Opening to the 18th Annual National Memorial to the Pre-Born, Jan 23, 2012 US Capitol
Welcome to this, the 18th annual remembrance of the Pre-born and their Mothers and Fathers. Fr. Frank Pavone–how wonderful to have you here to preside.
As most of you know, I’m Rev. Rob Schenck, and I’m an ordained Evangelical minister, while my identical twin brother, Fr. Paul Schenck, is a Roman Catholic priest. (That leads to many interesting conversations.) But it falls to me, the “older brother” (by ten minutes) to admit to my younger twin, that he has a lot to teach me–and–that Catholics have much to teach Evangelicals about the two-fold call to evangelization.
You see, Evangelicals are big on the saving of souls. In fact, Evangelical churches are sometimes called, “soul saving stations.” Now, the saving of souls is an indispensable part of the Gospel, but it has a parallel mission: The saving of souls is paired with the saving of culture.
Now, my brother and I have been debating since we were “womb mates” — but Fr. Paul, I’ll give you this one: The Roman Catholic Church has been saving cultures (if you will) or a long–long time. (And, Archpriest Alexander Webster, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say the Orthodox have been doing it just as long–or, you may argue, even longer; but I won’t open that conversation here!)
Any way, we Evangelicals tend to think in 10-year increments; Catholics and Orthodox think in slightly longer expanses—like 1000-year increments.
So, it’s been 18 years since we started this event. In my short-term Evangelical mind, that’s 17 years too many–because in 1995, we had hoped that the conscience of this country wouldn’t allow the killing of the unborn to continue another year.
But, another year did come and go, and another, and another, and here we are 17 years later.
Now many people–among them many of my Evangelical colleagues–have been tempted to give up on the fight for the sanctity of life, because, as one said to me recently, “We don’t seem to be getting anywhere.”
And, of course, yesterday marked the 39th year since seven judges, in Roe v. Wade, created a vacuum of law, leaving the most defenseless members of human society vulnerable to cruelty and death.
I don’t know how some might see it, but I see the absence of law; and the resultant callousness of abandonment; and the burning, poisoning, dismembering, eviscerating, and smothering of tiny human beings–as consummately uncivilized–in fact, barbaric–behavior!
So, the justices unleashed barbarism in our culture when they voted 7-2 to strike down laws protecting vulnerable pre-born children.
But you know something–Rome, as they say–wasn’t built in a day. (Neither was Constantinople . . .) It takes a long time–very long periods of time–to build and rebuild civilizations.
So, Fr. Frank and Fr. Alexander, and my fellow Evangelicals, we have our work cut out for us. We must still save souls by announcing the Gospel whenever and wherever we can–but we must also reform civilization. We must civilize the United States of America by ending the tyranny and tragedy of abortion in our time–while modeling and teaching compassion and care for the most vulnerable in our society–
And, that, folks, ought to keep us all busy for at least another 18 years.
Now let us light the perennial Life Candle.
How I Picked Romney
Ok, I lit a firestorm by my endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. I put out a statement on why I made this choice, but here I’ll tell you how I made it:
First, long ago I abandoned my search for perfect candidates. They simply don’t exist. If you dig deep enough, you will find every candidate has compromised his or her principles, engaged in hypocritical behavior, and has pursued self-serving actions. Why? Because it reflects who they really are–human beings. Let’s face it, we have all done these things in our lives. “There is none righteous, no not one.” (Romans 3:10), “[T]here is none good but one, that is, God. (Mark 10:18), and, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:10)
So, knowing I would never find the perfect candidate, I considered other criteria:
1) On the question of a candidate’s faith: Again, long ago I concluded that a candidate’s claim to faith in Jesus Christ is not the sole determiner of whether that person will govern well. Jimmy Carter is only one example among many. Carter was a born-again, Bible-believing, Southern Baptist. That’s the only reason I voted for him. My colleague Rev. Pat Mahoney pointed out in a recent conversation that Carter spoke of his conversion and commitment to Christ before it was politically in vogue. There wasn’t even a constituency to exploit by doing so; he had nothing to gain by it. It goes without saying Carter not only governed poorly, he took stands that were inimical to Christian principles. Lesson: Presidential leadership requires far more than the right religious profession.
2) The road to the presidency is an enormously complex one. It requires coalitions. Committed Christians alone cannot elect a president. We may feel like a majority because we exercise more political muscle now than ever in American history–but that doesn’t mean we’re an electoral majority. We are, in fact, and in every way, a minority. Minorities don’t get presidents elected. A successful candidate must and will reach out to constituencies that may hold to positions opposite of his own. Reagan did it; both Bushes did it; and every successful president will need to it.
3) I used several measurements to evaluate the candidates:
– Was he or she a “good person”? Did they exhibit a basic, fundamental ethical code that guides first their private life, then their public life? (Again, searching for perfect records is futile. They simply aren’t there.)
– Was he or she open to advice, counsel, direction that may have been opposite of their own opinion? In other words, was he or she “teachable?”
– Did he or she hold to principles more in alignment with classical Christian moral teaching or less in alignment with it?
– Did he or she have a wide enough appeal to bring in a majority of the electorate, as well as enlist the required endorsements of a wide swath of different groups, influential public figures, state and local politicians, etc., etc.? You can’t win without these endorsements and supports.
– Does he or she understand and generally act in accordance with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?
– Does he or she have a quality family life? (Family is the first mediator in society. It is, in fact, the first form of government. If you get it wrong on family, you just can’t get it right in the larger government.)
– To be a successful candidate this time around will require raising upwards of $1 billion. Does this candidate have the demonstrated capacity to do that?
– Does this person have demonstrated executive-level private and public leadership experience? The private (real world) sector does’t behave according to the rules of government. A winning candidate must completely comprehend both worlds.
– And, finally, let’s get real: A candidate must be photogenic and likable. American voters will not elect unattractive and cranky people. There is a huge personality factor to be considered.
Having prayerfully taken all these things into consideration–not just a few–and having met all the candidates personally (those currently in the race, as well as those that have dropped out), I came to the conclusion Mitt Romney best meets the majority of these criteria. You may disagree, and I fully respect that. It’s the way our system works and it’s what makes it so wonderful. It would be the height of arrogance for me to believe I will in any way be a decisive factor in this election, but I hope to do my humble, little part by sharing my opinions with you.
May the best candidate win–for the sake of the American people and those we influence around the world.
Rob +
Have I endorsed a candidate for president?
No.
Thought I’d make that as clear as possible. I’ve been getting a lot of calls since I released a letter to fellow evangelicals in Iowa. Christian leaders, reporters, columnists are now asking me, “Are you for or against a particular candidate?” My unequivocal answer to this question is, “No.” I have not yet decided who I will personally support as a nominee for president in 2012. There are a lot of would-be candidates–and they include Barack Obama! I am not a single-party voter. In fact, I am a registered independent–for many reasons. I started out a Democrat when I first voted in 1976 for Jimmy Carter–(because he was “born again”), and changed to Republican when Ronald Reagan came to the fore. (I heard him speak at a convention of the National Association of Evangelicals and was very impressed.) All that to say, I am about as neutral as I’ve ever been when it comes to presidential candidates.
What I’m not neutral about is the principles at issue in this race. For me, they are very different from the issues last time around. I’m convinced that if our country continues is downward slide economically, it will soon lose its position as the leading moral force among nations. In order for America to remain a leader on the paramount moral questions–the sanctity of life, marriage and the family–it must remain a strong economic force. One of the reasons we have been able to advance human rights and religious freedom is because we have the economic strength to do it. The reason we have been able to lead the world in global security against terrorism is because we have had the economic strength to do it.
I remember my trip to the new Russia only months after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I was on a train from St. Petersburg to Moscow that was like something out of the 19th Century–it was even heated by coal-fired furnaces stoked at every stop! On that train I thought about my landing at the St. Petersburg airport, and the numbers of airplane carcasses along the runway that had obviously been canabalized for parts. I thought about the empty counters at the food stores and the sparse, mouldering meats in the butcher shops. I realized then that the Soviet empire was a farce. It could not survive because it was really an underdeveloped country disguised as a super-power.
Evangelicals are not used to thinking of the economy as a moral issue (unlike Catholics), but talk to any pastor and you will soon discover it is. Financial problems are the number one contributor to marital problems. Divorce is the number one family crisis in our culture. Parents who cannot properly provide for their children understandbly experience enormous distress.(Two of the reasons so many young people live together rather than get married is because of the failure of their own parents’ marriages and their own economic uncertainties.) As is true with missionaries, you can’t preach to hungry people; you must feed them first. Jesus fed the five thousand before He preached his most important sermon to them. We must do the same. We must now address the most acute felt needs of the American people. Only after we do that can we get them to re-focus on the bigger moral issues.
All this to say the times have changed. The challenges facing the next president will be very different from the ones faced by the current or last president. The would-be candidates must speak to our times. As I say in my letter to Evangelicals in Iowa, religious labels have very little to do with this. The most popular president among Evangelicals, George W. Bush, never carried his Bible to the liberal Episcopal church he attended, while Bill Clinton, a Southern Baptist who carried a big leather King James Bible with him to church every Sunday, disappointed and even disgusted many Evangelicals. The same is true of Ronald Reagan, who attended a liberally affilliated Presbyterian church; and Jimmy Carter, a life-long Southern Baptist.
In my letter I suggest a series of questions we need to ask about the candidates. Of course, as with every one of life’s decisions, we must pray about this enormously consequential responsibility, and do our best to discern God’s will in it. Is it possible that God will direct two people to vote for two different candidates? I think it is. Why? Because even the losers in a contest contribute to the crafting of the winner’s policies, and, in our system, can continue to be an important influence in the legislative process.
Now, after having said all this, there is a different question that has also been asked of me lately. Do you favor a particular candidate? That’s a different question, and I have a different answer. I actually favor a number of the candidates–for different reasons and to different degrees. I have enormous respect for Rick Santorum’s courageous voice and history in defense of the sanctity and dignity of every human person–especially the pre-born. I admire Michelle Bachman for her bold Christian testimony and uncompromising stand on so many critical issues. I even appreciate deeply President Obama’s commitment to his marriage and to his children. In a recent face-to-face sit-down with Jon Huntsman, I was moved by his transparency and honesty. As with all the candidates, though, I must balance their appeal with my estimation of their ability to lead the country in the right direction, resolve its most acute crises, strengthen its moral and spiritual fabric–and win.
On balance, I start looking toward Mitt Romney, as I did last time. I traveled with him and saw him up close and personally. I saw him with his wife, his children, and his grandchildren. I saw the strength of his private life and how it informed his public life. And, because I was raised a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, and grew up in a liberal state (New York), I even understand why he took some of the positions he did as governor of Massachusetts. But I also saw during the last campaign that Gov. Romney is not a stubborn and hard-headed person. He’s willing to listen and to change–and change is a good thing when it’s a change for the better. Uncompromising ideology can cut both ways–as we are seeing with the current president.
On the other hand, there are some things that make me reluctant to support some of the candidates: I think Ron Paul is much too narrow and unrealistic to lead the country, and Newt Gingrich carries too much personal baggage to be electable. (And I’m not simply referring to his marital history or ethics charges, but other personality traits I saw up close when he was here on Capitol Hill.) He may be able to allay concerns about this, but that will take more frank conversations between Mr. Gingrich, church leaders, and with the public.
Having said this, I still have not personally selected a candidate, and probably won’t do so until after Christmas or maybe into the New Year. Of course, when I do, it will be only a personal choice. The organizations I lead never endorse candidates and never will. I expect our leadership, staff and supporters will vote for a number of different candidates.
This is where I stand now, but the race is still quite dynamic and will remain so for some time. More than anything else, I’m praying for our country and its future–as I trust you are, too.
Back with more on all, this,
Rob +
What to do about Herman Cain’s troubles . . .
Candidate Cain must make the most serious decision of his life.
It’s agonizing to watch the excruciating ordeal of Herman Cain as accusations of sexual harassment–and now an extramarital affair–have been made against him by various women. As we watch this tawdry spectacle, it’s critical to keep in mind the philosophy both Americans and Christians must adhere to: A person is innocent until proven guilty. The Bible has it as, ““One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.” (Deuteronomy 19:15) Of course, “witnesses” must be tested to be sure they are true witnesses and not false witnesses. Mr. Cain’s problem is that outside the test of a courtroom or credible investigation, the more accusers that surface, the more credible their charges become.
IF the charges are true (and that’s a big “IF” because at this point only the accusers and Mr. Cain know whether they are), my pastoral advice to Mr. Cain would be to withdraw from the race immediately and give his full attention to his family, his relationship to God, and his interior life. This is precisely the advice I’ve given to several prominent public figures. Some took the advice and stepped down; others did not.
If there is a lesson in this wrenching saga, it is that private life does matter when it comes to public office. (Questions are being asked about Mr. Gingrich for the same reason.) You could say that Americans are too prudish (as my European acquaintances often opine), or that it’s pharisaical to point the finger at another person while three fingers point back at you. (See Luke 18: 9 – 14) On the other hand, you could also say that Americans on the whole know that if you have a hard time keeping to your most intimate promises of fidelity, you just might have a hard time keeping to your most public promises on policy. (Luke 16:10 in the Bible in Basic English, “He who is true in a little, is true in much; he who is false in small things, is false in great.”)
When these revelations of infidelity come up in my private conversations with office holders–or candidates–(and they often do)–I always deliver the same counsel: “Nothing is as important as your relationship to your spouse, your family, your children, and grandchildren. And nothing–absolutely nothing–trumps your own interior relationship with God and your conscience. The best thing you can do for your loved ones and yourself, is to step away from the unmitigated demands of public life and give yourself completely to the ones you love and that love you.”
Mr. Cain is a praying man. (For that matter, as far as I know, all the candidates are praying people.) Mr. Cain–and each of his rivals–must pray, contemplate, and take under wise counsel the question of whether their personal failures (and they all have them–together with the rest of us) require their full and undivided attention. I, for one, have enough confidence in Mr. Cain to believe he will, in fact, do just that and make the right call in the end.
My prayers are with him–and I hope yours will be, too.
Rob +
Why Tonight’s Congressional Action is Important
Motto ordered onto all currency & coinage in 1955.
Tonight (Tuesday, Nov 1, 2011), Congress will vote on House Resolution Number 34, reaffirming our country’s national motto, “In God We Trust.” This is more than a symbolic exercise. Earthly governments have God-ordained boundaries. Political powers, for instance, cannot control the conscience, inner thoughts, opinions, or speech of its subjects–and there are many more such limitations on human authorities. When this supreme limitation is forgotten, the boundaries around government are inevitably violated and the result is a form of idolatry. A false god, made in a human image (whether dictator, absolute monarch, tyrannical oligarchy, terrorist regime, etc., etc.,) is substituted for the One True God. Human arbitrariness is put in the place of absolute truth and all foundations for law, morality, love, dignity, and the Divine are destroyed, leading to an ultimate insecurity of mind, body, and soul. Witness the sad histories of places like the former Soviet Union, the “People’s Republic” of China, and Castro’s Cuba.
Now, before I go any further, let me address those readers who are already typing out their objections with arguments like, “Yeah, well look at the tragic history of theocracy–religious wars, hypocrisy, oppression, the Taliban . . .” Exactly. The religious power (i.e, the Church, community, etc.) also has its God-ordained limits. We rightly use the phrase, “Church AND state,” not “Church OR State.” The religious power declares the Truth of God’s will–in spirituality, morality, ethics, salvation, eternity; but not in the temporal, secular, political, or governmental realms. The “state” acts in response to the Truth declared by the church. (But not the other way around.) The so-called “wall of separation” between church and state, a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Baptists assuring them he would not declare his beloved “Church of Virginia” as a national denomination, is really more of a one-way gate: The church speaks into the conscience of government so that it can better execute its earthly role of ordering society.
All of this is loaded into our simple statement, “In God We Trust.” By making this joint, positive affirmation, we eschew any notion that one or more human beings in the form of human government can dictate to every part of life and living. The American Founders wisely established checks and balances, breaking up the government power into three co-equal branches (executive, legislative, judicial) to ensure no one authority would become absolute. At the same time, they appealed jointly to the “Supreme Judge of the World,” and, 100 years later, when, during the Civil War, a new idol threatened the whole of American civilization, they incised, “In God We Trust” on our coinage. A century after that, the Congress passed legislation and the President signed into law a national motto saying the same, effectively placing all three branches securely under the One, Supreme, Eternal, and Absolute Authority.
Today, 56 years after the National Motto took effect, we will see whether the political power still understands the gravity of the question–and whether it is humble enough to stay inside its borders.
Thank you Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia, for helping us keep all of this in perspective. The consequences, one way or the other, will be enormous.
Rob +
Reflections at 36,000 feet…
It’s 11:10 PM. I’m writing this post at 36,000 feet, traveling at precisely 493 miles per hour over Perryton, Texas, on my way to Seattle. It’s the end of a long but enormously satisfying day in New Orleans. (Gretna to be exact, on the Westbank of that iconic city.) My hosts for this visit to Believers Life Family Church (BLFC) were Pastors Randy and Cathy Cilluffo, two extraordinary people who have served this church for over 14 years. They’ve shepherded their congregation through a major expansion of ministries and a building program, not to mention the harrowing months and years after the storm of the century, Katrina. This would be enough to command my admiration and loyalty to these good friends, but there’s actually more–a lot more.
I first visited Believer’s Life in 1986. Yes, that’s 1986–25 years ago. That’s when Randy and Kathy’s predecessors, David and Millie Long were there. I’ve made almost annual visits ever since. During that time, Pastors Randy and Cathy have made numerous ministry visits to Washington, offering everything from their wise counsel to their limitless generosity. In fact, BLFC is our second longest running supporting church in the country–the Tabernacle of Orchard Park, New York, is the only one that beats them. 25 years is a long relationship by any estimation–and there’s no end in sight. In fact, on this visit they renewed their commitment to our work on Capitol Hill.
All this is terribly important to me. Washington, DC, is a lonely place to live and minister. Like New York it’s a city that never sleeps–and never, ever relaxes. It runs on tension and adrenaline. People are transient–they come and they go. Everyone seems to be competing with each other–it’s the nature of politics. And trust is very hard to find. Betrayal is part of the game of winning, gaining advantage, defeating your opponent. And, as one of the past chaplains to the United States Congress told me, “Most pastors get to see their congregants on their best day and on their best behavior, Sunday. We get to see our members on their worst days and their worst behavior.”
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining. I wouldn’t trade my calling for anything, even if God offered me a choice. (Which, He clearly has not!) But friends like Randy and Cathy, and church families like BLFC make it so much easier, so much more enjoyable, so much more bearable. Their interest, their prayers, their moral support, and their generous financial support form a lifeline to us from Heaven. Even more, they create a network of accountability. Washington is a place full of temptation. I learned that when a lobbyist offered me $1 million dollars to abandon my ministry and work as a spokesman for his high-paying clients. I had to literally get up from the lunch table and flee to escape succumbing. Churches like BLFC form a bulwark agains that sort of satanic seduction.
Churches also provide our ministry with individuals supporters, volunteers, and other tangible and intangible resources. They’re the gateway to an almost infinite number of wonderful people that form what I call our “extended ministry team.” Maybe they pray for us–which the the most valuable thing they do. Maybe they talk us up among their family, friends, and fellow church members, which forms a safety net for us. Maybe they send in their $20, $50, $500, or even $5000 gift. It takes money to do ministry in Washington–a lot of it. Without the kindness of individual and church supporters, we’d have to close our doors.
Oh, and there’s one more thing churches do for us–they give me a place to escape to once in a while, to keep company with “normal” people who see the world just a little more conventionally than the people I usually see in Washington. Again, don’t get me wrong, I love both equally, but I’ve got to have a break every now and then, and preaching for the great folks at BLFC and other congregations like it give me just the break I need so I can re-up for the call they’ve commissioned me to pursue.
Grateful to God for all our churches,
Rob +
“But your name shall be . . “ Genesis 17:5
“But your name shall be . . “ Genesis 17:5
Monday began a new term for the US Supreme Court. The calendar of cases set for review always begins on the first Monday of October. You may have seen our article or video on the Red Mass, the annual church service held in Washington the day before to pray for and recognize judges, lawyers and all those involved in the law. Several of the “Supremes” (as they are affectionately known here in Washington) usually attend.
This year we asked you and your church to join us in praying for the Supreme Court justices by name. The reason we did that is because that’s how God sees them–in fact all of us–as named individuals, not as an anonymous block.
Names are important things. The Bible is filled with names, including several for God. We learn Adam’s name immediately after he is created. In the angelic command to Joseph, he was told to name Jesus. We all know what it’s like for someone to remember our names–it means we’re important to them.
There’s another dimension to names. Names indicate individuality, uniqueness, something special that sets us apart from others. It has to do with our identity–and even our dignity. “Hey Rob,” is always a compliment when compared to, “Hey you.”
When it comes to people in public office, we often think of them as, well, “them” or “they.” Besides simply being rude and disrespectful, there’s a bigger problem with this. “They” are never “us.” In other words, “they” are something different from what we are–and if “they” are different, then we can treat them differently from how we treat ourselves.
Here’s the big problem with that outcome: It violates the command of God, “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.” (Luke 6:31) If we have names–and we want our names to be respected–then we must respect the names of others. Believe it or not, “those” Supreme Court justices have names.
Not only do the justices have names, they have nicknames, genealogies, personal stories, personalities, and everything else any one of us has. In other words, they are real people–like us.
This is how we at Faith and Action know the justices. Not as an anonymous block, “The Court,” “the Justices,” “those characters,” “the liberals,” or “the conservatives,” the majority”, or “the minority,” or, as someone recently wrote me in an e-mail, “those idiots.”
Unless someone wants to be called an idiot, they shouldn’t call anyone else an idiot. At least that’s how the command has it. And, if they don’t want to be known simply as “them,” or “those ‘somethings,’” they–each by name–should call others by their names.
This is why we asked you to pray with us for the justices–Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas–by their names. Putting a name with a face is the beginning of a relationship. Praying for someone with their face in your mind and their name on your lips is an even greater relationship. In fact, the greatest gift you can give to someone is your prayers because it links that person to God, whether they know it immediately or not.
So, if you wonder how we relate to the members of the High Court, we relate to them as individuals, known and loved by God. Like every other person in high government office, they have souls, stories, and people who know and love them. They are sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, mentors, friends. They watch movies, read books, play sports, go out with buddies, listen to music. The Justices also cry, and laugh. They feel pain. , and, yes, pray.
The next time you think of “The Court,” try thinking of them as Sam, Stephen, Ruth, Elena, “Tony,” John, “Nino,” Sonia, and Clarence. It may change your heart towards them–and help you to pray.
Rob +