Alan, I SO appreciate this article and love all your books. This is probably a dumb, uninformed question but I am trying to process how to view the abortion issue. Is the Pro-Life movement ‘worth fighting for’ - that sounds terrible, I know, especially from a Christian mother who is pro-life!
But here is my dilemma: we are a post-Christian nation. Many people no longer view life at conception and sadly, many are leaning towards it’s not a life until it is out of the womb. My question is: if our fundamental definition of life is different, is this a topic we should even fight for? In other words, do we ‘let culture go the way of culture’ and be faithful witnesses among pagans? That sounds like giving up, I realize. And help play it out for me - I realize then there is the question of euthanasia and assisted suicide - when is a life a life then? When is it okay to take a life? What makes a life valid?
I am an Austinite and attend a neighborhood book club with non Christian’s who are huge Kamala supporters and are just on this energetic vibe bc she is a woman (and a woman of color) running for president. This is not enough reason for me personally to support her. Yet Trump scares me in what he is doing to the Republican Party.
Can we as Christians be faithful witnesses as democrats and speak up on abortion issues - while realizing we may lose the war on this issue?
I think we must be faithful witnesses. And that can look like different things for different people. There are, for example, Democrats for Life, a group dedicated to staying within the party and advocating for life. And they do so very vocally.
But in general, no, I don't think we should give up the Pro-Life movement. As you point out with euthanasia and assisted suicide, these issues are only going to become *more* pressing, not less. But I do think that means advocating for life in our culture through acts of service primarily. Also through politics, but especially through acts of service. So that we see a cultural shift in the way people think about life.
Thank you so much for this response. Very helpful. I was not aware of a Democrats for Life group. I’m also curious to know what kind of acts of service would make a difference in this realm. Maybe like volunteering at a teen pregnancy center? Thank you again.
Man, thank you so much for this. As a bigger French fan than most - worked to bring him out to my small church in Amarillo in ‘22 and a diehard Advisory Opinions fan - that column was deeply disappointing. Leaving the Dispatch for NYT was a mistake and, as you perfectly described it, he’s burned so much capital at a time where he needed it most.
I echo your thoughts here, Alan. A case could be made for voting for Harris-Walz, even if they hold some policy positions you or I find highly objectionable. But that case would need to be a pragmatic one. As you note, the rot runs deep, and it runs through both parties. Missing from all the speeches in the four days of this week's DNC was any sense that Democrats too might be partially responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves - that they too have been driven to extremes, spoken half-truths, dismissed sections of the American electorate, and engaged in vengeful rhetoric. Now, Trump and his followers bear the lion's share of responsibility for his poison, but he did not arise out of a vacuum. A lot of the people who voted for him in 2016 did so because they opposed the direction being taken by Progressives. Neither party currently has much interest in appealing to the center of the electorate: to what the majority of Americans support on issues like abortion. So, I agree that we need to do the difficult work of culture care, as Fujimura calls it. But more than that, we need to realize that politics simply cannot deliver the kind of societal redemption we seek. Only the gospel can do that. Moreover, we need to realize how small we are in the greater scheme of history and world events. The events of the past eight years have caused me to identify increasingly with the Church militant and triumphant rather than the American nation. Good! That's the way it should be. God is shaping history to his will, and while we should certainly work to make this world a better place for the sake of our neighbors, we also need to accept that certain things will happen that we don't like, and we still need to get on with our lives. That's what human beings have always done.
100% "...I would invite him to devote his energy to shoring up the ruins, building up a positive image of what conservatism should look like in the 21st Century, grounded in the great tradition, reckoning with the mistakes of the past, and focused on the common good of the future."
Professor, i know you have taken French's framing to write your piece. But why reduce, and thereby unwittingly flatten, the conservative animating principle to the issue of abortion? (Just as he did). That matter has been properly bestowed to the states. Until French and others reckon with the far wider range of concerns that inform and motivate a voter's decision (war, border, public health, corporate-government collusion, censorship, inflation, institutional capture, the charade of most efforts to add "seats to the table" based on hopelessly flawed premises, etc ) this framing, and to your subsequent post's point about rebuilding, is a non-starter. He casts as an obvious choice what is in truth anything but obvious. Thank you nonetheless for starting this conversation.
But I agree with you that there are many other motivating factors that French doesn't address. I just wanted to limit my focus for the sake of space on the topics that he does focus on.
Alan, I SO appreciate this article and love all your books. This is probably a dumb, uninformed question but I am trying to process how to view the abortion issue. Is the Pro-Life movement ‘worth fighting for’ - that sounds terrible, I know, especially from a Christian mother who is pro-life!
But here is my dilemma: we are a post-Christian nation. Many people no longer view life at conception and sadly, many are leaning towards it’s not a life until it is out of the womb. My question is: if our fundamental definition of life is different, is this a topic we should even fight for? In other words, do we ‘let culture go the way of culture’ and be faithful witnesses among pagans? That sounds like giving up, I realize. And help play it out for me - I realize then there is the question of euthanasia and assisted suicide - when is a life a life then? When is it okay to take a life? What makes a life valid?
I am an Austinite and attend a neighborhood book club with non Christian’s who are huge Kamala supporters and are just on this energetic vibe bc she is a woman (and a woman of color) running for president. This is not enough reason for me personally to support her. Yet Trump scares me in what he is doing to the Republican Party.
Can we as Christians be faithful witnesses as democrats and speak up on abortion issues - while realizing we may lose the war on this issue?
I think we must be faithful witnesses. And that can look like different things for different people. There are, for example, Democrats for Life, a group dedicated to staying within the party and advocating for life. And they do so very vocally.
But in general, no, I don't think we should give up the Pro-Life movement. As you point out with euthanasia and assisted suicide, these issues are only going to become *more* pressing, not less. But I do think that means advocating for life in our culture through acts of service primarily. Also through politics, but especially through acts of service. So that we see a cultural shift in the way people think about life.
Thank you so much for this response. Very helpful. I was not aware of a Democrats for Life group. I’m also curious to know what kind of acts of service would make a difference in this realm. Maybe like volunteering at a teen pregnancy center? Thank you again.
Man, thank you so much for this. As a bigger French fan than most - worked to bring him out to my small church in Amarillo in ‘22 and a diehard Advisory Opinions fan - that column was deeply disappointing. Leaving the Dispatch for NYT was a mistake and, as you perfectly described it, he’s burned so much capital at a time where he needed it most.
I echo your thoughts here, Alan. A case could be made for voting for Harris-Walz, even if they hold some policy positions you or I find highly objectionable. But that case would need to be a pragmatic one. As you note, the rot runs deep, and it runs through both parties. Missing from all the speeches in the four days of this week's DNC was any sense that Democrats too might be partially responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves - that they too have been driven to extremes, spoken half-truths, dismissed sections of the American electorate, and engaged in vengeful rhetoric. Now, Trump and his followers bear the lion's share of responsibility for his poison, but he did not arise out of a vacuum. A lot of the people who voted for him in 2016 did so because they opposed the direction being taken by Progressives. Neither party currently has much interest in appealing to the center of the electorate: to what the majority of Americans support on issues like abortion. So, I agree that we need to do the difficult work of culture care, as Fujimura calls it. But more than that, we need to realize that politics simply cannot deliver the kind of societal redemption we seek. Only the gospel can do that. Moreover, we need to realize how small we are in the greater scheme of history and world events. The events of the past eight years have caused me to identify increasingly with the Church militant and triumphant rather than the American nation. Good! That's the way it should be. God is shaping history to his will, and while we should certainly work to make this world a better place for the sake of our neighbors, we also need to accept that certain things will happen that we don't like, and we still need to get on with our lives. That's what human beings have always done.
100% "...I would invite him to devote his energy to shoring up the ruins, building up a positive image of what conservatism should look like in the 21st Century, grounded in the great tradition, reckoning with the mistakes of the past, and focused on the common good of the future."
Professor, i know you have taken French's framing to write your piece. But why reduce, and thereby unwittingly flatten, the conservative animating principle to the issue of abortion? (Just as he did). That matter has been properly bestowed to the states. Until French and others reckon with the far wider range of concerns that inform and motivate a voter's decision (war, border, public health, corporate-government collusion, censorship, inflation, institutional capture, the charade of most efforts to add "seats to the table" based on hopelessly flawed premises, etc ) this framing, and to your subsequent post's point about rebuilding, is a non-starter. He casts as an obvious choice what is in truth anything but obvious. Thank you nonetheless for starting this conversation.
Patrick, good question. One answer is I'm taking a cue from Dr. Feser who makes the very Catholic argument (that I find fairly compelling) that certain issues related to life and the family are most important in politics: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2024/08/trump-has-put-social-conservatives-in.html . Your mileage may vary.
But I agree with you that there are many other motivating factors that French doesn't address. I just wanted to limit my focus for the sake of space on the topics that he does focus on.