A popular modern phrase, used most often in politics, is "flip-flopping." To be perceived as a "flip-flopper" is to be seen as weak and lacking in deep convictions. I am not sure who created this much-used phrase. but the Republicans used it very successfully against John Kerry in the last presidential election. Somehow the word conjures up a sense of opportunism, of outright compromise, or moral spinelessness.

In a recent issue of Martin Marty's, Sightings (Monday, January 8), the esteemed historian and religion writer refers to these changes we call "flip-flops" as "about faces" or "180-degree turns." When a politician changes a position, especially on an issue crucial to some people, it creates quite a stir. Steve Chapman, writing as a pro-life columnist for the Chicago Tribune in a December article, cited Governor Mitt Romney's change of view on abortion as a case in point. It is a fact that Mitt Romney was pro-choice for some years. Now he wants to assure his conservative political base that he is strongly pro-life. In Romney's words, "I'm in a different place than I was in 1994." Even his strongest critics admit that he has sincerely changed and that his actions have demonstrated this consistently. For the record, Ronald Reagan changed his view on abortion, as did George H. W. Bush, both having been pro-choice at one point before becoming pro-life. And Jesse Jackson and Al Gore also changed their views, from being pro-life at one point in the past, to their present pro-choice position.

So, can leaders change their views and survive in today's climate? Will the "flip-flop" charge destroy Mitt Romney or other candidates for office in the coming election of 2008? I do not happen to believe it is always a sign of weakness when a person changes their view on an issue. I wish George W. Bush would change his mind on some issues more easily than he does. (He seems to have changed his mind about how to pursue victory in Iraq, though it may end up being a few years too late.) At times he does appear to be stubbornly unwilling to change his mind, or at least to admit that he does. (Conservatives, by nature, do not like to change their mind!) I think this stance has harmed President Bush with the general public.

We seem to go from pole-to-pole on this matter of changing one's mind. We either have people who you can never be quite sure about where they stand, or we have people who are so rigid in where they stand that they will never consider that new information might lead them to admit that they need to change their minds.

The problem with Romney's change is that it is about abortion, which is seen by many Christians as an "absolute moral position" that cannot be changed. Two issues, it now seems clear, define the conservative Christian movement politically-abortion and gay marriage. My views on both are widely known for being conservative. What I wonder, however, is this: "Does every candidate get defined simply and only by these two issues?" And is there only one way to express one's moral opposition and public political response to how we solve these two problems?

I am reminded that following the infamous Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of January 1973 very few evangelicals were energized about the high court's decision. Most evangelicals didn't oppose the decision at that time and virtually none addressed the direction it would take the culture. This history is little known and rarely talked about in the present time. I vividly recall when I got energized by this issue. It was the commencement address for my graduate school class in 1973. The speaker was the oft-criticized Dr. C. Everett Koop. He told us that we were the first graduating class to enter the "brave new world" that would change life and society as we had known it for centuries. I was electrified by that address. Later I heard theologian Harold O. J. Brown give a ringing biblical and theological basis for being pro-life, and knew I had to engage this issue if I would be faithful to my calling as a Christian and as a minister of the gospel.

The historical facts are these-it was primarily our Roman Catholic brethren who energized us all to engage in this public battle. This fact should prompt a little more humility on our part. We now act as if we always held the same view on this issue and that we have all held that view consistently and faithfully for many years. The fact is that every one of us must wrestle with these issues again and again and ask lots of tough question about how to work to stop abortion on demand. The goal is clear, but the approach is not. Here again, as I have said many times in many different contexts, conservative evangelicals do not do nuance well. Everything is done in basic black and white and this often keeps us from doing either ethics or politics well. It also harms our attempts to humanely persuade people of the rightness of our views on such a moral issue. Screaming and yelling at people as "baby murderers" usually convinces no one of our view, and killing abortion doctors has truly harmed the effort.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that a child in the womb is a real human person. What else would you call it? And I also believe this human person should be protected by law as the weakest among us. I also believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. What I do wonder about is how to express these two views appropriately. I also wonder about how we actually use them as litmus tests for almost everything else that we think about in terms of public policy and voting.

A little history of the twenty or thirty years of American cultural development leading up to the Civil War might help us approach such a divisive moral issue much better. (But then who really pays attention to history, which Henry Ford called "bunk?" Many Christians remain sure that they know God's will for themselves and for everyone else, so why bother with the messy details?)

Many Christians that I know are quite certain that anyone who is not pro-life, and politically committed to the battle as an open confrontation with the darkness of secular culture, is not a true Christian. The last I checked, the New Testament did not say that we become Christians by "believing on the Lord Jesus Christ" and by "adopting a pro-life position and agenda." It doesn't even hint that this is a litmus test for true faith.

I know what many of you are now thinking. Doesn't real faith in Christ translate into an ethical position that conforms to the teaching of the Bible? My answer is, "Yes, of course." But I remind you of a basic truth-while we are completely justified by grace through faith, we still remain sinners. And this remaining sin takes many forms, including mistakes in both personal judgment and practice. Bad thinking, as well as bad choices, is sin. So, I ask: Can we engage a volatile issue like this one in a more civil way? Can we approach an issue like this one in a manner that would allow those of us who are pro-life to follow a different course in how we try to change the views of others? This approach would actually require us to build a grass-roots moral consensus, which I think we've been doing a much better job of in the last decade or so. This is what will eventually change things in a democracy of laws and morals, not direct confrontation and accusation.

So, can a Christian be a flip-flopper? It all depends, I guess. What is the issue, and why are you changing your mind on it? And what difference does this change make? It could be that a flip-flopper is a real leader-a serious Christian. Flip-flopping sure beats a closed mind that rejects all new information and often vitally important changes that ought to be made. I'm glad Mitt Romney changed his mind on abortion. I work and pray for others to do the same. I also want to allow room for Christians to differ without attacking the character and motives of those who differ with me, even on an issue as vitally important to a culture of life as abortion. It seems to me that this is consistent with both biblical ethics and the model of incarnate love that we see in Jesus of Nazareth.