A pro-life candidate?

Share

As has been the case for years, one of the top issues for many evangelical Christians has been their "pro-life" convictions. Indeed, some have argued that this is the "single issue" that can automatically disqualify a political candidate from getting a Christian's vote if they answer incorrectly.

In this wacky political season, many pro-lifers have found themselves backing Donald Trump for President primarily for the reason that Hillary Clinton is a pro-choice candidate. "We can't let her win," they argue, "lest we concede to the continuing murder of millions of babies."

Now I consider myself to be pro-life as well, and I too shake my head at how some progressives go past simply advocating for abortion access to nearly celebrating abortion itself, but I have serious qualms about this "But Hillary!" position.

Most pro-lifers who are behind Trump will admit they don't really care for Trump. I for one think Trump is a completely amoral candidate on every front--the very antithesis of Christ-like character. However, I also recognize the fears and concerns of many of my fellow pro-lifers in choosing not to vote for Trump. For those who feel they absolutely cannot vote for Hillary because of her position on abortion, many have rationalized voting for Trump by pointing out that he claims to be "pro-life," he will perhaps appoint a Supreme Court Justice sympathetic to the pro-life movement, and that he might permit restrictive laws on abortions in order to appease his conservative base.

 However, if this issue is the only real reason you have for voting for Trump, here are a few points to consider as you decide on how to vote this November. (What I am about to say is certainly should not be taken an endorsement of Hillary or any other candidate, but is simply intended to help Christians and other pro-lifers think through all the facets of this election.) So here we go:

1) Is Trump really pro-life, or is this just pandering?

Some have pointed to comments of Trump's that seem to indicate a sympathy for the pro-life movement. For example, last January Trump said, "I'm pro-life and I have been pro-life. It's an issue and a strong issue." He has also stated that he's become more pro-life in recent years after discussion with friends. However, in these same discussions, Trump also revealed that he "absolutely believes" in allowing abortions in instances of rape, incest, and medical necessity. Many conservative pro-lifers would likely take issue with the first two of these exceptions.

During the primaries, Trump also waffled on his stance toward Planned Parenthood. When asked by Fox News in October if he would defund Planned Parenthood, Trump replied, "I do not want to say that because I want to show unpredictability...You can't just go around and say that. But Planned Parenthood absolutely should be defunded." Likewise, when asked on Meet the Press if he had ever donated to Planned Parenthood, Trump stated, "I don't know, but it's possible." He went to say that the abortions "have to stop," but then took a (surprisingly) mature stance on Planned Parenthood by pointing out that abortion is only one of the many services provided by the women's health organization. Finally, there are several comments from Trump in 2011 about how his views on abortion had "changed" and he is now pro-life.

However, perhaps we should take all of this with a grain of salt when we consider that his pro-life comments in both 2011 and 2015-16 came in the midst of possible and actual Presidential runs by Trump. Now, I don't know Trump heart (perhaps he has changed his mind), but it seems awfully convenient for the candidate to have "changed" at the exact moments he would be needing evangelical votes, a fact even more suspicious given the noticeable silence on the issue in the years between the 2012 and 2016 elections.

One must also raise the question of trustworthiness when you look at the whole trajectory of Trump's abortion comments. In a 1999 interview, Trump had this to say:

"Look, I'm very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject, but you still--I believe in choice. Again, it might have a little to do with a New York background, because there are some different attitudes in different parts of the country...but again, I am strongly pro-choice, and yet I hate the concept of abortion. I am pro-choice in every respect, but I just hate it."

It's fascinating to me that here Trump articulates a view extremely similar to that of Vice-Presidential candidate, Tim Kaine, whom some pro-lifers have criticized for supporting pro-choice policies despite being "personally against abortion." Even more ironic is that Kaine roots his personal opposition to abortion in his Christian faith, whereas Trump just chalks it up to personal preference.

Then you have comments like in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, where he says, "I support a woman’s right to choose...When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial birth abortions, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no." To be fair, he goes on to say he has developed reservations about partial-birth abortions, but does not denounce his pro-choice stance. Similarly, in 1999, he stated, "I believe [abortion] is a personal decision that should be left to women and their doctors."

In a 2010 interview, when asked if he was "pro-choice" Trump told ABC:

"I am--well, I don't want to discuss right now, but you will be shocked when I give you that answer....Well, you will be very surprised when I give you--I'm going to make a decision [about running for president]. And when I make that decision I'll let you know about that. But, I think you'll probably be surprised."

Then, less than 3 months later, while weighing a presidential run as a Republican, he suddenly announces to a pro-life political group that he's "pro-life." Needless to say his record is inconsistent. Even recently, despite his growing "concern" for the abortion issue, many have observed that he is the only Republican presidential nominee in modern history to not mention or address abortion in their nomination acceptance speech. This checkered history gives me pause before lining up behind him as the "pro-life option."

**Update 10-19-16: In the 3rd Presidential debate, in what should be a warning sign to pro-life evangelicals, Trump refused to answer whether he personally wanted to see Roe v. Wade overturned. When pressed about his personal opinion, he simply  stated that he would appoint pro-life judges which would have the effect of sending the issue "back to the states." However, he repeatedly avoided answering the moderator's question of whether he personally wanted to see Roe v Wade overturned.

2. Replacing Scalia won't necessarily solve the problem

Another argument for supporting Trump is that he "promises" to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia, who long supported pro-life causes. However, we must consider a few caveats with this positions.

First, given Trump's inconsistent record on abortion and his tendency to say what people want to hear, is there really any guarantee Trump will nominate such a justice? His business record also speaks to a history of broken promises. On a personal level, there are likely countless other issues that matter more to Trump than abortion (such as his power and status), so how much will he actively seek out a pro-life justice?

Second, just replacing Scalia won't magically change anything. The most recent Supreme Court abortion decision saw Texas' abortion restrictions get struck down by a 5-3 vote. Even if a Scalia-like justice had been on the Court, the anti-abortion law would still have been struck down. And just hoping another justice dies is no guarantee either. You would need one of the more progressive justices specifically to die. Do we really want to support a man of Trump's character for such speculative reasons?

Third, and perhaps most importantly, simply getting a court to uphold abortion restrictions or overturn Roe v Wade will not miraculously make abortions cease. Some people seem to live in the misunderstanding that abortions were not happening prior to 1973. They were; they were just occurring illegally in secret. Likewise, if we waved a magic wand and made all abortions illegal tomorrow, abortions would still be happening. When much of the population identifies as pro-choice, and when a high percentage of abortions are carried out by women in desperate situations, we must realize that changing the legality of abortion will have little impact on these 2 driving forces of abortion. As Randall Balmer has observed, our goal should not be to make abortion illegal, but "to make it unthinkable."  Which lead to my third point...

3. Cutting abortions is more than bans or restrictions

For those who care about protecting the unborn, we need to look beyond the simplistic answers of just overturning Roe v. Wade or finding ways to restrict access to abortions. I've written about this more in depth elsewhere, but we need to look at the bigger picture. The fight to restrict or ban abortion by legislation is an expensive, time-consuming, and politically divisive endeavor that often does little to curb abortions. Some studies have even suggested that abortion rates are higher in countries than criminalize abortions. Indeed, on average, countries in the world that ban abortions have an abortion rate of about 37 abortions per 1,000 women (comparable to the U.S. rate at the time of Roe v Wade), whereas the abortion rate in the U.S. in 2011 had fallen to only 17 per 1,000 women.

The likely reason for this is because the legality of abortions has less impact on the reduction of abortions than actually addressing the root causes of abortion. For instance, one of the most important actions that can be taken to reduce abortions is to ensure that all women have adequate access to birth control. It's difficult to terminate an unwanted pregnancy if you never get pregnant to begin with. Indeed, this seems to be one of the biggest differences between nations with high or low abortion rates.

As I've stated before, if Christians are serious about truly reducing abortion, we need to do more thinking about how to best prevent unwanted or dangerous pregnancies. Even better, when we do this we actually find ourselves in agreement with pro-choice individuals in many cases, which means more can get done politically. That's not to say we should never address legal restrictions on abortion, but such actions are relatively pointless until we do the work to address the root causes.

So, rather than just voting for Trump because we feel that's the choice that will best allow us to legislate against abortion, perhaps we should be asking which candidate(s) best address the real drivers of abortion. Which candidate would best reduce poverty (which is a huge driver of abortions)? Which candidate could best reduce sexual assaults? Which candidate could best promote access to birth control and women's healthcare? Which candidate could help reduce teen pregnancies? Which candidate can best reform the foster care system or promote adoptions?

When we actually ask these questions, we may decide that Trump really is not the best option for a "pro-life candidate." Many evangelicals, such as Shane Claiborne and Greg Boyd, have argued during previous elections that pro-life Christians might actually support Obama rather than a Republican. Although this seemed backward to what many conservative Christians felt, their arguments were that they believed Obama would do more to help alleviate poverty than McCain, which in turn would reduce the rate of abortions. So, even though McCain paid lip service to the pro-life stance and Obama advocated for the pro-choice cause, ironically Obama could be the better vote.

Incidentally, those like Claiborne and Boyd may have been proven right. In looking at trends in abortion rates, the number of abortions actually plateaued from 2005-2008, during the "pro-life" Bush administration, after years of decline. However, from 2008-2011, abortion rates saw a rapid decline once again during Obama's first years, falling to their lowest levels since Roe v Wade went into effect. Furthermore, it does not appear that this decline can be attributed to tougher anti-abortion laws as a majority of the current laws did not go into effect until 2011 and the decline was seen more or less uniformly across states with both liberal and conservative leanings. Rather, it seems the decline is mostly attributed to better access to contraception and to economic forces.

Does this automatically mean Clinton should get the pro-life vote? No. But it does mean pro-lifers should consider all candidates (including even 3rd party) and ask who would best address the economic and social drivers of abortion. It might even mean we disqualify Trump from our vote since his lack of coherent, well-formed policies and the potential damage from some of his economic policies might actually increase abortions.

4. Is government the object of our faith?

Finally, the way some Christians are responding, you would think that Clinton is planning on going out and taking an ax to pregnant women herself because she loves abortions. In reality, a Clinton administration will likely have a similar impact as the previous several administrations--a gradual decline in abortions. However, the way many are reacting makes me question whether those Christians have placed too much faith in government.

The truth is that much of the work in reducing abortions happens on the ground independently of who is President. State laws that affect poverty and access to birth control/healthcare can have a greater impact on abortion rates than what a President says or does. The loving work of volunteers and staff in crisis pregnancy centers to meet the needs of desperate mothers can do more good in reducing abortions than millions of dollars spent on pushing legal restrictions on abortion. And, collaborative work with both the Left and Right to address root causes of abortion is something that should be able to happen regardless of which party wins the White House.

My concern is that supporting Trump out of a fear that a "pro-choice" candidate might get elected is putting the cart before the horse. Electing a "pro-life" President will only do limited good if you haven't changed hearts and minds. It will only do limited good so long as the root drivers of abortion persist. These latter points are things with which a President Trump would not help. Meanwhile, a vote for a President Trump is certainly a vote for narcissism, sexism, hedonism, greed, corruption, and anti-intellectualism.

------

So, I cannot tell you who you should vote for in November. Perhaps you vote for Clinton because you think she can best address the economic drivers of abortion. Perhaps you just cannot vote for a candidate who vocally supports abortion, so you write in the name of a different candidate, or avoid any compromise and vote for a 3rd party, like the American Solidarity Party, that centers itself around a pro-life platform. Or perhaps you decide neither major party is pro-life and you won't waste your vote on a losing 3rd party so you abstain and refuse to soil your conscience. Whatever your vote, I just strongly caution you against voting for Trump simply out of pro-life convictions when everything else about him seems to speak to the opposite of a Christian ethic. Yes, politics will always involve compromise for a Christian, but where do you draw the line? When it comes to pursuing a pro-life agenda, we need to realize that there are a variety of options out there. Don't buy into the lie that Trump is the only one.

Don't Get Angry at the Supreme Court

Share

The past two weeks have been a roller coaster ride of Supreme Court decisions for parties on both sides of the aisle. Obama's immigration plan gets stalled, but UT's affirmative action policy is upheld. This week, they also decided prohibiting individuals convicted of misdemeanor family violence crimes from owning firearms was not a violation of the second amendment--relieving domestic violence advocates but angering some gun rights advocates.

However, the case that has gotten the most attention this week was its ruling on Texas' most recent abortion law. For those of you not familiar with this law, one of the central mandates required abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges (see full statute here). The result of this has been that about half of the abortion clinics in Texas have had to shut down because they could not meet this high criterion. One of these clinics initiated the current lawsuit against the state, arguing that this law is not necessary to provide safe medical procedures and places an undue burden on those seeking an abortion. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed with the analysis and struck down the law in a 5-3 decision.

As expected, many pro-life advocates are lamenting the decision and directing their anger at the Supreme Court. I've seen comments about the justices being "dumb" and "stupid," and characterized as dictators and zealots. Some have even called for Texas to defy the ruling. Is this apocalyptic and hateful language really necessary? I don't think so. And here's why from a pro-life perspective:

1) This was not really about women's safety if we're truly honest

Sure, you can argue that one of the benefits of the Texas law would be increased women's safety because abortion clinics would have higher medical standards, but don't be deceptive and claim that was the primary motivation. As I've listened to pro-life individuals discuss the law prior to this court case and after Monday's decision, it is clear that the primary concern has been to reduce the number of abortions. After all, the proposal in question came along with other measures to ban certain types of abortions and make abortion more difficult to get. Furthermore, most doctors agree that the hospital admitting privileges are not really necessary for performing an abortion. The evidence seems to suggest that this was an answer in want of a problem, unless of course you admit that the problem trying to be solved was abortion itself. This leads to #2...

2) The Supreme Court is simply upholding what already exists in our laws

The fact is Roe v. Wade is still the determining court case that sets precedent for everything, and that court case decided that abortion should be accessible by American women. This court decision means that any future laws must not place an "undue burden" on abortion access. If abortion is now considered a "right," then that means every women must have access to such services. However, as a result of Texas' law, only about 20 clinics remain open (down from about 40 when the law went into effect), and more of those remaining clinics would have likely shut down in the near future had the law continued. 

Now, keep in mind Texas is a massive state geographically (you don't really understand this until you live here), and as such 20 clinics are very few. For example, the domestic violence agency I work at serves 8 counties (an area about the size of Hawaii and containing half a million people) but there is not an abortion clinic in any of our counties. Furthermore, this is a particular problem for those who are low income and lack the finances or transportation to be able to travel to such a clinic, and they would need to make several trips as well, not just one.

As long as Roe v. Wade is seen as valid, then it would seem that this law is infringing upon the ability of many women to access an abortion and must be struck down. The problem is not with the current Supreme Court, but with the existing precedent of Roe v. Wade. If you are unhappy with Monday’s decision, you should probably focus your efforts on overturning the existing precedent, not complaining about the outcomes of that precedent.

3) Was Texas’ law really reducing abortions that much anyways?

One of the arguments that helped get Roe v Wade passed in the first place was that women will have abortions regardless of the law. The problem, as it was argued, was that women were seeking illegal abortions and putting both their lives and the lives of the unborn child at risk. Abortion advocates argued that it was better to legalize this unfortunate practice and thus be able to regulate abortions, rather than putting women’s health in danger.

While our current culture has gone far beyond that original vision (seeking abortions out of personal/preference reasons in addition to medical reasons), there is certainly some truth to this concern. Indeed, in the past year or two there have been numerous reports and account of many women seeking illegal abortions in Texas. Some, who live near the Mexico border, are buying cheap drugs and self-administering abortions without any oversight from doctors. Others simply choose to neglect any prenatal care and allowed their pregnancy to result in a miscarriage. Far from promoting women’s health and medical safety, this Texas law actually has had some unintended consequences of harming women’s health.

If we truly want to be “pro-life” for everyone involved, then we cannot ignore these realities. Can we really argue that the negligible benefit of forcing abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges is pro-women’s health if that decision simultaneously drives many more women to unsafe abortion methods?

Additionally, when we consider the increase in illegal abortions happening, we have to ask what the net effect of the law actually was. Those who really want or feel a need to get an abortion will find ways to do so—legally or illegally. Did this Texas law really tip the scales that much? And if the net effect was negligible, is there really much point in getting worked up about such a law being struck down?

4) We are right to be skeptical of pro-abortion cheering on this day

While I am not too shocked or horrified by the Supreme Court’s decision, I also cannot join the cheering and celebration of abortion rights advocates. The bottom line is that everyone on all sides should be grieved that abortions are even necessary in the first place. Whether we are grieving the loss of an unborn life, the fact that a pregnancy was unwanted, or the circumstances that led to “needing” an abortion, all individuals—on the Right and Left—should recognize that abortion is not a joyous thing. It is painful. It’s unfortunate. If it is a “right,” it is not a right or freedom like any others we enjoy. It is more along the lines of a necessary evil than liberty.

However, anger and bile will not change the conversation. Sadly, we do live in a “throw-away culture” as the Pope has put it, but mocking or cursing abortion advocates will not alter their opinions. Instead, we should approach this issue with humility, refuse to participate in polarizing rhetoric that is actually one of the forces that drives abortion rights groups to celebrate, and mourn the loss of life and opportunity that was occurring under the Texas law and that will continue to occur without it.

5) Finally, we must seek out better pro-life strategies than legislating morality

One of the central reasons why I am not too upset by this week’s decision is that abortion laws are generally ineffective anyways. Sure, they might reduce the number of legal abortions happening, but you still must account for the illegal abortions that occur under the radar. A number of studies have also demonstrated that laws which simply restrict or ban abortions can actually result in higher numbers of total abortions than situations with more open abortion laws.

The real problem is that a law cannot change a person’s heart or mind. A person who supported abortion before a law will continue to support abortion even after it is banned. If you really want to end abortion, you must win over people’s hearts and minds. The pro-life movement has often done well at this, but it must do better. I believe the pro-life position has a compelling narrative—that unborn life is valuable and precious regardless of the circumstances. Science also seems to be on our side as the more we learn about unborn children, the more we realize the continuity between life inside and outside the womb. This naturally poses an ethical problem for abortion advocates. If we could focus more on this compassionate narrative and excise some of the hateful, condemning rhetoric that often accompanies it, this would likely do more good than any restrictive law.

Finally, abortion opponents need to shift their focus away from abortion legislation to legislation that addresses the ROOT CAUSES of abortion. There are two reasons for this. First, simply restricting or banning abortion is merely a Band-Aid solution in that it only acknowledges the symptom, not the sickness. Second, shifting our focus in this manner can actually create common ground with the pro-choice side. Let me explain.

What are the primary reasons a person would seek an abortion? Lack of money/resources to care for a child, lack of access to birth control, teen pregnancy, rape, and medical complications with the child or mother. The amazing thing about each of these causes is that neither pro-life nor pro-choice advocates want these things to happen. They are all bad situations. What would the conversation look like if, instead of trying to limit or ban abortions outright (thus angering the other side), we instead came together to find meaningful legislation and practices that reduce poverty, reduced teen pregnancies, deterred sexual assaults, and promoted medical research to fix pregnancy complications and genetic defects. Surely there is enough common ground on these issues to get the conversation going.

If we actually came together around the root causes of abortion, then we would actually see abortion rates drop without needing to limit access to abortion. If we stuck with the simple narrative that unborn life is precious, there would be less need for abortion clinics as more and more people become convinced of this truth.

So am I saddened by this week’s court ruling? Yes, but only in the sense that it serves as a reminder of the continuing desire and need for abortion as well as of the continuing polarization in this debate. I am not angered because I think the Court is sentencing babies to death or anything like that. The Supreme Court has simply acted in accordance to its legal obligations. It is up to us on the ground to change the conversation so that such rulings and arguments ultimately become irrelevant.

4 Starbucks-like Companies that Forsook their Christian Message

Once again we are at war. Of course we didn't ask for it, but Satan is on the prowl. This time he has found a way to strip our joy from the Christmas season. There will be fewer "Noels" this year. After all, how can there peace on earth when there is no Christmas on my coffee cup? As you've probably heard by now, Starbucks has fully given into their pagan ways and removed all references to Christmas from their cups. Without any white emblems of holy reindeer, sacred snowflakes, or SAINT Nicholas on the cups, all we are left with with is a crimson abomination--interestingly enough the same color often used to depict Beelzebub himself. See for yourself:

New, non-Christmas cups (creepy)

 This is clearly a sign that Starbucks has declared war on Christmas and on Christians. But, it didn't always used to be this way. As we all know, Starbucks used to hold strong Christian convictions. They used to boldly proclaim the correct winter holiday on their seasonal  Christmas cups.

A CHRIST-mas coffee

 As is clear, Starbucks used to value keeping Christ in Christmas, but they have since strayed from their faithful beginnings and have become just another secular company. It's as if they believe their mission is to run a business selling coffee in a pluralistic society rather than using their caffeine to promote Christmas as the one true December holiday.

But this move from sacred to secular should not surprise us. Starbucks is only the latest in a long line of companies that moved away from their Christian roots to embrace a worldly message. Since those who fail to learn their history are doomed to repeat it, I give you the top 4 companies in recent history that have watered down or forgotten their Christian heritage:

1. Solo cups

Everyone knows about red Solo cups, but not everyone knows their history. This is especially unfortunate as their story eerily resembles the current Starbucks debacle.

For years, Solo proudly displayed Christian slogans and verses on its cups. It's primary market was Baptist church potlucks. Although they made wholesome containers for all seasons, their most notable product was their annual Christmas cup, such as the one displayed here:

 

However, in November 1969 the Solo Cup Company changed leadership and the decision was made to try broadening the market for the cups. In an attempt to do so, it was decided that the company should drop the strong Christmas message and simply go with a plain red cup. No message at all meant that no one would be offended...except Christ that is. No message also meant no Christmas message, which was a soulless mistake for sure.

History has proven that this early attempt at "political correctness" destroyed the morals of the company. Today, this vessel has become an emblem, not of sacred fellowship among fellow believers, but of drunken orgies, even becoming the subject matter of a Toby Keith song that mentions alcohol, "testicles," and uses profanity.

2. Apple, Inc.

Apple was founded in 1976 to develop small computers. The original logo  featured Sir Isaac Newton and was a good image that represented the discovery and ingenuity the company was after. However, it was a rather boring and complex logo, so later that year they changed it. Most historians will tell you that the change looked something like this:

 

However, most historians forget there was an intermediate step in the design process. For about a month the Apple logo actually looked like this:

 

The text in the red bar is an obvious reference to Genesis 2 and 3 when Adam and Eve are commanded not to eat of the forbidden fruit. In one company memo it states that the text was placed on a bar of red to represent the blood of Christ that the first sin cost, and the whole apple is colored in a rainbow to remind consumers of the grace Noah received in the covenant of the rainbow. This background also explain why the apple in the logo has a single bite taken out of it--it is the bite Adam and Eve took.

In this original context, the logo was to serve as a warning against human pride and faith in knowledge, something a computer company could easily fall into and a reality the Newton logo failed to warn against. Sadly, one of the founders (it is unclear whether it was Jobs, Wayne, or Wozniak) rebelled against this demonstration of faith and insisted the company stay away from religious overtones. Thus, the scripture reference was removed, leaving a rainbow apple without context. One also can't help but wonder if it was this lack of context that led to the homosexual revolution with this rainbow being co-opted for "gay pride." Perhaps Apple's lack of religious boldness is the reason why gay marriage is now legal.

3. McDonald's

We all know America is a Christian nation. So naturally all businesses within America are really Christian businesses. It is embedded within their nature. They cannot escape it. One company that realized and embraced this was McDonald's. In 2003, when McDonald's launched their "I'm lovin' it" slogan, they simultaneously launched another ad series--"I'm lovin' him." The "him" was intended to refer to Jesus. 

Sadly, the ad campaign was dropped after 6 months. The official reason given was that too many people were confused by the "him" and didn't know to whom it was referring. According to company statements: "Although the slogan was written to point people to our loving Savior, Jesus Christ, we fear that misinterpretation is happening and we might accidentally lead our customers to love another man, such as Buddha, Joseph Smith, or Mohamed. Or for our male customers, they may become gay."

On the surface level, this public statement seems to be acceptable. However, after further thought one realizes that the matter could have easily been cleared up by adding a clear Christian image (such as a cross or an American flag) to the slogan. The darker truth is that someone in the company was likely ashamed of the Gospel and pressured marketers to scrub away the Christian message. This is most likely what happened as there have been no more positive, messages about Jesus coming from the company since the retraction.

 4. Trojan

The final company that used to hold strong Christian leanings was Trojan. It may seem strange that a condom company was once Christian since the church throughout much of history has been skeptical about birth control, but it's true. Trojan realized the uphill battle of being a Christian company making condoms, but they were driven by the conviction that sex is a gift from God and is meant to be enjoyed. And, what better way to enjoy it than without the risk of children materializing?

So, to unite these two passions--faith and sex--designers for the company decided to include a Bible verse about sex on each of their condoms. They started flipping through the Bible to find such a verse and found what they were looking for there on page 1--"Be fruitful and multiply." This verse was immediately included on the package design.

 But, the designers' eagerness got the best of them. Several months later, a customer pointed out a discrepancy to the company. While the Bible verse references making love to produce offspring, the product itself is designed to prevent offspring.

Embarrassed by the lapse in judgment (and experiencing pressure from many churches who opposed the idea of a Christian company talking so openly about sex) Trojan decided to drop the Scripture references from its products. But, as we have seen over and over again in these examples, the loss of a Christ-centered message on their products ultimately led to the loss of a Christian identity within the company itself. Today, a Trojan product is just as likely to be used in a lustful one-night-stand as in the bonds of holy matrimony.

So Starbucks is not alone

This Christmas season we should not be shocked at Starbucks and their loss of a Christian identity. They are simply the latest in a long line of Christian commercial failures. The battle is raging and we are losing. Perhaps all we can do now is pray for the rapture to come quickly and deliver us from this mess. Merry Christmas!

*Before you re-post this to expose these companies, please make sure you realize this is satire. But of course, I'm not going to stop you from posting even if you don't realize it, so go for it!

Marlin Strong

I've experienced an interesting conflation of two worlds this past week. On the one hand, I have been finishing a training presentation for my work at Family Abuse Center that spends some time looking at the "Strengths Perspective" in Social Work. On the other hand, I've witnessed (and participated in) the discussion surrounding the potential closing of Marlin ISD. In the midst of this discussion there has been plenty of worry, and plenty of criticism, particularly from places in Waco.

As some background, the Waco Trib ran an article last week about the closure announcement. Although the journalist was probably doing the best she could, many of us here in Marlin (and those who have worked in Marlin recently) knew the details of the article to not fully represent the true situation. I for one have seen remarkable improvements in the 5 years I have lived here, some of which I outlined in an email I wrote to the article's author.

One of the main points I made in that exchange was that we in Marlin are very aware of our problems. We also watch as the vast majority of news stories Waco media organizations run about Marlin end up being negative. I informed the author that there is a whole other side to the story that goes untold and that what we in Marlin need is hope. Sadly, a few days later, the Waco Trib ran this Editorial essentially continuing to blame the Marlin community for its problems and continuing to ignore the signs of improvement some of us tried to bring to their attention.

That is where this discussion collides with my other work. The Strengths Perspective of social work essentially argues that you can bring about change by calling out the strengths and skills of a client. You then play to those strengths to overcome the weaknesses and dysfunctions. It is a perspective based on optimism versus pessimism. It is a perspective built upon encouragement, not endless criticism.

And isn't that what Jesus did? He first approached his disciples with a call to "follow me." He didn't say "follow me because you're hopelessly screwed up." Rather, he saw their potential and invited them on an adventure. Or think of the woman at the well. Jesus knew her flaws and could've called them out immediately. Instead, he chose to engage her in theological debate because he saw her wisdom and knew she would become a greater witness in that town than his own disciples. He used a gentle hand to guide his flock to greater things. He knew the flaws, but he came alongside them and patiently molded them. Although he had every right to pull the God-card on them and start ordering them around because he "knew best," he chose to take the role of a servant calling out the strengths in his disciples.

That is what our city needs now. We need hope. But hope does not come from simple optimism and well-wishing. It comes from identifying our strengths and utilizing those strengths to get to work.

There is lots of work to be done for our schools. Even though we have seen improvements these past 2 or 3 years, prior to that there were many years of mismanagement and poor decisions that led to our current state. So it will take some time to undo the damage. Unfortunately, TEA does not seem to be as forgiving when it comes to time.

So, my proposal is to start calling out our strengths and start using those strengths to achieve change. Feel free to comment below with the strengths you have seen among us. I will end with what I have seen:

• We have teachers and staff that genuinely care for our students. This is not the case in every school district.
• We have creative students. I have known many students who are amazing artists.
• We are a resilient community. How many times have we faced bad news? How much negative press has been given to Marlin by insiders and outsiders? How are we still walking after years of driving through potholes? We have dealt with all these and more, but we are still here, and there is still a great deal of pride. Don't let anyone take that pride away!
• We have a Wal-Mart (hey, that's pretty impressive for a city our size!)
• We have a really awesome program (No Excuses University) at the elementary school that starts preparing students for college and academic success.
• We have diversity in our community.
• We have a community that cares for our schools. There were 1,000 people who showed up to the school meeting this past Wednesday! (That a freaking 1/6 of our entire city!!)

Please add more, and let's start the change. Let's create the hope. We are strong!

Marlin ISD article...disappointing

 Here is a copy of an email I sent to the author of the Waco Trib (and 2 editors) in response to this article written about the "struggles" in Marlin ISD:

"Ms. Butts,

I just read your article in the Waco Trib about the potential closing of Marlin ISD next year, and I'm sorry to say I was a bit disappointed in your reporting. As someone who has lived in Marlin and served as a youth pastor here for the past 5 years, this article did a very poor job of representing the actual situation with Marlin ISD. For instance, most of the comments and facts given about the monitoring by TEA or about unresponsive administrations were from when I first arrived in Marlin or even earlier. Those people are all gone now. Nowhere did I see any meaningful comments about staff or administrators from between 2011 to now.

I also found it very unfortunate that the only administrator you seemed to interview was the new superintendent who has only even been around for about 3 months. The reality is he was not here and doesn't know what has really happened with the school district in the past 5 years. It would have been better to talk to those who have been on the front lines seeing improvements in the schools in the past several years. You could have talked to Wes Brown, the principal at the elementary school, who has helped completely transform that campus through the No Excuses University program which has gotten parents and students talking about college and careers even at the elementary school level. You could have talked to Mallory Herridge or Deborah Raphael who have served with CIS on 2 of our campuses and can testify to the improvements that have happened in the past 3 years. You could have talked to any number of staff or teachers and they would tell you that TEKS was constantly at the forefront of teaching and discussion, or that Marlin has great participation in parent and family nights, especially when compared to many Waco schools. But no, you chose to focus on the one person who hasn't been around and has the least direct knowledge of the school's history and improvement. You couldn't even find a parent who had some pride in the school district but featured just another voice of negativity.

Another problem I had with your article is that it shares the same faulty assumption as TEA that STAAR tests are the ultimate measure of a school's success. Yes it's true that STAAR tests may not have shown great improvement, but Marlin ISD has made significant strides in other areas, such as in reading levels. In the end, a school's or student's success or knowledge cannot be summed up in a test score, and it's the assumption that we can evaluate a school by a test that is harming Texas schools all over the place. Such an attitude ultimately leads to "teaching to the test" and handcuffs true, meaningful education.

Marlin has had its share of troubles, and so has our school district. What this community needs is to celebrate its victories and be reminded of its strengths and successes. But when some outsider reporter comes in and writes a "shock and awe" piece that focuses on the negative, it is done without thought of the damage that article may do. It is fine to report on facts that have happened (such as a warning of a school closing), but the reporting needs to be balanced, researched, and constructive. Many of us in Marlin know some of the comments in your article to be misleading or flat out untrue. But that is the only story that gets told in your piece, and the result is a further chipping away at the little hope that is left in this beat-up town. I don't know if your apocalyptic interpretation of the events was the result of a lack of investigation (which would be lazy), or a desire to increase readership and online clicks (which would be dishonest). Either way, we in Marlin need better. We need hope. We need the real picture.


Micah Titterington

Marlin Resident"


**Update, 10-2-2015**
I received a response from the article's author this morning. Here is what she wrote:

"Thank you so much for your letter. I appreciate your honest opinion of my piece and always welcome feedback.

Just so you know, I desperately tried to speak with teachers from the district but no one was willing to talk to me on the record. I spent all day yesterday in Marlin, knocking on doors and trying to find parents to speak about the district, but again, all but the one parent refused to speak to me.

There will be many more articles on the subject in the future and I plan to spend considerable time fleshing out the nuances of what is happening in Marlin. If you know of any teachers who would be willing to speak to me on the record (I don't do anonymous sources), please feel free to give them the number below. I would be happy to speak to them.

Again, thank you for your feedback.

Stephanie Butts

Staff Writer

The Waco Tribune-Herald

sbutts@wacotrib.com

254-757-5707"

So, if you have worked in Marlin ISD in the past 3 years, please contact her and let her know about the many positive things you have seen happening. Tell her about the improvements that have taken place that won't necessarily be reflected in test scores. As I stated in my first email, we don't need more criticisms and negativity in Marlin. We know our problems already. What we need are people ready to work towards solutions and offer a positive attitude. We need to hear about our strengths and successes, not just our shortcomings. We need hope.

"Birdman" Review

I finally watched the Oscar-winning Birdman, and to be frank, I was much underwhelmed. I expect a movie awarded as the “Best Picture” of the year to be something impressive, moving, or thought-provoking, but Birdman wasn’t really any of those things for me. It wasn’t horrible, but I certainly think some of the other nominees were better.

So, here is why I think Birdman won the award for “Best Picture.” It won because it reflects the narcissism, insecurities, and disjointedness of Hollywood itself. Although the film centers on a washed up actor on Broadway, its core is just as much about Hollywood. In that sense, an Academy vote for Birdman is really a vote for themselves.

In fact, it is interesting to see how frequently films about film-making and Hollywood end up either being nominated for “Best Picture” or winning the award in recent years: The Artist (2011), Hugo (2011), Argo (2012), and Birdman (2014). Three of the past four winners have been films about Hollywood. It seems as if the academy is not really interested in what is truly the “Best Picture,” but in what film best reflects their own values and culture.

That seems to be the case with Birdman. Certainly the struggles of Riggan in the film are very real for many actors (perhaps even Michael Keaton himself whose own career is eerily similar to Riggan’s). Just like many ordinary people in mid-life, actors and those in Hollywood encounter the questions of meaning, significance, and success. It may even be worse for them because of the dangers of celebrity and fame.

But here’s my problem, I don’t really care. Perhaps the most engaging part of the film is Riggan’s daughter’s (Emma Stone) rant against her father about the pointlessness of his current endeavors. 

  “Let’s face it, dad. You are not doing this for the sake of art. You are doing this because you want to feel relevant again. Well guess what, there’s an entire world out there where people fight to be relevant every single day, and you act like it doesn’t exist. Things are happening in a place that you ignore, in a place that, by the way, has already forgotten about you…You’re doing this because you’re scared to death, like the rest of us, that you don’t matter. And you know what, you’re right—you don’t. It’s not important, ok. You’re not important. Get used to it!”

 I felt drawn to this monologue because it rings true. The reality is that actors and celebrities are no more important than any nameless person on the streets. So, I don’t really care for the struggles of Riggan in the movie. His self-loathing does not elicit sympathy, not when there are real people with real struggles in the world. So, you’re an actor who’s discovering you’re human…Get used to it. You really aren’t important in the grand scheme of things. Your inner-conflict does not deserve any more sympathy or applause than anyone else’s.

And yet, the whole point of the Academy seems to be to deny this truth. In the end, all the Academy really seems to be is a group that gathers together to celebrate themselves, tout their own accomplishments, flaunt their wealth, and give each other fancy awards for doing something just about anyone in America can do—fake it. So whether a film celebrates actors (like Argo did), or critiques the excesses of fame (like Birdman), any such film acts like a mirror. And in the egocentric world of the Academy, the award, of course, is going to go to the reflection in the mirror.

This is not to say that Birdman was without artistic merit. The seamless, one-shot style in which the movie was filmed was unique. There were also some very touching and thought-provoking scenes. However, to say that it was the “Best Picture” seems an over-statement.

Perhaps the excessive amount of language in the film contributes to my cynicism. I don’t know about you, but there seems something disingenuous about throwing around the f-bomb and s-word over 150 times in a movie and calling that “acting.” It really just sounds like angry, nonsensical babbling to me (imagine if we substituted every version of “fuck” in the movie with a version of “poop”—poop, poopin, poop you, etc.) Far from offering an intense exploration of the human experience, that excessive amount of profanity just seems like you really have nothing to say.

Which is about where I ended up with Birdman. It tackles a number of themes—fame/celebrity, love/admiration, blockbuster/art, age/relevance—but in the end I felt it really did not have much to say to me. I have little sympathy for a character who complains about problems that seem so out of touch with the real world. In the end, it just really made me feel sorry for actors and those in Hollywood who have all the glitz and glitter but are so often lacking substance and meaning. These are things fame cannot buy. But, me feeling sorry for actors does not equate an award for Best Picture.

And so, the Academy’s decision to award Birdman that accolade just feeds into the cynical narrative that Hollywood is out of touch and self-absorbed—“Yes we do matter, because we say so.” Well, that’s great. Now the rest of us will continue along our ordinary lives until the next time we are beckoned to the worship service for Oscar.