July 9, 2024 Living Unafraid With the Lord, Our ShepherdGRACE FOX Lee en español "The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing." Psalm 23:1 (NIV) On my 50th birthday, sunshine warmed my face as I sat in my backyard with my Bible and journal. I'd asked God to give me a special promise from His Word - something to carry me through the next half century. When Psalm 23:1 came to mind, I brushed it off as trivial. Give me something more profound, I insisted. Thankfully, God persisted. Psalm 23:1 says, "The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing." I discovered that "the LORD is my shepherd" is the meaning of one of God's Hebrew names in Scripture, Yahweh Rohi. Thus began a life-changing journey into discovering more about His character as revealed through His names. This name, Yahweh Rohi, helps us understand that God takes full responsibility for our well-being. Just as a wise and good shepherd cares for his sheep, so the Lord provides everything we need to flourish. That's easy to believe when everything's going well, right? Not so much when our kids make bad choices, our health suffers, our marriage struggles, and our finances take a hit. Still, our circumstances don't change who God is. The truth about God's character remains constant no matter what. The profound truth contained in Yahweh Rohi has grown precious to me as I've walked alongside my husband following his radiation therapy for cancer. I watch him struggle with lingering fatigue and wonder what our future holds. When fear raises its head, I return to "the LORD is my shepherd" (Psalm 23:1), and peace prevails. I've found it especially helpful to meditate on each word of this phrase: "The LORD" reminds me that my Shepherd is one of a kind. He's almighty God, sovereign and supreme King, Creator of heaven and earth. He's wise and good. He never grows weary, always keeps His promises and is undefeatable. Because of who He is, I know I'm in good hands. "Is" declares that my Shepherd is present-tense faithful. He's not a has-been, nor is He just promising to step into His shepherding role in the future. He's my Shepherd in this very moment and the next and the next. He's always relevant. "My" indicates relationship. I belong to Jesus. He has bought me with His precious blood and adopted me into His family through my faith in Him for salvation. "Shepherd" infers a person. Scripture often speaks about God as a rock or fortress, but as Yahweh Rohi, He is also a real, living, divine person, with whom relationship is possible. Understanding Yahweh Rohi helps us live unafraid. It invites us to trust God with those we love, to cast our cares on Him, and to believe He'll always bring the best outcome from difficult circumstances we can neither understand nor control. Yahweh Rohi: The Lord is my shepherd. This simple and profound truth is more than enough to carry us through the next half century and beyond, living unafraid, come what may. Yahweh Rohi, thank You for being my Shepherd, the One I trust. Keep my heart tuned to Your voice, and help me follow hard after You all the days of my life. In Jesus' Name, Amen. OUR FAVORITE THINGS Discover more about God's character as manifested through His names in Grace Fox's new devotional Bible study, Names of God: Living Unafraid. The book was released today and is ideal for book clubs. Grab your copy here! ENGAGE Check out Grace's books, articles and media interviews on her website. While you're there, subscribe to her devotional blog, and receive free printables to enhance your spiritual journey. You can also connect with Grace on Facebook, Instagram or YouTube. FOR DEEPER STUDY Isaiah 40:11, "He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young" (NIV). Identify the action words in the verse above. How have you experienced Yahweh Rohi caring for you in these ways? How does the description of God gathering you in His arms and carrying you close to His heart speak comfort and courage into a challenge you currently face? Share your answer in the comments! © 2024 by Grace Fox. All rights reserved. Proverbs 31 MinistriesP.O. Box 3189 Matthews, NC 28106 www.Proverbs31.org The post Living Unafraid With the Lord, Our Shepherd –  Encouragement for Today – July 9, 2024 appeared first on GodUpdates.

1386 - Battle at Sempach: Swiss beat Duke Leopold III of Austria 1776 - US Declaration of Independence is read to George Washington's troops in New York 1939 - A meeting of 6,000 Indians, held at the Indian Sports Ground in Johannesburg South Africa, launch the Passive Resistance Campaign against apartheid and racial policy in South Africa 1957 - 24th All Star Baseball Game: AL wins 6-6 at Sportsman's Park, St Louis 1963 - 34th All Star Baseball Game: NL wins 5-3 at Municipal Stadium, Cleveland 1973 - 9th Maccabiah games opens in Tel Aviv, Israel 1975 - The National Assembly of Senegal passes a law that paves way for a (albeit highly restricted) multi-party system 1979 - Voyager 2 flies past Jupiter 2006 - Wimbledon Men's Tennis: Roger Federer wins 4th straight Wimbledon title beating Rafael Nadal of Spain 6-0, 7-6, 6-7, 6-3 2022 - Thousands of Sri Lankan protesters storm the Presidential Palace and set the PM's house on fire in Colombo, leading to promises both will resign amid continuing economic turmoil More Historical Events »

Historical Events 1910 - Walter Brookins, flying a Wright biplane over Atlantic City, New Jersey, becomes 1st to fly an airplane to an altitude of 1 mile (actually reaching 6,175 feet or 1.169 miles) 1941 - Dutch-American Physicist Abraham Pais is awarded his Ph.D. in Holland five days before a Nazi deadline banning Jews from receiving degrees 1946 - 13th All Star Baseball Game: AL wins 12-0 at Fenway Park, Boston 1986 - Atlanta's Dale Murphy doesn't play ending consecutive streak at 740 2011 - Super Rugby Final, Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane: Queensland Reds beat Canterbury Crusaders 18-13 at home for their first SR title 2022 - Wimbledon Women's Tennis: Elena Rybakina of Kazakhstan claims her first Grand Slam title with a 3-6, 6-2, 6-2 win over Tunisia's Ons Jabeur; first Kazakhstani player to win a major title More Historical Events » Famous Birthdays 1887 - Samuel Eliot Morison, American historian (Admiral of the Ocean Sea), born in Boston, Massachusetts (d. 1976) 1926 - Murphy Anderson, American comic artist (DC Comics), born in Asheville, North Carolina (d. 2015) 1936 - David Zinman, American composer and conductor (Baltimore Symphony, 1985-98), born in New York City 1944 - Dorian Rudnytsky, American concert and session cellist (New York Rock and Roll Ensemble), and composer (Costa Blanca Suite), born in New York City 1969 - Robert Gordon, American CFL and Arena football receiver, 1991-2005 (Edmonton Eskimos, Winnipeg Blue Bombers, and 7 other teams), born in Detroit, Michigan 1990 - Fábio and Rafael da Silva, Brazilian footballers More Famous Birthdays » Famous Deaths 1706 - Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville, French Canadian sailor and explorer and adventurer (explored Hudson Bay and Louisiana), dies of fever in Havana at 44 1932 - King C. Gillette, American businessman and inventor of inexpensive and disposable safety razor blades, dies at 77 1995 - Julian Graham Theodore Hough, actor (Deathwatch, Shout), dies at 47 2006 - Milan Williams, American keyboardist (Commodores - "Three Times A Lady"), dies of cancer at 58 2019 - Rip Torn [Elmore Rual Torn Jr], American actor, voice artist and comedian (Cross Creek, The Larry Sanders Show), dies at 88 2023 - Luis Suárez, Spanish soccer midfielder (32 caps; Barcelona, Inter Milan, Sampdoria) and manager (Spain 1988-91; Cagliari, SPAL, Como, Inter Milan, Deportivo La Coruña), dies at 88 More Famous Deaths »

Too punk for punk in the late 70s, Oi! elder statesmen in the early 80s, living-legend role models in the early 90s, Cock Sparrer never got credit for what they started

As you go throughout this day, take time to ponder God’s sovereignty. Meditate on the reality that He is in control of everything.

Fear. Just the sound of the word can strike a chord. That’s because it is such a powerful force. It can either drive us closer to God or cause us to drift away as we clumsily seek comfort and any source of calm.

It’s probably not an exaggeration to say the four Gospels of the New Testament—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are the most studied books in history. Every story, every sentence, every word has been scrutinized for generations by both scholars and laypeople alike. But this never-ending microscopic analysis of the text, as necessary and important as it is, can prevent us from seeing something equally remarkable: what is not in the text. We’re so focused on what’s there that we never reflect on what isn’t there. What the biblical authors decided not to tell us may be as significant as what they did tell us. There are many surprising absences in the accounts of Jesus in our four Gospels. For example, what did Jesus do for the 40 days he spent with his disciples after the resurrection? What did he talk about? What teachings did he deliver? The four Gospels don’t tell us. But we have an apocryphal Gospel (a writing about Jesus not included in our Bibles) that does. In the Dialogue of the Savior, Jesus makes numerous post-resurrection appearances to his disciples, answering their questions and waxing eloquent on various theological topics. Other apocryphal Gospels (e.g., the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary) offer similar stories. To give another example, ever wonder what it would’ve been like to see Jesus resurrected? What did it actually look like for him to come out of the tomb? The four Gospels don’t tell us (when the women arrive early that Sunday morning, Jesus is already risen). But we have an apocryphal Gospel that does. In the Gospel of Peter, we’re given a purported first-hand account of Jesus walking out of the tomb at the moment of his resurrection. He emerges from the tomb flanked by an angel on each side, and his head touches the clouds. What the biblical authors decided not to tell us may be as significant as what they did tell us. The most poignant example of a surprising absence in our Gospels pertains to Jesus’s childhood. What was Jesus like as a child? How did this “junior” Son of God behave? Did anyone know he was divine? Aside from the singular story in Luke 2, the four Gospels don’t tell us. But we have an apocryphal Gospel that does. It’s called the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and it has been well known to scholars for generations. Moreover, on June 13, 2024, CBS News announced a new manuscript of this Gospel has been discovered that’s purportedly the “oldest written record of Jesus Christ’s childhood.” Now, that’s an enormous claim. If it’s true, that could substantively change our understanding of the historical Jesus. But before we reconsider everything we think we know about the childhood of Jesus, we might want to pause. Sometimes “new” discoveries, on further investigation, aren’t as new as they first appear. What Is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? Let’s begin with an important clarification. The Infancy Gospel needs to be distinguished from the Gospel of Thomas, the latter of which is a well-known apocryphal Gospel dated to the late second century consisting of 114 sayings of Jesus and has nothing to do with his childhood. (Curiously, there was also a manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas discovered recently, which I wrote about elsewhere.) The Infancy Gospel, in contrast, is a flamboyant and entertaining account of Jesus as a little child growing up in his hometown. As might be expected, one doesn’t have to wait for Jesus to grow up to see signs that he’s God’s Son. The boy Jesus restores a man’s foot after it was injured by an axe, carries water in his cloak after his jug broke, expands a piece of wood to help his carpenter father, jumps off a rooftop without being hurt (did he fly?), plants a single grain of wheat that produces a hundred bushels, and even raises people from the dead. Despite these miraculous deeds, however, the wunderkind Jesus isn’t a net benefit to his hometown. For much of the Infancy Gospel, he proves to be a petulant and volatile child, terrorizing the villagers with his fits of rage. At one point, another child irritates Jesus by splashing a branch in pools of water. Jesus screams at him, “You unrighteous, irreverent idiot! What did the pools of water do to harm you? See you also will be withered like a tree, and you will never bear leaves or fruit” (3.2). Then the child is withered and killed on the spot. In another story, a child accidentally bumps into the boy Jesus as he walks through the village. Aggravated, Jesus immediately kills him too. By this point, the villagers are upset and terrified. They come to Joseph to complain about the child. But when Jesus hears about their complaints, he strikes them blind. Joseph attempts to discipline him by grabbing him by the ear and giving it a pull, but then Jesus gives an ominous threat to his own father: “You have not acted at all wisely. . . . Do not grieve me” (5.3). The Infancy Gospel finally ends with a modified version of Jesus as a 12-year-old boy in the temple—a story clearly drawn from Luke 2:41–52. As for the origins of this bizarre Gospel, most scholars date its production to the end of the second century. Such a late date—nearly a century after most of the apostles had died—means it couldn’t have been penned by Thomas or any other apostle. In fact, the attribution to Thomas is missing in the earliest versions of the Infancy Gospel. Thomas’s name was likely added sometime in the Middle Ages, probably as a late attempt to bolster the book’s credibility. What’s This New Manuscript? The fact that Thomas’s name was missing from the earliest versions highlights one of the major challenges with this Gospel: its problematic textual history. While it was likely originally written in Greek, we have few Greek manuscripts, and the ones we do have are dated very late, most coming from the 14th or 15th centuries. These manuscripts differ radically from one another. While we have earlier versions in other languages—Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic—these, too, have significant textual differences. In short, we aren’t sure which stories the “original” Infancy Gospel contained. This brings us to the recently announced discovery of a new manuscript. A fragment from this Gospel—labeled “P.Hamb.Graec. 1011”—was discovered by two scholars in the Hamburg University Library in Germany. While the fragment had been in the library’s possession for some time, it wasn’t properly identified as coming from the Infancy Gospel until now. It may be surprising to hear that a manuscript is “discovered” in a library rather than, say, in the sands of Egypt. However, a significant number of our New Testament manuscripts have been found in libraries, most famously Codex Sinaiticus (at the St. Catherine’s Monastery library), and Codex Vaticanus (at the Vatican library). Often, manuscripts are stored in libraries but not properly cataloged or identified, only to be found later (usually by an appetent PhD student). This new manuscript is fragmentary, which is why it wasn’t properly identified originally. The remaining words appear to come from the first story in the Infancy Gospel where the boy Jesus is playing by a stream on the Sabbath day and makes birds out of the mud. When his father discovered what Jesus was doing, he rebuked him for profaning the Sabbath. In response, Jesus simply claps his hands and the mud birds fly away. The most notable feature of this “new” manuscript is its date. Up to this point, the earliest Greek manuscript of this Gospel was from the 11th century, but this new manuscript is dated to the fourth or fifth century. Thus, it’s now the earliest copy (in any language) of the Infancy Gospel. According to the scholars who discovered the manuscript—Lajos Berkes and Gabriel Macedo—the Greek text, fragmentary though it is, matches what most scholars already considered to be the most reliable Greek text of the Infancy Gospel (known as “recension S”). Put in layman’s terms, this new manuscript supports one particular version of the Infancy Gospel—a version scholars already believed was probably the earliest. Does It Affect Our Understanding of Jesus’s Childhood? With each discovery like this one, it’s natural to wonder if it changes our understanding of the historical Jesus. Should we now include the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as our fifth Gospel? Not at all. Here are several considerations. First, this discovery doesn’t change the fact that the Infancy Gospel has little historical credibility. It was written in the late second century, not by an apostle or eyewitness, and contains the kinds of embellished and fanciful stories typical of other infancy accounts in the Greco-Roman world. Even among ancient secular biographers, it was common to construct childhood stories of their heroes that were designed to show that as children, the heroes already possessed the qualities that would be manifested later in their lives. This reality highlights the remarkable restraint and matter-of-fact reporting of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. While we might have expected them to succumb to the obvious temptations to create fantastical childhood stories of Jesus, we instead get a grand total of one story about Jesus’s childhood (Luke 2:41–52). This discovery doesn’t change that the Infancy Gospel has little historical credibility. Second, this discovery doesn’t change any fundamental fact about the Infancy Gospel’s textual history. Despite media claims that this new manuscript would be groundbreaking in some fashion, it seems it maintained the status quo. Scholars already believed this Gospel was probably written originally in Greek. This new manuscript confirms that likelihood. Scholars already believed that recension S was likely the best Greek text available for this Gospel (despite its messy textual history). This new manuscript seems to confirm that likelihood. In short, there aren’t a lot of new things that can be derived from this new manuscript. Third, and perhaps most importantly, this discovery doesn’t constitute the “oldest written record of Jesus Christ’s childhood” (in the words of CBS News). No, this manuscript is merely the oldest written record of the Infancy Gospel. And even that record isn’t very old, since the manuscript is dated to the fourth or fifth century. So, what then is the oldest written record of Jesus Christ’s childhood? The Gospel of Luke. And there are several notable differences between Luke’s Gospel and the Infancy Gospel: Authorship. Luke was written by someone who lived in the first century and had access to the eyewitness testimony of the apostles (1:2). The Infancy Gospel was written by someone who lived in the second century with no access to eyewitness testimony. Date. Luke was likely written sometime between AD 60 and 80, not long after Jesus’s life. The Infancy Gospel was written more than a century later. Textual history. Luke has a stable textual history, with its earliest manuscripts dated possibly to the second century (e.g., P4, 0171). The Infancy Gospel has an unstable textual history, with its earliest manuscript dated to the fourth or fifth century. Historical value. Luke is regarded by many scholars as an impressive historian in his own right (particularly when the books of Acts is also considered). The bizarre images of Jesus in the Infancy Gospel differ radically from Luke and from the other canonical Gospels, raising significant doubts about their historical value. The contrasts above are noteworthy. And none of them is changed by this latest manuscript discovery. If one wants to know about Jesus’s childhood, Luke’s Gospel has always been our earliest and best source. Avoid Speculation We all wish we knew more about Jesus’s childhood. That’s not in dispute. If God became a human being, it’s hard not to wonder how that human being would have grown and developed in his younger years. But we have to resist the temptation to turn that wonder into speculation and then turn that speculation into stories that can satisfy our curiosity. If one wants to know about Jesus’s childhood, Luke’s Gospel has always been our earliest and best source. Instead, we have to content ourselves with what the Gospels do tell us, not what they don’t tell us. Luke’s singular account of Jesus in the temple may not be as wild and entertaining as what we find in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or other later infancy narratives. But I think that works in its favor. It’s a historically rooted, straightforward, and remarkably restrained story. In Luke, there are no flying mud birds, no floating off rooftops, and (most importantly) no fits of rage where people are struck blind or dead. Instead, you simply have a 12-year-old boy who finds his way to the temple to hear the teaching of God’s Word. There’s a fundamental lesson to be learned here. For those of us looking for the real child Jesus, perhaps we should look in the most obvious place. Or, in the words of the boy Jesus himself, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” (Luke 2:49).

This past weekend, men hoping to become Donald Trump’s running mate have vied to see who can be more pro-choice on abortion. Florida senator Marco Rubio previously cosponsored federal legislation that would ban abortion after 15 weeks. But when recently asked about whether the GOP platform should include a long-standing call to ban abortion, he said, “I think our platform has to reflect our nominee” (referring to, and aligning himself with, Trump’s objection to a federal ban on abortion). Not to be outdone, Ohio senator J. D. Vance says he supports access to the abortion pill mifepristone (referring to, and aligning himself with, Trump’s support for the abortion pill). They likely knew that by Monday, the GOP platform would be adopted and, for the first time in 40 years, reflect a pro-choice position on abortion. In Ernest Hemingway’s novel The Sun Also Rises, one character asks another, “How did you go bankrupt?” The other responds, “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” The same answer could be given to social conservatives wondering how the GOP became pro-choice. It was happening gradually for some time. But then it happened suddenly. Before we look at how it happened, let’s start with basic definitions. Central to the pro-life ethos is the belief in the inherent value and dignity of human life. The acknowledgment that life is sacred from conception until natural death undergirds the entire movement. As applied to abortion, the pro-life view is to support limits and restrictions on abortion in whatever ways are possible, with the ultimate goal of putting an end to the practice. In contrast, the pro-choice position is to support keeping abortion legal and accessible, typically within certain gestational limits. These positions are binary. A person is either pro-life or pro-choice. Just as you cannot be a “little bit pregnant,” you cannot be a little bit pro-choice. Once you support abortion in any form, you lose the right to the label of pro-life. By this standard, the GOP was once pro-life and shifted—gradually, then suddenly—to being pro-choice. From Platform to Personality The first gradual step was to align the political platform with the personal views of the party’s presidential nominee. Until recently, the GOP was officially a pro-life political party. Although the party platform isn’t binding on the presidential nominee or any other politicians, political scientists found that from 1980 until 2004, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Congress voted in accordance with their platforms about 82 percent of the time. The GOP was once pro-life and shifted—gradually, then suddenly—to being pro-choice. In 1980, Republican nominee Ronald Reagan pushed to have the language on abortion in the GOP platform changed to be more pro-life. Although it retained some of the inclusive language added in 1976 that was intended to appease all sides, the plank supported an anti-abortion constitutional amendment and efforts to cut the flow of taxpayer money to abortion services. It also pledged to appoint judges who “respect the sanctity of innocent human life.” Similar pro-life language was included in every platform up through 2016. But in the months before the 2020 convention, Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and top adviser, worked with campaign officials to overhaul the party’s platform. Kushner, a lifelong Democrat, objected to socially conservative language that offended homosexual Republicans, such as “We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children.” Conservative activists were appalled by this move, so the Trump campaign took a different path and chose not to draft a new platform at all—they’d just reuse the 2016 document. Instead of listing what the party stood for, they issued a resolution stating “the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America First agenda.” Does Trump’s “America First agenda” still oppose abortion? Yes, but only in the last stages of pregnancy. The full passage in the new GOP platform on abortion reads, We proudly stand for families and life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied life or liberty without due process and that the states are, therefore, free to pass laws protecting those rights. After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the states and to a vote of the people. We will oppose late term abortion while supporting mothers and policies that advance prenatal care, access to birth control, and IVF (fertility treatments). This is pro-choice language, in keeping with Trump’s pro-choice position. The sleight of hand is that it seems to claim the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn. But if the GOP believes that’s true, then the federal government, not just the states, has a duty to protect life. The platform does no such thing. It gives broad support for IVF (even when it causes the death of a child) and only lists opposition to late-term abortion. Theorem That Explains Abortion Politics So, that process occurred gradually. Then it happened suddenly. In 2023, Trump said he was proud to be “the most pro-life president” in American history. But it soon became clear he’d never abandoned his previous pro-choice values (in 1999, when he announced he was planning to run for U.S. president as a nominee for the Reform Party, he described himself as “very pro-choice,” even stating he supported partial-birth abortion). In September 2023, Trump said about a bill in Florida banning abortion at six weeks, “I think what [Ron DeSantis] did [in signing the bill] is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.” Then in April 2024, Trump declined to endorse a federal ban on abortion, saying the issue should be left to the states. To make sure voters knew where he stood, during the recent debate, Trump said he’d preserve access to the abortion drug mifepristone and that he doesn’t support criminalizing mailing abortion pills, nor does he support the drug’s regulatory approval being rejected by the Food and Drug Administration. In a meeting with House Republicans in June, “Trump urged lawmakers to talk ‘correctly’ on the issue of abortion by framing it as a state issue and stressing their support for exceptions to abortion bans. Trump warned that abortion has ‘cost’ the GOP politically and is ‘too important to ignore.’” Trump might never have heard of the median voter theorem, but that’s the concept to which he’s appealing. This key concept in political science was first proposed by Duncan Black in 1948. The theorem claims that in a country where people vote and there are two main political parties, both parties usually try to appeal to the average (median) voter. They do this because they want to win elections. So instead of having extreme views, they often choose middle-ground positions most people can agree with. This way, they hope to get the most votes and win. Based on this theorem, we can predict how both voters and political parties will act. If one party positions itself to the left or right of the median voter, the other party can gain an advantage by moving closer to the average voter’s position. This creates pressure for both parties to converge toward the electoral center, near the median voter’s position. What prevents both parties from converging on the median voter position? The primary check is for a sufficient number of single-issue voters willing to put principle ahead of a political party by defecting rather than compromising. To illustrate this concept, let’s consider an example involving abortion policy. Imagine a state where the median voter generally supports moderate restrictions on abortion. According to the median voter theorem, both political parties should converge on this position to maximize their chances of winning. However, this shift doesn’t always happen in practice because of the power and influence of single-issue voters. Let’s say Party A has traditionally been strongly pro-life, while Party B has been more pro-choice. If Party A moves too close to the center, here’s what might happen. A group of passionate pro-lifers (single-issue voters) might feel betrayed by Party A’s shift toward more abortion-friendly policies. These voters care so deeply about the issue that they’re willing to vote for a third-party candidate who maintains a strong pro-life stance, or even abstain from voting altogether. Party A realizes that by moving to the center, they risk losing these dedicated supporters, which could cost them the election. As a result, Party A decides to maintain a more pro-life position than the median voter prefers, to keep these single-issue voters from defecting. Meanwhile, Party B also avoids moving all the way to the center, as they have their own single-issue voters (pro-choice activists) who would defect if the party became too friendly to the pro-life cause. In this scenario, the presence of these principled, single-issue voters on both sides prevents the parties from fully converging on the median voter’s position. Instead, the parties maintain some distance from each other to keep their core supporters, even if it means not perfectly aligning with the median voter. This example demonstrates how passionate, principled voters can influence party positions and prevent the complete convergence predicted by a simple interpretation of the median voter theorem. Remember, though, that candidates and parties are typically less concerned about issues than they are about winning elections. They’re thus still incentivized to appeal to the median voter to win a majority of votes whenever possible. Their optimal strategy is to appeal to the median voter while preventing single-issue voters from defecting. That’s what the GOP is successful in doing when it comes to abortion. They’ve made it possible for Trump to abandon his support for pro-life principles, while voters abandon their pro-life principles to support Trump. Three Steps Here’s why the GOP has been highly successful in applying that strategy. 1. The Dobbs decision shifted the median voter. Currently, about 63 percent of Americans (including one in four white evangelicals) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Only 36 percent of Americans say it should be illegal in all or most cases. The median voter position on abortion is for abortion to be legal in all or most cases. Candidates and parties are typically less concerned about issues than they are about winning elections. They’re thus still incentivized to appeal to the median voter. But what about motivated single-issue voters? Before the Dobbs ruling overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, single-issue voters on abortion leaned toward the pro-life side. In 2020, about 13 percent of voters identified as pro-life and only supported candidates with the same position. In comparison, only 10 percent of voters said they were pro-choice and would only vote for those with the same beliefs. Today, that balance has shifted. Almost one in four (23 percent) registered voters are pro-choice and will only vote for candidates who share their views on abortion. In contrast, a mere 8 percent of pro-life voters will refuse to vote for a pro-choice candidate, such as Trump or Biden. 2. Major pro-life organizations have signaled they’ll endorse pro-choice candidates. The polling shows few Americans will defect and refuse to vote for pro-choice candidates. But what about pro-life leadership? Unfortunately, a primary reason for the polls and the reason the GOP is able to shift to the left on abortion is that they’ve received cover from national “pro-life” organizations. Many groups, such as Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Americans United for Life, Students for Life, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the Family Research Council, National Right to Life, and CatholicVote have all said Trump still has their full support, despite his embrace of abortion rights. (Full disclosure: I once worked full-time for the Family Research Council and did contract work for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.) It used to be beyond belief that Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, one of the largest and best funded of the organizations, would endorse a pro-choice candidate. In 2023, they even made plans to oppose any presidential candidate who “refuses to embrace” a 15-week federal limit on abortion. But they quickly caved when Trump made it clear he didn’t support any such limit. Trump changed his mind, so they changed their principles. The justification these organizations give for putting a political party ahead of their pro-life principles is to appeal to pragmatism. They fall back on the reasoning that since “the other side is worse,” they can’t afford to defect. Such political naïveté is astounding and a catalyst for political progressivism. By openly proclaiming the GOP will never lose their support (and votes) as long as the Democrats are marginally worse, they’re providing cover for Republican politicians to embrace pro-choice policies. We see this clearly in the latest draft of the GOP platform. Herein lies the key difference between pro-life and pro-abortion activists. Pro-abortion activists recognize they’re to the extreme left of the median vote on abortion, yet they force Democratic politicians to cater to their demands by threatening to withhold support. The Democrats know that if their single-issue voters on abortion were to defect, they’d lose elections. Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates know this and use it to their advantage. They’re also willing to do something pro-life groups find unthinkable: lose in the short term (an election cycle or two) to advance their cause in the long term. It’s inconceivable that Planned Parenthood would still support Biden if he suddenly opposed abortion rights. Yet  many ostensibly conservative groups offer up a lame excuse: “What choice do we have? The other side is worse.” 3. The Democrats held firmly to their abortion extremism. The Democratic Party platform holds the extreme position of opposing all federal and state laws that prohibit or restrict abortion. Ironically, this position helps to incentivize the GOP to be more pro-choice on abortion—as we see with the revised platform. The GOP can move left on the issue until they reach a point where the party is more in line with the median voter. We see this in their current position of only opposing “late term” abortion. A primary reason the GOP is able to shift to the left on abortion is that they’ve received cover from national ‘pro-life’ organizations. The result is that the GOP can continue in the future to shift further away from pro-life positions, if it helps them win elections. For example, imagine two single-issue voters, one who supports and one who opposes medication abortions (i.e., abortions that occur from taking abortion pills). Medication abortion now accounts for about 54 percent of all abortions and has been increasing since the Dobbs decision. Because the GOP’s official position is to support whatever Trump wants, the Republican Party now officially supports the legalization of abortion pills. The single-issue voter who supports medication abortion has two options—she can vote for the Democrats or Republicans. The single-issue voter who opposes medication abortion, though, has nowhere to turn. And if she defects (by not voting or voting third-party), she’ll be treated as a pariah and told she’s helping the Democrats win. The reality, though, is that those who refuse to defect are tacitly endorsing the GOP’s shift to the political left. And not only on abortion. The GOP is quickly learning that “You can’t defect because the Democrats are worse” is a winning message that keeps social conservatives in line. As long as the GOP remains marginally better than the Democrats on issues like gender identity, the party is free to embrace whatever position will entice the marginal voter (who tends to oppose social conservative policies). Time for (Convictional) Inaction? Is there anything that can be done? Last year, I suggested that if we were witnessing the political end of the pro-life movement, it might be time to abandon those organizations, leaders, and politicians who compromised and brought us to this point. I proposed we might need to replace them en masse and to find and promote those who are truly willing to fight for the unborn instead of those who kowtow to a political party. Perhaps I’m naive, but I still believe pro-life voters (and other social conservatives) will realize their choices are a political party that wants to embrace abortion, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism today and a political party that believes it’s electorally prudent to adopt those politics next week. We still have the option to defect, temporarily, until we’re treated as voters whose views are valued. We can still embrace convictional inaction as the painful short-term solution to fixing the long-term problem. We can still prevent our political life from being a choice between two flavors of antihuman progressivism. We can, but the question remains whether we have the courage and political will to make such a choice.