The “conscience” of the state

Former President Donald Trump’s recent turn on pro-life policies and initiatives has been swift and severe. What has been surprising, however, is the response (or lack thereof) from many pro-life activists and organizations in the wake of the massive realignment of the Republican Party away from pro-life rhetoric and ideals.

In July, several pro-life members of the Republican National Committee’s platform committee were barred from meetings, foreshadowing the gutting of the platform’s pro-life language. Where once there was decadeslong written support for the constitutional rights of unborn children, now there’s a weak condemnation of late-term abortion (something even most Democrats claim to be against) and sweeping support for the creation (and mass discarding) of children via in vitro fertilization.

Before the new language was officially adopted, however, many pro-life activists, even leaders from the nation’s major pro-life organizations, remained silent. Some even went so far as to praise the new platform, which gutted decades of pro-life language, a clear blow to the movement’s progress over the past 50 or more years. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and former Vice President Mike Pence were among the courageous few notable leaders to speak out about the changes before they were officially adopted. But adopted they were. And Trump’s shift away from pro-life values has only continued to widen. What, then, is the Christian to do? How should we engage in the political realm without compromising our beliefs?

In a collection of essays titled Church and State, Karl Barth referred to the Church (and the Christians who make up its body) as the “conscience” of the state. Barth, who was one of the foremost theologians of the 20th century and the intellectual leader of a Protestant group that resisted Adolf Hitler’s regime, certainly had a sense of what it was like to exist as a Christian in a “negative world.” Pro-life Christians in America today are certainly feeling the effects of this negative world as Aaron Renn describes it: Society has a negative view of Christianity and its values, Christian morality is “seen as a threat to the public good,” and “subscribing to Christian moral views … brings negative consequences.”

In the wake of Donald Trump’s turn against the pro-life movement (and his embrace of other anti-Christian policies), Barth’s example might prove helpful to Christians who feel a tension between their Christian values and their involvement in politics, specifically for those who feel like they no longer have a political home. Barth’s idea of the Church as the conscience of the state is one compelling example of how Christians can positively approach political engagement in our seemingly ever-worsening social, cultural, and party-politics landscape. Some Christians already are modeling that engagement.

One month after the RNC platform changes, Trump was asked whether he supported an amendment to the Florida Constitution that would overturn Florida’s strong six-week abortion limit. He criticized the existing law, saying that six weeks was too short, implying that he’d vote for Amendment 4—which would enshrine abortion access through all nine months of pregnancy and make Florida the abortion tourism state in the southeastern United States.

The pro-life, evangelical backlash was swift and pointed—and from many who rarely (if ever) criticize the former president.

Author and “unabashed church lady” Megan Basham (who has more than 124,000 followers on X) said, “Stop trying to make suburban women voters happen, GOP. It’s not going to happen. (And you’re suppressing your base vote in the process).”

Allie Beth Stuckey, a popular podcast host and author with almost half a million followers on X, said of Trump’s comments on Florida’s Amendment 4, “Aside from being morally wrong, it’s politically miscalculated. I am fighting hard to get Christian women engaged in and enthusiastic about this election. Abortion is their biggest—though not only—issue. … Statements like this make that much, much more difficult.”

And Southern Baptists (the largest Protestant denomination in the United States) weren’t the only ones to offer criticism. Many other Protestants and Roman Catholics condemned Trump’s comments, as well. The backlash was so severe that less than a day later, the Trump campaign released an official statement saying, “President Trump has not yet said how he will vote on the ballot initiative in Florida, he simply reiterated that he believes six weeks is too short.” And a day after that, Trump completely walked the comments back, agreeing to vote against Florida Amendment 4—that is, against overturning Florida’s six-week abortion restriction.

I’m not sure why these comments, and not previous statements or platform revisions, so mobilized pro-lifers as to warrant their immediate denunciation. But the contrast between their response to the platform in July and their response to Trump’s comments on Amendment 4 a month later was stark. And one affected a change in Trump’s approach, while the other didn’t.

In the negative world, Christian political engagement can feel hopeless. And yet if these examples from the pro-life movement over the past couple of months are any indication, principled dissent can be politically effective. The question is: Will we be courageous enough to speak out and tell the truth?