaign in 2008.

The attitude of change and a call to governmental responsibility in the face of seemingly uncontrolled, or at least excessive, spending has been personified in the "Tea Party" movement, which is generally thought of to be an economically-based thread of our nation's populace. But many of the "members" of the grassroots movement also possess strong evangelical credentials. In fact, a poll released by the Faith and Freedom Coalition shows that 52% of self-identified Tea Party members are also evangelicals.

The influence of "values voting", and more specifically, faith-based voting, was greater in this year's election that in 2008. According to that survey, the largest single constituency in the electorate in the 2010 midterm elections was self-identified evangelicals, who comprised 29% of the vote and cast 78% of their ballots for Republican candidates.

And while much of the general news coverage focused on how economic factors would affect the 2010 vote, the life issue definitely played a significant role. The Susan B. Anthony List proclaimed this year "The Year of the Pro-Life Woman", and a number of the female candidates it supported were successful in their election bids. The List also sponsored its "Votes Have Consequences" project, in which it was active in races in districts where so-called "pro-life" Democrats who supported the health care reform legislation, which contained taxpayer funding of abortion, were running for re-election. The results are impressive: 15 of 20 of those Democrats proclaiming themselves as pro-life while supporting health care reform lost their elections. LifeNews.com has this guest column. You can also visit www.sba-list.org/scorecard to learn how SBA List-supported candidates fared on Election Day. And, here's a summary of the election of pro-life women from LifeNews.com.

I made the point in a recent interview with former U.S. House member Marilyn Musgrave, who headed up the "Votes Have Consequences" project, that candidates that have a foundation of being pro-life tend to hold a Biblical view on other issues, such as marriage and even the economy. A number of the Tea Party candidates, who spoke forcefully on economic issues and governmental restraint and stewardship, were at their core socially conservative, as well. Pastor Jim Garlow spoke with me and discussed that he believes that Christians, especially Christian pastors, will be speaking out increasingly on economic issues, including the concept of government within its means. Perhaps this election can send the message that a Christian view of government and public policy can yield effective solutions to the daunting issues that we face as a country.

Tumult Around Tebow

College seniors who have excelled on the gridiron are gathering this week in Mobile, Alabama to show their stuff to NFL scouts and play in the Senior Bowl game. One of the areas of speculation for the past few months has been the ability of Florida standout and former Heisman winner Tim Tebow to fit into a pro-style offense, which is quite different than what he was accustomed to while the Gator QB. Well, an even bigger area of speculation surrounding this outstanding Christian young man has been the content of an ad, called, "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life", scheduled to run during the Super Bowl, featuring Tebow and his mother in what is projected to be a life-affirming ad.

The backstory here is enthralling - Pam Tebow, pregnant with Tim, was advised by doctors to have an abortion, due to the fear that an illness she had contracted would result in Tim being born with some sort of special need or needs. Nevertheless, the Tebows chose life, -and look at how Tim Tebow has excelled not only on the football field, but at life. This story is expected to be a key element of the 30-second Super Bowl presentation, the script of which has been approved by CBS. However, so-called "women's groups" have protested the airing of the ad, and you can read the report from the New York Daily News here.

In response to that torrent of communication, CBS has announced that it stands by its decision to air the ad.

What is notable about some of the rhetoric is the hypocrisy that is present. Here are the words of Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women’s Media Center, quoted in the article above:

“An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year - an event designed to bring Americans together..."

That same group made a statement blasting Focus on the Family, which is paying for the ad using designated funds from private donors:

“By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers..."

Those words are quite "unifying", aren't they? Apparently these groups don't want the American public to be exposed to opinions with which they disagree.

Ponder this: In sports, and in broadcasting in general, we are exposed to products and practices that violate our values…for instance, how many beer ads will air during the Super Bowl? What about those historically offensive ads for a certain internet service provider? I would prefer that the networks don’t air the ads, but they are a free market enterprise, and as long as the ads don’t violate FCC decency standards, they are free to air those ads. So, if these passionate pro-choice, er...pro-abortion advocates don’t like the message, they can change the channel or go get a snack when the ad comes on.

If they were really as they say, "pro-choice", wouldn’t they applaud Pam Tebow’s decision to save the life of her son, Tim? After all, Pam exercised her "right to choose". And, furthermore, wouldn’t they applaud their own mother’s choice to give birth to…them?

And for another thing, I think I’m glad that CBS has the game this year – if NBC was broadcasting the Super Bowl, you can be assured that ultra-liberal commentator Keith Olbermann, who co-hosts that network's football studio show, would be jumping up and down with unabashed vitriol. ABC and ESPN might be less prone to show the ad, either.

So, I hope CBS will continue hold the line – and not bow into pressure. Tim Tebow certainly doesn't mind the pressure - he has continued to winsomely justify his views, as recently as this week, when he was quoted in USA Today as saying:

"I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe ... I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it. "

Tim Tebow's first endorsement - LIFE! What an inspiring choice.

Was Robertson Right?

The media and blogosphere have been awash lately with comments about Pat Robertson’s comments on the “700 Club” television program regarding the nation of Haiti, which is continuing to recover from the January 12th earthquake, which has killed thousands and left multiple thousands homeless. He mentioned that the nation is “cursed” and that in 1791 leaders of a rebellion against French rule “swore a pact with the devil”.



Pat’s history is fairly on target – the slaves who led the rebellion in Haiti in 1791 were led by a man who believed in voodoo, and a ceremony was held that swore allegiance to some being or force other than Almighty God, so you could say that over the years, Haitian so-called “religious” leaders have been practicing a form of religion that is clearly anti-Biblical, and of the enemy.
Haiti is permeated in witch doctors and voodoo, and while there is a religious element in the form of the Catholic Church, nevertheless the practice of voodoo is the predominant spiritual practice it the land.

There are a number of principles that we can take away from a careful analysis of Robertson’s comments.

I believe there is historical evidence and geographical evidence that Haiti could be considered a “cursed” land. Just look at the difference between Haiti and the relatively prosperous Dominican Republic on the same island. Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, and while some would attribute that to poor leadership, that leadership has accepted and even actively pursued the voodoo practices that have enslaved so many people on that half of the island.
Because of the abject poverty that is so prevalent in Haiti, the nation was ill-equipped to deal with the severity of the earthquake.

What about God’s judgment? Well, if God was using catastrophe to judge sin, then America and each of us individually are getting off light. There is plenty of sin to go around, and it is going unjudged, at least from a catastrophic sense. However, we do live in a fallen world, and natural disasters are going to occur with some regularity. And, I believe we are living in a time when these types of calamities are going to increase – in Matthew 24, Jesus paints a picture of a fallen world racing toward judgment and His return that is being beset with all sorts of natural signs. So, while there is an element of judgment, I cannot say (nor can anyone else) that this earthquake was God’s selective punishment on the practitioners of voodoo – in fact, there has been a massive prayer effort for the nation of Haiti to break the curse on the country.

Did God allow this? Of course.

Can God use this? Imagine the possibilities. The land is now infiltrated with more Christians than ever before, who are sharing the love of Jesus, the hope of the gospel, and the truth of God’s word. This is a unique missionary opportunity, and perhaps it took this adversity to bring salvation for a huge amount of people. And Pat is definitely a player – CBN’s Operation Blessing will be used greatly of God to touch literally thousands of lives in the name of Jesus.

Was Pat Robertson right? While the tragedy did not necessarily come because of the sin or the curse on the land or the practices of the people, it does remain that Haiti has for years been a cursed nation. It now stands at the precipice of being a blessed nation, full of new believers in Jesus Christ. I believe that adversity brings opportunity, and our role is not to necessarily question why something occurred, but how God could use these circumstances for His glory. Pat’s timing was not good, but I don’t interpret his comments as saying the people brought this tragedy upon themselves, and I believe what he said was motivated by compassion for the people there.

And, one further thing - how do people get off on criticizing Pat for a statement they do not understand, calling him “stupid”, for instance, when misstatements are commonplace in public life? We are all flawed individuals – and I’m thankful we don’t get what we deserve – in the form of God’s judgment for sin. So, before we judge Pat Robertson, or the people of Haiti, may we take to heart the words of the apostle Paul, who encourages us to examine ourselves…and as we look within, perhaps we can dig deep and be involved in helping the people of Haiti.