Before candidate Mitt Romney made his VP pick this summer, there were a few days of “chatter” in which former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s name was floated. The selection would have checked a lot of boxes. But Condi has described herself as “mildly pro-choice.” And being pro-choice has become a disqualifier for the Republican ticket.

Happily, these days one of the bottom-line requirements for Republican White House hopefuls and their running mates is that you’ve got to be pro-life. The pro-life position has long been a political winner for Republicans. Polls now show the country tips pro-life.

But there’s a stark contrast between the positions of the two major political parties on this issue.
Our Declaration of Independence explains that humans “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Republican Party platform recognizes “that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.

But, in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court found in the Constitution another “right”—to abortion. The Democrats’ platform “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”

It’s been a struggle, but the country has mostly held the line against forcing citizens to pay for the abortions of others. The possibility that taxpayers might be required to fund abortion almost derailed the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

We now know those concerns had merit. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ mandate, under the ACA’s “preventative care” provision, requires employers, including religious organizations, to provide insurance that covers, without copay, contraception, even the kind that can work by causing abortion. This assault upon the religious freedom of groups who oppose contraception, abortion, or sterilization must not be allowed to stand.

The Affordable Care Act authorizes the HHS secretary to craft most of its implementing regulations. The HHS mandate is likely the tip of the iceberg. Coverage of surgical abortions, as a “preventative service,” could be next.

Congressional budget battles also touch the sanctity of life. In the last Congress, a stalemate over federal funding of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, nearly shut down the government. Proponents of such funding insist that cutting it deprives women of screenings, birth control and other services, and constitutes a war on women.

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, decries such rhetoric, insisting that, “The politicization of ‘women’s health’ has almost completely obscured the victimization of women in abortion clinics across the country and the way in which a profit-hungry abortion lobby fights any protections for women.”

The Affordable Care Act has raised the stakes in this election for the unborn, and also for the medically vulnerable and the elderly. Upon inauguration, a president could take immediate action on behalf of life beginning by launching the effort to repeal and replace the ACA.

And, there’s an area in which congressional action is long overdue. We have the technology to learn a lot about the pre-born baby. The dark side of this ability is that imperfections can be detected that motivate doctors and parents to consider snuffing out that little life. Amazingly, it’s perfectly legal in the U.S. to abort a child simply because he or she is not the gender the parents were hoping for.

Investigations done by Lila Rose and her team at Live Action reveal that Planned Parenthood is performing sex-selection abortions. A pro-life Congress should pass the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, (PRENDA) which would ban sex-selection or race-selection abortions. This bill, or another, should also address the disabled.

States are constantly passing laws to regulate and limit abortions. A pro-life administration would stop opposing and filing lawsuits against bills that

—defund Planned Parenthood

—bar abortions from taking place after the 20th week of pregnancy. (There is broad medical consensus that the fetus feels pain after this point, and probably much earlier.)

—require abortion clinics to meet health and safety standards similar to surgical centers or hospitals

—require sonograms, waiting periods, means of informed consent.

The next president could appoint three or more Supreme Court justices with lifetime tenure. The right Court could overturn Roe v. Wade and send abortion back to the states. Many would outlaw it.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life America, tells her audiences on college campuses, “If a candidate does not support the basic right to life, we believe they cannot be trusted to handle any other issue, fiscal or social, with honor and dignity.” Her generation is more pro-life than their parents. Let’s pray all of them are listening.

—Penna Dexter is a Baptist Press columnist and frequent panelist on the “Point of View” syndicated radio program.

COTTONWOOD SHORES—How far would you have to go to find a town without a single church?
Until recently, the surprising answer was that you wouldn’t even have to leave Texas. Nestled between the upscale communities of Horseshoe Bay and Marble Falls in the Hill Country, the small working-class town of Cottonwood Shores didn’t have a single Christian congregation until Birth of Hope Baptist Church was planted last month under the leadership of church planter Shawn Condon.

“This was the first time for the townspeople of Cottonwood Shores to have the opportunity to come to a Southern Baptist service,” Condon told the TEXAN. “And that evening in our first service we had 26 Cottonwood Shores townspeople to come. When we gave the invitation, we had 11 people walk the aisle [to join the church].”

There was one church in Cottonwood Shores previously. But it was didn’t grow and eventually disbanded, leaving town officials longing for another church to help solve the town’s numerous social challenges.

Providentially, God was working at Buchanan West Baptist Church 26 miles away in Buchanan Dam. Led by Pastor John Taylor, the church was looking for a place to plant a new congregation. When Cottonwood Shores arose as a potential location, a delegation from Buchanan West visited the town’s mayor and city developer late last year. Her response to the idea of a church made it clear that God was calling them there.

“We mentioned the word church,” Taylor told the TEXAN, “and they said, ‘That’s what we were just sitting here thinking about. Our community needs a church that will help the community grow.’ It was almost like a divine appointment from my perspective.”

After that meeting, Buchanan West began taking surveys door-to-door in Cottonwood Shores, determining people’s openness to the gospel. By February they were ready to start a 15-week Bible study on Christian doctrine, which met Monday evenings at the local library. At Easter, momentum built when they participated in a community egg hunt, allowing them to meet between 150 and 200 kids along with their parents.

As the Bible study drew to a close, Taylor and his team began talking with the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention about securing a church planter to partner with them in Cottonwood Shores. They discovered Condon and he was an obvious fit.

Driving from his home in Granbury, he joined the team from Buchanan West at the community Bible study and, along with his wife, worked at a Cottonwood Shores Vacation Bible School in June with nearly 30 children in attendance.

“His heart just broke for these people,” Taylor said.

After going through a church planter screening process with Condon and Buchanan West, the SBTC began a partnership to help fund the plant. The convention will provide some financial support for three years, with funds decreasing each year in an effort to help the church become financially independent. Condon is required to submit monthly reports and participate in periodic training activities.

At Birth of Hope’s first service Aug. 5, Buchanan West members joined Cottonwood Shores residents, packing 60 people in a room at the library intended for about 40. The congregation’s name reflected its vision for breathing new spiritual life into the town.

In the first few weeks, one more new member joined the 11 who responded to the invitation that first night, and through their outreach efforts the church is averaging 30 at Sunday worship. It also holds multiple Wednesday night Bible studies, and Condon spends as much time as he can meeting with prospects in the town.

“The town’s acceptance of us really shows in our attendance and the ministries that we’ve started,” said Condon, who works part-time at a hardware store.

Though the SBTC contributes the largest share of Birth of Hope’s budget, the church also receives support from Buchanan West, the Burnet-Llano Baptist Association in Marble Falls and several other partners.

Barry Calhoun, SBTC church planting team leader, said Birth of Hope exemplifies the convention’s vision for church plants.

“Shawn Condon is a great fit for the church in Cottonwood Shores, and we’re already seeing his ministry bear fruit,” Calhoun said. “Birth of Hope Baptist Church represents what we hope to do in dozens of locations across the state—plant contextually appropriate churches as part of a comprehensive evangelistic strategy.”

Birth of Hope’s goal for the future is ambitious: to build a multipurpose building that would serve as a community center and spiritual lighthouse for Cottonwood Shores. For Taylor, such a building would help the congregation live up to its name.

A building “would serve as a symbol of hope,” he said. “That’s what it would represent.”

On May 16, 1920, George W. Truett, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, stood on the East Steps of the Capitol at Washington, D.C., to preach of the Baptists’ role in the shaping of America. Before him stood a large crowd of people, eager to hear his planned address. As J.B. Gambrell shared, “The shadow of the Capitol of the greatest and freest nation on earth, largely made so by the infiltration of Baptist ideas through the masses, fell on the vast assembly, composed of Cabinet members, Senators and members of the Lower House, Foreign Ambassadors, intellectuals in all callings, with peoples of every religious order and of all classes.” Truett’s historic words addressed a diverse society clearly on a roll! The thriving stock market was still years away from “Black Tuesday” and the period between the two world wars was vibrant with frivolity, progress and hope. Respect for clergy and religious convictions were running high. Politicians may well have been no more religious than they are today, but they were wise enough to realize a need for the mainstream Christian vote. This attitude would change in just two generations.

In less than 100 years, the political landscape in America has been vastly transformed. No longer does a political candidate in America need Christian values to be elected. Society’s warm embrace of recent candidates espousing a plethora of anti-Christian ideals and rhetoric has decisively proven this to be true. The decline is so monumental that many Christians are finding themselves on the horns of a dilemma as to what to do come November.

This became apparent after a Sunday morning sermon when an older gentleman. He shared that for the first time he was unable to vote for either candidate for president because he could never cast a ballot for someone he believed was not a Christian. Therefore, as neither candidate professes a true belief in Christ that is borne out by moral decisions upholding Christian values, he would protest by opting out of the American political system and refuse to vote. While I appreciate my friend’s desire to honor God with his vote, if all conservative Christians employ the same strategy we have little or no hope for any restorative change in the moral climate of America.

So, what is a Christian to do and how should a candidate’s religious belief (or lack thereof) inform and shape the evangelical community’s vote? On the one hand, President Barack Obama professes Christianity and yet does not espouse what many would recognize as a biblical ethic. On the other hand, Gov. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Regardless of the liberal media’s errant definition of true Christianity, Mormonism remains un-Christian in doctrine as well as practice. The average Christian in America, therefore, is faced with an unpalatable choice.

In a recent discussion with Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He told me, “Christians voting in a secular arena often face a circumstance in which they do not have a candidate that they feel good about supporting. In such cases, a believer is obligated to vote against the candidate most likely to do harm to his most cherished biblical principles. When one candidate threatens religious liberty, declares war on preborns in the wombs of their mothers, and attempts to redefine marriage, a true believer has no choice but to endorse the lesser of two evils, thus prolonging the hegemony of righteousness as long as possible.” Clearly, the Christian community faces a choice like this in 2012.

Scripture shows that God used even the most evil authorities to enact his plans and purposes in the world. When in disobedience Israel acted independently of God, he regularly utilized unbelieving nations as instruments of reproof and correction. Numerous pagan kings appear in the Bible as unknowing servants of a powerful God. Whether Artaxerxes, Nebuchadnezzar, Ahasuerus or some other unbelieving authority, the pages of Scripture prove God can use that which is evil to carry out his purposes.

Proverbs 21:1 sheds light on the authority of God over every earthly leader: “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will.” When I read this verse it reminds me of when my son was a 4-year-old. His height was perfect for me to simply place my hand on the back of his head and gently guide him to whatever path I desired us to take. One time we were in a crowd of people and without realizing it, I placed my hand on the head of another child my son’s size and began guiding him. Very quickly I learned the error of my ways and apologized to the young boy’s father. The difference is that God sovereignly directs the course of his world with perfect precision. He can use any person he chooses and never places his hand of guidance incorrectly upon any world leader regardless of appearance. He can always be trusted, even when no ideal choice is offered.

Do the religious beliefs of a candidate impact how we should vote? Absolutely they do. But staying home on Nov. 6 must not be an option. Christians must vote for the candidate who most aligns with what the Bible teaches, even if it means voting for the lesser of two evils.

—Byron McWilliams is a past SBTC president who serves as pastor of First Baptist Church of Odessa

Religious liberty: There is no more important issue facing voters in this presidential election. Considering the options, that statement is significant. Sanctity of life is the most important moral issue of the past half-century. The foundational institution of civil society, marriage, is at most a step and a half from being completely devoid of meaning. Racial prejudice has already divided and may yet end up felling the nation. The free market is mocked by the crowds and shackled by the government to which it brought unprecedented prosperity and power.

What makes religious liberty the most important among so many profoundly significant issues? All of the others find their only real resolution in religious conviction. There are non-religious arguments to be made regarding all of the topics mentioned above. But those arguments invariably either build on a deep-seated religious conviction, or at least reveal one. When the individual’s freedom to believe or to practice his faith is undermined, then the ability to influence every morally significant issue in the culture is undermined.

“But surely there is no real threat to religious freedom in America.” Surely there is. In fact, when authorities declare commencement addresses about Jesus offensive, crosses at memorials inappropriate, or cheerleading placards with Scripture references illicit, religious liberty is threatened. When hate-crime legislation protects some groups but not others, religious liberty is endangered. When religious organizations are forced to pay directly for contraceptives and abortifacients in direct violation of their religious conviction, religious liberty is violated.

The first words in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights (the first amendments to the U.S. Constitution) are: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Before freedom of speech, before freedom of the press, and before the right to assemble there is freedom of religion.

In the face of criticism that it is impinging on the freedom of religion, the current administration including the president himself and the secretary of state have fallen back on the nation’s respect for the freedom to worship. But freedom to worship “as one sees fit” is only a meager shard of genuine religious liberty. The words of the first amendment protect not simply the contained worship of a congregation within a building’s walls one day of the week, but the free exercise of religion. Since religion sincerely practiced affects the whole of a person’s life, the free exercise of religion extends to every part of that person’s life: at church, home, work, school, the marketplace, and the voting booth.

Religion is the ultimate expression of value, and faith the ultimate expression of commitment. In a land teetering on the brink of what almost half the nation sees as a bright new horizon, the only hope of protecting and even fostering values as fundamental and diverse as life and family, or equality and opportunity, is for persons with religious conviction to exercise their faith in practice—privately, publicly, socially, and politically.

Unfortunately, even a disconcerting number of believers are beginning to claim that a persecuted church might be a stronger church—that an end of religious liberty might not be a bad thing. That line of thinking needs correction. It is true that suffering can bring purity. But it is false to think that only suffering can bring purity. Similarly, it is true that God has no problem overcoming any kind of opposition—even when it comes from a powerful and tyrannical state. But thinking that an oppressive state is acceptable because God can overcome it through the faithfulness of his suffering people is tantamount to thinking that sin is acceptable because God can overcome it through the suffering of his Son. Paul told the Romans that line of thinking is wrong.

No government should ever violate the free consciences of its citizens. It may be too late to hope this one never will. But it is not too late for this state’s citizens to use the power still in their possession to fill the government with leaders who will ensure not just that Sunday worship is unrestrained, but that Sunday through Saturday the free exercise of religion is unrestrained.

—Barry Creamer is vice president of academic affairs and professor of humanities at Criswell College in Dallas.