Posted on 09/06/2008 5:28:51 PM PDT by markomalley
A friend asked me why evangelicals think it’s okay that Sarah Palin’s seventeen-year-old daughter got pregnant by her boyfriend. I think the exact wording was, “Why are we so excited about it?” Hmmmm. That’s not exactly the way I would put it.
I don’t know anyone who is “excited” about a teenage girl getting pregnant out of wedlock. This seems to be a point on which there is near-universal agreement. Getting pregnant outside of marriage is always problematic, but when you are a teenager, the difficulties are magnified. This isn’t a liberal or conservative observation—just a statement of reality.
However, I think the question is meant to go to a different point. Why are evangelicals willing to overlook the pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s daughter? Well, it is a useful question, given that everyone I have talked to (an admittedly unscientific sample) seems to love Sarah Palin. Count me in that number. I thought she did a terrific job in her speech on Wednesday night at the Republican Convention. But what about her daughter getting pregnant outside of wedlock?
Here’s a simple answer. Sarah and Todd Palin are not the first parents to have a child make this sort of mistake. And it’s not just the getting pregnant part. It’s as much the part about being sexually active in the first place. Given that most of us knew nothing about the Palins ten days ago, we aren’t in a position to say anything about how they raised their children. But Bristol Palin is hardly the first child raised in an evangelical family to get pregnant out of wedlock. We might be surprised if we knew how often this happens. That isn’t meant to excuse anything. Sin is sin, wrong is wrong, but is helps to remember that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” and “there but for the grace of God."
But doesn’t it reflect poorly on the parents when children make bad choices? The answer is yes and no. Certainly it has cast a shadow over the whole nomination of Sarah Palin, and it has given the media another opening to attack her. But her daughter’s pregnancy does not disqualify her for public office. By the same token, I would argue that a similar situation would not automatically disqualify a pastor from serving in a local church. Note the word “automatically.” Sometimes churches have demanded a level of perfection in pastoral child-rearing that James Dobson couldn’t possibly meet.
It’s not what the children do that matters as much as how the parents respond. 1 Timothy 3:4 tell us that a spiritual leader must “manage his own household well.” How do you measure that? The real test of any manager is how he responds when trouble comes. Anyone can manage an organization when you have plenty of money in the bank, when your market share is growing, and when everyone is happy. Great managers rise to the top when the waters are rough, when money is tight, when the market is down, and when times are tough.
Do they cover up the truth or do they face reality?
Can they demonstrate wisdom in how they respond?
Do they keep their people united?
Do they have a plan and will others follow their plan?
Can they remain positive and calm when others are panicking?
These are the traits of good leadership—and you only see this when unexpected trouble comes. Leaders rise to the top in hard times. And that’s why I think pastors (and other spiritual leaders) ought not to be trashed or suddenly dismissed because of family issues. It’s how they respond that makes the difference.
Regarding Sarah Palin and her pregnant daughter, so far so good. Her daughter did not abort the baby, which many people would have advised her to do. And she and her boyfriend plan to be married and keep the baby. Good for them. I can’t imagine that Todd and Sarah Palin are happy about their daughter’s pregnancy, but as far as anyone can tell, they have responded with grace and courage under an enormous media spotlight. They have done well, their family seems to be rallying to the cause, and they are setting a good example of how to handle a crisis when the whole world is watching.
Evangelicals of all people believe in sin and grace. We admit our sin and we cling to the grace of God. We face the consequences, we seek forgiveness, we love each other, and we go forward together.
The only people that are confused by this, have had their image of “evangelicals” spoon fed to them by the media and the Dems. When I get stupid questions from people about “evangelicals”, I ask them to define for me what exactly an “evangelical” is. Try it, it’s entertaining in a sad way.
Wrong. But what do you mean by, "it's acceptable"? Premarital sex is "acceptable"? Nope, it isn't.
Not even by conservatives.
Babies, once conceived, are always "acceptable" and should always be "accepted". And loved.
I noticed that too.
Not wrong. The entire situation is considered acceptable or not much of a big deal, while if the tables were turned, we would be shredding the liberals. Look at how Chelsea was treated on FR, and she wasn’t even pregnant.
Very, VERY well said.
That only applied, IIRC, if the female was reputed to be a virgin. Further, the male would by his actions forfeit any right to challenge the female's virginity.
The libs always defend the Hollywood out-of-wedlock births and would damn us to hell if we said it was wrong. However, NOW, according to the libs, we are supposed to be up in arms about this baby. Like usual, they want it their way or no way.
Thank you so much!!!
Beautifully stated!
My pastor’s daughter, a fine young woman, suddenly had to re-schedule her wedding day some weeks earlier than originally planned, away back in the 1960s. The congregation took it in stride, no anger, no recriminations, just acceptance of our common humanity, all of us sinners, some of us forgiven and forgiving sinners.
I take extreme exception to that....I argued on FR just recently that, as an adult campaigning on the trail for her parents, Chelsea should be fair game for questions. I was raked over the coals for it. The people on this forum and conservatives in general have veen very consistent in their message to a fault on this.
For some reason, everything I felt about her daughter getting pregnant out of wedlock disappeared when I saw what the Libs and MSM were doing to her.
Then my maternal instinct kicked in and I am now fiercely protective of her.
weird, i know.
;)
Let’s just welcome another wonderful baby into the world, and this one is lucky enough to have Sarah Palin as grandmother!
Go back 10 or 12 yrs.
The libs are acting about the preganancy the way they claim fundamentalists to be about premartal sex...harsh and judgemental.
Now tell me what’s worse: getting pregnant at 17 by your fiance, or an elderly, chaste, pious so-called Christian woman who uses her tongue to gossip, sow dissention, turn people against each other, while legalistically nitpicking and criticizing everything and everyone around them as ‘sin’ and ‘impurity’?
So do you think that if Chelsea Clinton had gotten pregnant as an unmarried teenager, Freepers would be defending her?
They are children of the devil and they demonstrate that proclivity every day!!!!
Most likely no one would ever know if Chelsea had gotten pregnant as an unmarried teenager because, most likely, she wouldn’t have been that way for long.
They would not condone the behavior but they would not try to destroy her...it’s not in the general makeup to try to destroy someone who loves babies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.