Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 5

The chapter praises evangelicals for opposing abortion but then asks whether that stance is truly independent of conservative politics; what would it look like—practically and socially—for the church to hold a moral line even after the conservative mainstream abandons it, and what topics today might be the next “divorce” in that sense?

Another way to ask: If evangelicals oppose abortion, how can we tell whether that belief is really separate from conservative politics? What would it look like for the church to keep a moral stand even after the political right drops it, and what issue today might become the next “divorce”?

Direct Answer Bercot’s practical point is that the church must refuse to let “conservative” acceptance be the trigger for changing its morals; it must keep its stand even if conservative lawmakers and neighbors shift. He doesn’t name the next issue directly, but he warns that what seems “impossible” to change can change quickly—just as divorce did.

Support from Transcript:

Bercot praises the current stance: evangelicals “have generally stood just as uncompromisingly against abortion as the early Christians did.”
Yet he questions the motive: “I hope that our stance is completely independent of our culture, but I don’t know that it is.”
He notes conservative political resistance: “The conservative block…hasn’t yet accepted abortion. Conservative lawmakers and justices are normally opposed to it.”
He warns of future drift: “If their attitudes change, will ours follow suit?”
He uses divorce as the cautionary parallel: “a century ago, no one dreamed that divorce would someday be commonplace.”

Discussion Follow-ups Bercot doesn’t list specific “next divorces,” so groups should propose possibilities carefully. What would our churches do if holding a moral line cost reputation, jobs, or legal standing—would we still call it “murder” or “sin”?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 5 of 10