María
De Muth

escocés
McKnight

Screenshot 2023-01-13 at 1.50.18 PM

Naghmeh
panahi

Evangelicals Twice as Likely to Back Trump Over Harris

By Aaron Earls
trump harris support pastors evangelical
Photo collage of Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump (left) at an event July 26, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Fla,. and Vice President Kamala Harris, left, at the White House in Washington, July 22, 2024. (AP Photos / RNS)

Entering into the final months leading up to the 2024 presidential election, former President Trump holds a sizable lead over Vice President Kamala Harris among evangelicals.

Likely voters with evangelical beliefs are twice as likely to plan to cast their ballot for Trump than Harris (61% v. 31%), according to a study from Lifeway Research. Few say they are still undecided (5%) or supporting another candidate (3%).

While Trump is winning among voters who strongly agree with four theological beliefs central to evangelicalism, Harris leads among likely voters without such beliefs (47% v. 38%).

Trump holds a smaller lead among churchgoing Christian likely voters. Among those who self-identify as Christian, are registered and plan to vote and attend church at least once a month, half support Trump (49%), and 41% back Harris, with 6% undecided and 4% planning to vote for another candidate.

“Evangelical beliefs are theological in nature, and surveys have shown that on some doctrinal issues, evangelicals are in lockstep and on others they are split,” said Scott McConnell, executive director of Lifeway Research. “Biblical views can influence what a person wants for society and what they think is the best way to get there, but choosing a presidential candidate is not something all people with evangelical beliefs agree on. More than a third have a different perspective than the majority.”

Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $50 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you can elect to receive a copy of “Safe Church: How to Guard Against Sexism and Abuse in Christian Communities’ by Dr. Andrew Bauman, haga clic aquí.

Photo courtesy of Lifeway Research

Evangelicals and churchgoers may be a key demographic in the upcoming election as a high percentage are registered voters. Nine in 10 evangelicals by belief (89%) are registered as are even more churchgoing Christians (96%).

Presidential polling

Much like U.S. Protestant pastors, evangelical voters were initially skeptical of Trump, but his support has solidified in the past two elections. More than a month before the 2016 election, Trump led Hillary Clinton (45% v. 31%) among Americans with evangelical beliefs, but 15% were undecided and 9% planned to vote third party, according to a Lifeway Research study. By 2020, Trump had a commanding 61%-29% lead over Joe Biden among evangelical belief adherents before the election, with just 8% undecided and less than 2% voting third party. Now, Trump leads Harris by a similar 30-point margin.

His support is likely linked to the party identification of evangelicals. Almost 3 in 5 Americans with evangelical beliefs (57%) say they are either a registered Republican or consider themselves to be a member of the party. A quarter (25%) are Democrats, and 16% are Independent. Party identification is more evenly split among Christian churchgoers. Almost half (45%) say they’re Republican, 33% say Democrat and 18% are Independent.

Like previous elections, Trump’s current support among evangelicals is more solid among white and older voters. White likely voters with evangelical beliefs are the most likely to back Trump (77%). Evangelicals aged 50-64 (66%) and 65 and older (68%) are more likely to choose Trump than those who are 18-34 (48%).

The former president struggles most among African American evangelicals where just 14% plan to cast their ballot for him, and 76% back Harris.

Age and ethnicity also play a key role among churchgoing Christians. Young adults (18-34) in that group are more likely to support Harris than those 50-64 years old (51% v. 36%). Three in 5 white churchgoers (60%) plan to vote for Trump. Among African Americans who regularly attend church, 71% say they’ll cast their ballot for Harris.

Unsurprisingly, Democrats and Republicans plan to vote for their party’s nominee. Around 9 in 10 evangelicals and Christian churchgoers say they support the candidate of their political party.

“A person’s political party is more predictive of their voting intentions than their religious views,” said McConnell. “Political candidates typically invoke Christian references when convenient. Similarly, some Christians apply biblical principles to political decisions when it suits them.”

Deciding factors

Around 4 in 5 registered voters (79%) say an ability to improve the economy is an important characteristic of the candidates for deciding how to cast their vote. Most also say the candidate’s position on immigration (62%) and an ability to maintain national security (60%) are important. Almost half look for personal character (48%), position on abortion (46%) and position on foreign policy (44%). Around a third see ability to address racial injustice (34%), ability to address climate change (34%), ability to protect religious freedom (34%), position on size and role of government (33%) and likely Supreme Court nominees (32%).

Photo courtesy of Lifeway Research

Evangelical voters and those without such beliefs have many of the same priorities in the election, but some differences exist. Evangelicals are more likely than others to say position on immigration (72% v. 60%), ability to protect religious freedom (55% v. 28%) and position on foreign policy (53% v. 42%) are important, while being less likely to look for a candidate’s personal character (41% v. 51%) and ability to address climate change (26% v. 36%).

Similar divides open between Christians who attend church services at least monthly and other Americans. Regular churchgoers are more likely to look for a candidate’s ability to protect religious freedom (44% v. 28%) and less likely to see personal character (43% v. 51%), ability to address climate change (29% v. 37%) and ability to address racial injustice (30% v. 37%) as an important consideration for their vote.

Forced to choose the most important issue, voters as a whole are most likely to say the economy (34%), followed by personal character (15%) and position on immigration (13%). No other issue garnered more than 9%.

Voters with evangelical beliefs are more likely than others to say a candidate’s ability to improve the economy (39% v. 33%) or position on immigration (19% v. 12%) is the most important characteristic for them in deciding the candidate to vote for and less likely to choose personal character (10% v. 16%) or position on abortion (6% v. 10%).

“Evangelicals are not single-issue voters. On average, people with evangelical beliefs picked more than five of the 11 characteristics listed as important in their decision on a presidential candidate,” said McConnell. “When evangelicals don’t find a candidate that fits their views exactly, the largest group gives preference to the candidate they believe has the most ability to improve the economy.”

Photo courtesy of Lifeway Research

Registered voters backing Harris are more likely to say a candidate’s personal character (67%), position on abortion (62%), ability to address racial injustice (55%) and ability to address climate change (54%) is important.

Those voting for Trump are more likely to look for a candidate’s ability to improve the economy (87%), position on immigration (78%), ability to maintain national security (72%), position on foreign policy (55%), position on size and role of government (43%) and ability to protect religious freedom (41%).

For more information, view the complete report.

Aaron is a senior writer at Lifeway Research.

COMPARTIR ESTE:

¡OBTÉN ACTUALIZACIONES POR CORREO ELECTRÓNICO!

¡Manténgase en contacto con Julie y reciba actualizaciones en su bandeja de entrada!

No te preocupes, no te enviaremos spam.

Más para explorar
discusión

32 Respuestas

  1. Trump is not a perfect man. However, I would never support any candidate (Republican, Democrat, or Independent) that approved of the murder of innocent babies in the womb. NEVER. God’s Hand of judgment is raised over this country and judgment will begin at the house of God.

    1. What will you do now that Trump/Vance have also been shown to “approve” abortion?

      Trump has said he will veto a national ban on abortion. He said 6 week ban was too restrictive. So he approves abortion to a certain point.

      JD Vance in the debate last night argued that abortion policies should DIFFER FROM STATE TO STATE to represent a “diverse” country.
      Is that any different than having the choice DIFFER FROM WOMAN TO WOMAN?

      I’m asking these things as one who is pro-life myself. I think it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy
      along with other things that I believe are wrong and yet not illegal.

      The fact is, while the church has responded in a fairly anemic way to women’s needs with scattered crisis pregnancy centers, overall Republicans have focused on only the act of abortion and rejected policies that reduce the need for abortion. It reveals a lack of true concern for the problems women face when it comes to these life choices.

    2. Hi Mike. I would suggest that if your goal is to reduce abortion (it’s been around since biblical times, so eliminating it is an unlikely outcome) you should consider voting for democrats. Their policies (education, birth control, poverty reduction, social safety nets) are proven to be effective to reduce abortion, where the republican strategy of banning abortion, has proven not to be effective in reducing abortion.

      Even in america, we’ve seen a net increase in abortions since the Dobbs decision, as well as an increase in maternal deaths and infant deaths in states with strict bans. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-03-19/u-s-abortion-rates-rose-after-dobbs-decision-led-by-medication-abortions

      However, in Colorado Springs where they implemented just one of the was to reduce abortion- free IUDs- the reduced the teen pregnancy rate by 59% and the teen abortion rate by 60%. They reduced the overall abortion rate by 10% just by allowing pharmacists to prescribe birth control. https://coloradosun.com/2019/10/21/colorado-abortion-rates-keep-declining-free-iuds-and-easier-access-to-the-pill-are-the-reason/

      So, if you’re looking to reduce abortions, you should vote for the party that is actually effective in doing that; the democrats.

        1. Don, also abortion. Women have found a way to end pregnancies since women have been able to get pregnant. In fact, the only (potential) time abortion is mentioned in the bible is a temple priest potentially requiring it as a test for adultery in Numbers 5.

          Regardless, the earliest written record we have of abortion is over 4000 years old, which is well ahead of the writing of scripture, so you’d think if it was important to God, or if it was something that God hated, God had plenty of opportunity to get it into at least the new testament, right? I know argument from silence isn’t the most effective, but that plus knowing that the Jews didn’t value unborn life in the same way as born life leads me to believe that we are overfocused on something that God wasn’t focused on at all.
          https://truthout.org/articles/abortion-is-as-old-as-pregnancy-4-000-years-of-reproductive-rights-history/

          1. Using the “we’ve always had abortion” rationale in this debate somehow rings very hollow.

            Up until Yahweh called out His chosen people, we’d also “always had post-birth child sacrifice”, which is now practically unheard of. He calls His people to live by a higher legal and moral code.

          2. Hi Charlotte- that’s an interesting argument to make, seeing as we had child sacrifice AFTER God called out his chosen people- or are you forgetting God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Also, God killed all of Egypt’s firstborns- I mean, the God of the Bible, at least the OT, doesn’t seem to have a particular interest in children, seeing as he commanded all people in Caanan to be destroyed, including pregnant women and children, in the conquest of the promised land.

            I’m glad Jesus came and gave us a better picture of who God is, and that God does, in fact, care about children- but you’d think if God or Jesus was very concerned about abortion, they would have mentioned it. Jesus would have known the practice, as it existed, but it wasn’t important enough to make it into scripture. anywhere. So, maybe you’re reading into things a bit? I don’t blame you- it’s for sure a christian culture thing, but it’s mostly a way to manipulate your vote- Protestants didn’t care much about abortion until the moral majority made a big deal about it so they could capture their votes and keep schools segregated.

            That’s not to say I don’t want abortions reduced- it’s why I vote dem. They’re the ones doing things that are effective in reducing abortion- education, poverty reduction, free and available birth control. Bans don’t actually work to reduce abortion. It turns out the bans after Dobbs has created a net increase in abortion.

          3. Hi Don- that’s a valid question. Historically the Jews would say personhood begins at first breath, this is seen throughout scripture. However, as understanding of biology grew, both Jews and later Christian largely settled on “quickening” as the beginning of personhood, or ensoulment- although that’s more an adaptation to knowledge and capitulation to culture, as there’s nothing scriptural to support it.

            Ethically I would suggest that a fetus is always “human”, but that’s not really relevant to the conversation. Bodily autonomy is granted to all people, but a fetus cannot survive without the life support of it’s mother. That mother, like every human, as the right to decide if she wants to use her body for that life support. It doesn’t matter that the fetus would die without it, just like it doesn’t matter if you would die without my kidney. or even without my blood, which harms me not at all to give (and pregnancies can often harm women, so it’s a valid consideration) You can’t have it unless I consent. Even after I’m dead. Even if you’d die without it.

            All societies do not consider every death murder, even every death caused by another person. Self defense, accidents, and removing people from life support can all end a life, but are not considered murder. Even biblically, not all “killing” is murder, and killing a fetus specifically is not treated as “murder” but property loss.

          4. Jen, do you have any scriptural source to back up the assertion that Jews believe that life begins at first breath? I’ll quote from a podcast transcript – highly recommend listening to the whole thing.

            “And think about Jesus. So here is Luke chapter one. But the angel said to Mary, you will be with child, with child.

            So you have a child in you, Mary, and give birth to a son, and you were to give him the name Jesus. The Holy Spirit will come upon you, the power of the most high will overshadow you, so the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God. When did Jesus become a person?

            Well, it wasn’t when he left the birth canal. It wasn’t when he entered into the world or took his first breath. It was at the very beginning, at conception.

            That’s when God gave him life, when the Son of God became flesh.

            Right after this is one of my favorite passages. I won’t read it, but it’s when Mary goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth. And when Mary walks, pregnant Mary, walks into the presence of pregnant Elizabeth.

            So Elizabeth’s got John the Baptist in her womb. Mary’s got Jesus in her womb. And when this happens, Elizabeth says that the child in my womb, John the Baptist, leapt for joy when he saw you.

            Now, is John the Baptist just fetal tissue leaping for joy? Is John the Baptist John the Baptist in the womb?”

            https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/truth-over-tribe-christian-takes-on-culture-news-politics/id1580807177?i=1000562167724&r=1853

          5. Charlotte and Don-

            I only raise these points because most Christians believe that there is a biblical reason to be “pro-life” or against abortion. There isn’t really- all of the arguments for it start with that presupposition and work backwards, reading into scripture what we want it to say, rather than what is actually written to and by the people who wrote it.

            That said, I actually am a HUGE proponent of reducing abortion, which is why I vote for democrats locally and nationally. We know how to reduce abortion, and it’s not bans. Since the Dobbs decision, and several states have enacted varying bans, the national abortion rate has actually increased. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/

            In fact, abortions increased for the first time since the 70s during Trump’s administration.

            This is because we actually know how to reduce abortion; reduce poverty, make education accessible, comprehensive sex education, and free and accessible birth control. Dems vote for these measures, Republican vote against them because they’re “costly” or immoral (sex ed, birth control). (generally). In Colorado springs they cut their teen pregnancy and abortion rate in half by just doing one of those- a free IUD program. https://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/30/colorado-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-drop-free-low-cost-iud/ and they saved $70million to boot! so it seems more costly to vote with the republicans, as well as more immoral, since without this plan their teen pregnancy and abortion rate would be double.

            So, all of that to say, if you REALLY care about abortion, you need to stop voting for republicans, and start voting for democrats, pragmatically speaking.

          6. Jen, as you said this is an argument from silence actually favors no abortion. God created mankind in his image and as a result human life is sacred. No where in Scripture is it recorded prior to Cain’s murder that people shouldn’t kill each other. Yet it was understood that human life is precious. When Cain murdered Abel he knew he had done wrong, and God held him accountable for that. So a prohibition doesn’t have to be recorded in Scripture for humanity to know it is wrong.

          7. Don, If it’s clear that life is precious, and we don’t need it recorded in scripture that it’s wrong to murder, then why do we have actual prohibitions of murder in scripture? and a differentiation between murder and property damage when someone causes a woman to lose a pregnancy? God seemed to have felt it was very important for his people to know when things are murder, and when they’re not- and causing a baby to miscarry was not. It was a fine for property damage. God cared enough for his people to tell them not to eat shellfish- but didn’t mention abortion?

            (also, if you believe that the God presented in the Bible believes all human life is precious, I suggest you are imposing your beliefs on God onto the Bible. God commanded all firstborn Egyptians to die. God commanded all Canaanites, including pregnant women and all children to be slaughtered. God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac. You need to start taking scripture on scriptures terms.)

      1. Charlotte- sure:
        https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/

        http://www.reclaimingjudaism.org/teachings/when-does-life-begin-jewish-view

        https://www.timesofisrael.com/theres-more-than-one-jewish-view-to-answer-the-question-of-when-life-begins/

        So, with the Jewish concept- Mary can be “with child”, but that child does not achieve personhood until it’s born. If Mary would have been struck and caused to miscarry instead of carrying that child to full term, the penalty would be akin to property loss, not life loss. And John the baptist could certainly leap for joy in the womb, but again, is not a person (nefesh).

        Now, you can make arguments from science (which is what you’re trying to do with the leaping in the womb) but that is not how they understood scripture or science in that time- in fact, in Jesus’ time they didn’t even consider premature babies nefesh until they’d survived 30 days. So if a baby was born at 7 months, and didn’t survive within the first 30 days, they’d think of that as an abortion not a “death of a person)

        So again, abortion existed in Jesus’ (and Paul’s) day, was in their legal system, and neither thought it an issue to mention in scripture.

        This isn’t me twisting scripture, this is me understanding scripture on scriptures terms. The reason it doesn’t prohibit abortion is because culturally they did not assign the value of personhood to fetuses. That’s not my rules, it’s scriptures.

        (and I would suggest that your podcaster engage with the text as the Jews would have understood it, including the languages they would have heard/read, not superimposing modern western thought on it.)

        1. So let’s apply some critical thinking to these links. I’m sensing that you Google searched without fully reading them in the hope of quickly proof texting.

          The first one is referring to the Talmud, a text accepted to have been written 300-600 years AFTER CHRIST’S BIRTH. An interpretation of scripture, not scripture itself.

          The second references the Midrash. You have a similar problem of interpretation there, with possibilities of being written anywhere from 200 years BC to 500 years AD. Additionally, the article references an interpretation of angels teaching Torah to a fetus IN THE WOMB!

          Both Midrash and Talmud include conflicting interpretations of Torah. I encourage you to read up on Hillel and Shammai.

          The third ends with ‘there is more than one religious view on abortion’, without a single, concrete Jewish view as you initially asserted.

          Ultimately here’s what I observe: in your self-righteousness of “understanding scripture on scripture’s terms”, you are referencing not scripture itself but interpretations, then choosing the one that best fits your desired interpretation.

          We’re not likely to come to agreement on this, and that’s okay. At least hopefully we can each recognize our prejudices. Understood if you reply – I won’t be coming back to this thread as it’s unlikely to be fruitful.

        2. Jen, God’s instruction regarding human life being sacred because life is in his image predates any record of abortion. God’s instruction comes from the very beginning of creation and time. Where in Scripture is it stated that first breath for human fetus is the marker as you state? A fetus is not “part of a woman’s body” like a pancreas or kidney. It has a separate DNA – 23 chromosomes from mother & 23 chromosomes from the father. So it is a separate entity. Jewish concept has nothing to do with this since instruction about the sacredness of life predates the Jewish nation which came later with Abraham as the father of the nation.

          1. History: Colorado Republicans legalized abortion in 1967. Bipartisan efforts brought the legislation, the Republican majority legislature passed it, the Republican governor signed it into law. A 1970 poll by the Baptist Sunday School board found that a majority of Southern Baptist pastors supported abortion in a number of instances, including when the woman’s mental or physical health was at risk or in the case of rape or fetal deformity (the view I agree with). It wasn’t until the radical Conservatives took control in late 1979 that the stand and language changed. The current “prolife” view espoused by many here is a recent innovation used to identify combatants in the culture wars. https://theconversation.com/the-history-of-southern-baptists-shows-they-have-not-always-opposed-abortion-183712#:~:text=A%20Pew%20survey%20in%202014,%2C%20without
            %20exception%20or%20compromise.%E2%80%9D

          2. Hi Don, I don’t disagree that a fetus is a unique and separate human being. I was suggesting that religiously, Abrahamic religions didn’t consider fetuses to possess personhood (nefesh) until first breath- this stems from the creation story when God breathed life into Adam, and is reflected in the way the laws are written. However, I also submit that it doesn’t matter. (My point was basically that biblical arguments of “defense of life” are inherently flawed) If the Bible doesn’t hold a consistent ethic for unborn life, which is doesn’t, what should our ethic be?

            You are a separate human being, and you have no more claim to my kidneys or blood than a fetus does, without my explicit consent. Bodily autonomy is a right for all humans, including fetuses. However, that fetus’ rights don’t trump any other persons, just like a person with kidney failure’s rights don’t trump anyone else’s. They can not have or use any part of anyone else’ body without their consent- even after the potential donor is dead. That’s why organ donation programs are important, and we can’t just harvest the organs that people need. Bodily autonomy.

            So. Any discussion of what happens with pregnant women HAS to involve the acknowledgement of bodily autonomy. Other wise, I thankfully demand one of your kidneys, because mine make rocks. Thanks.

        3. “Bodily autonomy is a right for all humans, including fetuses. However, that fetus’ rights don’t trump any other persons, just like a person with kidney failure’s rights don’t trump anyone else’s. They can not have or use any part of anyone else’ body without their consent- even after the potential donor is dead. ”

          You consent to a babies “rights” when you have sex. Instead of following God’s Law on adultery, you blame the resulting life for not getting consent to exist? That is some olympic level gymnastics.

    3. Do you realize that a vote for Trump is a vote for a candidate who has approved of the murder of innocent babies in the womb? The Trump /GOP platform supports the restriction of late term abortion–a pro-choice view (not to mention the support of IVF, which is accompanied by ‘discarding’ embryos–abortion).

      There is a deep irony in the reality that when many Christians vote for Donald Trump, they will be voting for a pro-choice candidate for the first time in their lives.

  2. I never thought that in my lifetime, the Church would fall so far into apostacy. Beware, there will be eternal judgement for this apostacy especially for those entrusted with leadership.

  3. Evangelicals worshiping a known and prolific liar destroys any credibility they may have had. Not one thing they teach or preach can be believed.

    1. Tim, I want to kindly suggest that my Governor Walz is no paragon of virtue in the lying category. He’s my Governor and I’ve observed him closely over the years. Last night, he chalked it up as “sometimes being a knucklehead.” The current president has amassed a long list of untruths made throughout his long career.
      In my view it comes down to policies pursued, and in that case, I stand with Trump/Vance. I know many of their supporters and by no stretch would I call them “worshippers.” They know than man has his flaws. I once read a line, I believe from Francis Schaefer, where he said something like, “If we expect all or nothing from our leaders, you always get the nothing.”
      So, we both analyze what we see and have arrived at differing conclusions. I’m okay with that, how about you?

  4. We all thought abortion would end with the SCOTUS decision. Afterwards it went UP! It is now the pill and telemedicine, which MAGA will not outlaw. And MAGA will not support a Federal ban, or stop IVF, either. So where does that leave us for choosing a leader? Read the characteristics YHWH requires of any leader whom followers of LORD JESUS chooses, in 1 Timothy 3 and 1 Timothy 6, which make it clear who is not qualified.

  5. It’s important to note an important distinction: white evangelicals support Trump (77%) but black evangelicals support Harris (76%). White evangelicals like to portray politics as a simple marriage to the Republican Party, ignoring their brother and sisters who hold very different views.

  6. Britney Spears is quoted writing in her book about her abortion – “If it had been left to me alone, I never would have done it. And yet Justin (Timberlake) was sure that he didn’t want to be a father.” Surely the “alpha male” has supported abortion rights for the “weaker sex” who will then be sorely abused by the man in her life to not have children. Men have succeeded in making America a nation of prostitutes.
    In our country alone 60 million babies have been taken from their mothers and sacrificed to the abortion beast. Abortion is of the evil one – a thief who “come only to steal and kill and destroy.”
    The Bible says a Day of Judgement is coming! Are you ready? Do you believe in Jesus? And that he died for you sins? Jesus said one “must be born again of the Spirit”!

  7. The fact of the matter is just like many people today live in ‘food deserts’, hence have minimal access to quality food. So too do people now contend with political-civic deserts where they have minimal, if any, options in selecting political candidates that are, community & nation minded and who also have some insight and expertise in areas such as, health, education, housing, industry, employment, industrial relations, infrastructure, and domestic and international affairs. Added to this is the sad and unethical fact that money, hence self-interest, now dominates politics and civic life more than ever.
    Where does this leave the church? Well for one, it can begin to push back on unqualified people and those who finance them, and insist, not on saints or sinners, but men and women who have some degree of character and professional competency. Who knows, if people took such a conscious and proactive approach within a decade or two the political diet-environment may be much more palatable and nutritious.

  8. In Genesis 25:22 the two preborn children were identified as “children” while they were still in their mother’s womb (banim – male children = used both of unborn and born male children) and they were fighting. So not just a “mass of biological cells.” Luke 1:41-44 the “baby leaped in her womb” at hearing the greeting – baby in utero. So Scripture identifies “unborn” and “born” children as children. It doesn’t make a distinction.

  9. Psalm 139:

    “Oh Lord, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise. You perceive my thoughts from afar…You discern my going out and my lying down….
    Before a word is on my tongue, you know it completely, O Lord….
    All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be…”

    This is NOT a God of abortion. This is a God of Life, the author of it.
    To those talking about masses of fetal tissue…I encourage you to read this entire Psalm. If nothing else, it will show you God’s heart and it might make you think twice before you break it.

Deja una respuesta

El Informe Roys busca fomentar el diálogo reflexivo y respetuoso. Con ese fin, el sitio requiere que las personas se registren antes de comenzar a comentar. Esto significa que no se permitirán comentarios anónimos. Además, se eliminarán todos los comentarios con blasfemias, insultos y/o un tono desagradable.
 
Artículos MÁS RECIENTES
Artículos MÁS populares
es_MXSpanish

Donar

Hola. Vemos que este es el tercer artículo de este mes que ha encontrado que vale la pena leer. ¡Estupendo! ¿Consideraría hacer una donación deducible de impuestos para ayudar a nuestros periodistas a continuar informando la verdad y restaurar la iglesia?

Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $50 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you can elect to receive a copy of “Safe Church: How to Guard Against Sexism and Abuse in Christian Communities’ by Dr. Andrew Bauman.