twitter: @IFCLIG

This list is just the tip of the iceberg among the many other qualities he has stated in the past – none of which Mr. Gingrich upholds.

Simply put, THE FAMiLY LEADER would be hypocritical to endorse THE FAMILY LEAVER.

twitter: @IFCLIG

These days, because I’m an Evangelical minister, a missionary to Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, and chairman of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance, the question I’m asked most is, “How do evangelicals pick the right candidate this time around?” The implication is whether Evangelicals are bound to pick only an evangelical candidate, even if that person can’t win in the general election. My answer is simple: We should pick our candidates for president in the same way we pick our doctors — on their skills, experience, reputation, and approach to our problems. When it comes to the lineup in Iowa, Evangelicals should ask particular questions about the person seeking their vote: (click read more for full text)Does this person have the skills to address the problems our country is currently facing and will face when my children and grandchildren are my age?

Does this person have a proven track record in solving these problems–and in what ways will this person solve them? Because our most urgent problems are economic, we must ask if this person has the extensive private sector experience necessary, as well as the meaningful executive level public sector experience, to get the job done.

What is this person’s professional reputation? More importantly, what is this person’s personal reputation? Is this person known as a good, morally upright individual who has demonstrated–over a credible time–a commitment to the highest values of conduct and fidelity? As we’ve already seen, under the bright lights of day-in, day-out, 24-hour media scrutiny, personal issues can become an insurmountable obstacle to victory.

What kind of leader is this person? Is this person open to change for the better? Can this person effectively lead others toward better solutions? A willingness to change is good when it’s change for the best. All of us hope and pray our elected officials will seek wisdom for a better direction in which to lead our country, for, “In the multitude of counselors there is safety.” (Proverbs 11:14)

When it comes to picking a president, evangelical doctrine is not a litmus test of whether that person will serve well. George Bush (who was highly favored by Evangelicals) was a United Methodist, and, when in office, attended an Episcopal church; Bill Clinton (much disfavored by Evangelicals) was a Baptist. Ronald Reagan attended Hollywood Presbyterian Church (affiliated with the liberal Presbyterian Church USA), while Jimmy Carter, the first self-professed “born again” president, taught Sunday school in a Southern Baptist church.

History has not judged these presidents on their church affiliations, but on their record as leaders. This will be true for the next president.

It’s not helpful to make a decision on a candidate’s religious label, whether it’s Newt Gingrich as a Roman Catholic (he left his Baptist roots in 2008), or Mitt Romney as a lifelong Mormon, the two leading contenders. The same applies to the other candidates.

Jesus said, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16 ) This says nothing about the person’s religious identity. Jesus made this clear in the parable of the Good Samaritan by holding up a Samaritan (considered an infidel by His fellow Jews) as the paragon of virtue over a priest and a Levite–two certified Jewish doctrinal authorities.

My prayer is that Christians in Iowa will make their choice for president based on the best overall leader–and one that is electable. This may be the most important presidential race in our nation’s history. The next president will leave a legacy far beyond four or eight years, because this president will likely choose Supreme Court justices who serve lifetime terms, deciding cases on the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family. In other words, the choices of this next president will affect the future of American civilization. The consequences are too grave to risk wasting a vote.

As Iowan Christians prayerfully vote in the caucuses, we should all pray that our choices will, in the end, be the best for our families, our communities, and our nation.

Rev. Rob Schenck

Rev. Rob Schenck has been an ordained evangelical minister for 29 years. He his a graduate of Faith Evangelical College and Seminary and is president of Faith and Action, a Christian outreach to government officials in Washington, DC. He is also a board member of the Evangelical Church Alliance.

“And Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”

-Luke

“Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but he who makes his ways crooked will be found out.”

-Proverbs 10:9

Des Moines Register; Jennifer Jacobs; 11/28/2011

The question of whether Newt Gingrich is sufficiently hard-line on right-to-life issues is splitting Iowa Christian conservatives at a time when many of them are giving his resurgent presidential campaign a serious look.

A prominent evangelical pastor, alarmed by what he sees as a stream of Iowa Republicans leaning toward Gingrich, questions whether they realize Gingrich has in the past spoken in favor of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and abortions in certain cases.

But Gingrich has switched his position on federal funding. He now thinks the government should not ask taxpayers to pay for any abortions, Hammond said.

A significant bloc of Iowa evangelical Christians opposes abortion under any circumstances — and even more lambaste federal funding in any instance.

“Newt is famous for being all over the board,” said Cary Gordon, a minister at Sioux City’s Cornerstone church. “He is admirable in many ways, but I won’t back him. I don’t trust him.”

If conservatives demand absolute purity on right-to-life issues when it comes to Mitt Romney, it hurts their credibility if they don’t demand the same for Gingrich, some Iowa Republicans said Monday. Others said they believe Gingrich is now opposed to abortion and embryonic stem cell use, and they’re comfortable backing him today.

“I believe that his positions are sufficiently conservative to my way of thinking right now,” said Arlan Ecklund, an evangelical Christian who lives in Denison.

Asked about Gingrich’s current position on stem cells, Hammond said: “Newt Gingrich opposes President Obama’s policy on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and believes it should be reversed.” He added that Gingrich thinks the public supports aggressive research for cures “and scientists have developed methods to develop embryonic-like cells that don’t involve the destruction of embryos but still offer hope for the development of new therapies.”

Campaign aides on Monday said Gingrich “has consistently upheld a pro-life standard.” He has “a 98.6 percent pro-life rating from the National Right to Life Committee,” and consistently voted for bans on government funding of abortions, they said.

And while he was speaker, the House twice passed legislation banning partial birth abortions, but President Bill Clinton vetoed the bills both times.

Shift of support toward Gingrich

Iowans who never expected to back Gingrich — partly because of his history as the first speaker of the U.S. House disciplined for ethics violations, and partly because of his two divorces and acknowledged adultery — are now standing with him.

That includes Ecklund. He said there has been a big swell of support for Gingrich from Iowa Republicans he knows in recent weeks.

“I really believe that the debates have springboarded his candidacy,” Ecklund said. “I’m hearing that he’s the candidate who’s ready for the job.”

That mystifies Gordon.

“What the American people are going to need to come to terms with is, do we really believe that an ability to debate is the primary litmus test for whether or not you can be the most powerful man in the world?” Gordon said. “I think the answer is no. It’s not even a logical way of thinking. But we’re sucked into this entertainment universe where everything’s about television. I think the people of Iowa need to dig deeper.”

Iowa right-to-life advocate Kim Lehman said she checked into Gingrich’s past stances earlier this month.

“I was concerned about Gingrich on embryonic stem cell research,” said Lehman, who works for the John Paul II Institute, an Iowa City-based organization that searches for cures and therapies that don’t use embryonic stem cells.

She asked for guidance from organizers with the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, who noted that Gingrich had signed the group’s pledge requiring candidates to “advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs.”

That satisfied Lehman, who has endorsed rival Rick Santorum.

“Our objective in the pro-life movement is to bring people to the place where they support all life because all life is made by God,” Lehman said. “Christians are the most tolerant people I’ve ever met. If Newt Gingrich has signed that pledge, then that’s why you’re probably going to see support, and they’re not going to hold grudges against anyone.”

Asked Monday whether any of Gingrich’s past positions are a concern, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said the organization’s goal was simply to get all of the presidential candidates to sign the pledge.

And that has happened, with the exceptions of Romney and Jon Huntsman, Dannenfelser said Monday. Romney has said he shares the goals of the list, but that its pledge would have unintended consequences, including ending federal funding for thousands of hospitals.

Santorum: Gingrich is ‘inconsistent’

On paper, Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, looks like he’d be the candidate Iowa social conservatives would rally around. He signed the Susan B. Anthony List pledge, as well as one designed by the Iowa organization

Family Leader that asks candidates to oppose same-sex marriage.

But polling in Iowa shows that conservative voters have not streamed toward Santorum.

In a telephone interview Monday, Santorum said he opposes federal funding for abortion and embryonic stem cell research under any circumstance.

Santorum said Gingrich’s stance of allowing exceptions is “inconsistent with mine and inconsistent clearly with most Iowans and, with respect to federal funding, with most Americans.”

Once Iowa conservatives are aware of Gingrich’s record, Santorum said, “my guess is that they’ll do what has happened to a lot of candidates, which is once you find out more about the candidates, you may try to look for another candidate.”

He added: “I may not be the guy that the girls are initially attracted to when they walk into the dance hall, but ultimately once you get to know all the folks, I’m the one you want to take home to Mom.”

Conservative radio host Steve Deace said Gingrich spearheaded the Republican takeover of the House in 1994 based on conservative ideology, “so people may make assumptions about him and his record that when you go into details aren’t necessarily true.”

“In general,” Deace said, “any Christian is going to have a hard time supporting any candidate who is on the record for taxpayer-funded baby murder unless that candidate has had a clear and obvious change of heart that also bears itself out in how he governs now.”

Deace said he doubts Romney’s conversion to an anti-abortion stance because Romney as governor of Massachusetts signed a law that included taxpayer-funded abortion.

The Romney campaign countered Deace’s statement, saying that under Massachusetts state law and court precedent, if the state is funding health care benefits, it could not refuse to provide abortion coverage.

Gordon, the Sioux City pastor, said many evangelical Christians he knows are taking a very strong, enthusiastic look at Gingrich as an alternative to Romney.

“A lot of the Christians talking about Newt Gingrich are saying, ‘Well, hey, we believe in forgiveness.’ And that’s absolutely true. But everyone has to realize forgiveness is not tethered to the idea of credibility and trustworthiness. Can Newt Gingrich be forgiven for his mistakes? Yes. Can I trust him? No.”

Gordon added: “I’m preparing to raise my voice to say no, and I hope people will listen.”

However, the National Right to Life Committee commends Gingrich’s actions in Congress. “We consider him pro-life,” executive director David O’Steen told the Register Monday.

TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTION

The New York Times on April 10, 1995, reported, “House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Sunday supported the availability of federally financed abortions for poor women who are victims of rape or incest and expressed opposition to organized school prayer, positions that are at odds with many conservatives in his party.”

Also asked that year on CBS’s “Face the Nation” whether he agrees with Republicans who oppose federal abortion payments in cases of rape or incest or to protect the life of the mother, Gingrich answered: “No. First of all, I think you should have funding in the case of rape or incest or life of the mother, which is the first step.”

Later that year, Gingrich urged his colleagues in the U.S. House to accept language in an abortion bill that would not completely ban abortions under federal employee health plans, leaving in place exemptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, the Washington Times reported on Aug. 7, 1995.

TAXPAYER-FUNDED EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

Bill O’Reilly on “O’Reilly Factor” asked Gingrich on July 19, 2001: “Stem cell research, should President Bush approve some federal funding for that?”

Gingrich answered: “Well, I agree with Senator Bill Frist, as the only medical doctor in the Senate and as a world-class heart surgeon. I think that there are ways to have appreciation for life, to recognize the sanctity of life, but nonetheless to look at fertility clinics where there are cells that are sitting there that are not going to be used to create life. They literally today, they’re unregulated, they can be thrown away. And I think the president, I hope the president, will find a way to agree that there ought to be federally funded research.”

On ABC News’ “This Week” on July 8, 2001, Sam Donaldson asked: “So he should approve stem cell research on embryos?”

Gingrich answered: “On embryonic cells that, that are pre-fetal.”

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

Gingrich helped quash an effort to deny Republican Party funds to candidates who opposed legislation outlawing so-called partial birth abortions, according to a Jan. 21, 1998, article by the Associated Press.

The Republican National Committee at its winter meeting that year wanted to deny party campaign funds to Republican candidates who opposed banning most late-term, or partial-birth, abortions.

Gingrich addressed the RNC meeting on Jan. 16, 1998, calling for tolerance of candidates who support partial-birth abortion, saying he would campaign for them.

“It’s the voters of America who have a right — in some places they’re going to pick people who are to my right, some places they’re going to pick people who are to my left and in both cases, if they’re the Republican nominee, I am going to actively campaign for them, because when they get to Congress, whether they are a moderate Republican from the northeast, whether they are a very conservative Republican from the south or west, whatever their background.”

The AP reported that Gingrich said he opposed the “barbaric” abortion procedure, and would continue to vote to ban it. But he argued that the resolution was the wrong way to eliminate partial-birth abortions.