As you are aware and as we have previously informed you, the Evangelical Intelligentsia (EI) chose their candidate some months back, and it was the moderate and Roman Catholic candidate, Marco Rubio. Led by EI ecumenist, Eric Teetsel, the Intelligentsia have compromised the Gospel for their chosen candidate, widely having told us that the candidate who is “fully doctrinally and theologically aligned with the Roman Catholic Church” is somehow both a Christian and evangelical (source link). Along with social progressives like Russell Moore, jumping on that bandwagon has been conservatives with previously stellar records, including Southern Seminary president Albert Mohler, theologian Wayne Grudem, and historian Thomas Kidd – all of whom serve on Rubio’s Dignity of Life Board or Faith Advisory Board (source link).
A special hat-tip to professor Robert Gagnon to posting this article earlier, because according to Life Site News, Rubio is on the record supporting the over-the-counter availability of an abortion drug, the so-called “Morning After Pill.” Lisa Bourne writes…
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 6, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio supports selling the morning after pill over the counter.
The Florida senator, a Roman Catholic, said he supports making the abortifacient available without a prescription, perhaps based on a misunderstanding of when conception occurs.
“In the cases [of rape or incest], they’re terrible tragedies. They’re horrifying,” Sen. Rubio said in response to a candidate survey by the news editorial site theSkimm. “And luckily in the 21st century, we have treatments available early on after an incident that can prevent that fertilization from happening. And that’s why I support the morning after pill being available over the counter – and I certainly support them being made available immediately for rape victims.”
Although reported in October, a cursory online search has found no clarifications or retractions from Rubio since he made the statement. Searches have revealed the validity and accuracy of the Life Site News citation of Rubio’s remarks, made Wednesday, September 18, at the Heritage Action Presidential Forum in Greenville, South Carolina.
As a moderate candidate in the Republican primary, especially with a wide array of similarly liberal views on other issues like immigration, perhaps it shouldn’t surprise us that Rubio would hold to such a position on the dignity of (all) life. What should surprise us is that leaders like Mohler, Grudem, and Kidd would support Rubio’s bid and serve on the “Dignity of Life Board” for one who – at least practically – doesn’t believe life begins at conception.
Concerning the availability of the Morning After Pill, Mohler said on April 24, 2009 that making it available over the counter is a “central obsession of the left, and it has infected many who would otherwise call themselves conservative.” It seems that Mohler is now lending his credibility to a presidential candidate who has caved to that central obsession of the left, and who has been infected by someone who would otherwise call himself conservative (source link).
When asked by Christianity Today why so many Americans believe life begins at conception yet don’t oppose access to the Morning After Pill, Mohler says…
I think this demonstrates a lack of consistent thinking. And we are, ourselves, to blame for this as evangelical leaders, theologians and pastors. We have not been talking about an issue which is of such day-to-day consequence for Christians and Christian couples in particular. So, many are simply not drawing the necessary lines that would connect these questions. And they fail to see that an affirmation of the sanctity of human life begins with the fertilization of the egg. And once that takes place, anything thereafter is some form of an abortion—and thus is illegitimate. What we face are many evangelicals whose understanding of these things is rather superficial at best and largely influenced by the culture. And so they know how to answer the question about the sanctity of human life correctly, in the main, but they do not know how to apply that to the question of birth control.
One should ask the question why Mohler is assisting the candidacy of one who – by his own words – lacks consistent thinking. And by serving on his board, Mohler puts himself squarely to blame as an evangelical leader within the very inner circle of Rubio’s campaign (or at least in its appeal for evangelical or value voters) for apparently not using his influence on Rubio’s Dignity of Life board to get him to repent and retract his support for abortion-causing drugs. And for that matter, we can add Grudem, Kidd and by extension, Moore, to that number of leaders who have some serious explaining to do.
If the morning after pill is abortion, Mohler and company need to explain why they’re supporting a pro-abortion candidate.
[Contributed by JD Hall]