Christian or Realist?

Share

Those of us who are Christians frequently make the claim that we desire to "follow Jesus." We want to "be like Christ." Indeed, the very name "Christian" means "little Christ," which carries the same implications. But often, I wonder if this is really what we want to do.

The tension between "following Jesus" and our actual actions often becomes painfully obvious during election years when political conversations are at the forefront of our minds. You frequently hear Christians defend their political stance by referring to how it is a "Christian," "conservative," "godly," or "moral" position, but rarely will you hear anyone make a defense by arguing "Jesus would do this."

Perhaps it's because we're often afraid of what Jesus would do were he physically walking around today in America. When I was in elementary school, WWJD bracelets became a major fad. WWJD, of course, stood for "What would Jesus do?" However, think about if we were to apply that basic question to our political debates:

"Would Jesus own a gun? Would Jesus use a gun against a home invader?"

"Would Jesus say the pledge of allegiance?"

"Would Jesus fight in a war?"

"Would Jesus execute a terrorist or murderer?"

"Would Jesus support tax breaks for the rich or for the poor? Would Jesus pay taxes at all?"

To be sure, some of these questions are immensely complicated and may not have a clear answer, but many of these questions would see the vast majority of Americans and Christians arrive at the same answer.

The fact that we don't ask these types of questions more frequently perhaps betrays that we fear many of the answers. We know they won't line up with our decisions and actions.

Now at this point, there are two common responses. People will either say, "These are modern questions that Jesus did not address, so we can't make an appeal to Jesus" or they'll say, "Yes, it may not be Christ-like, but it's necessary."

The first form of push-back ("It's a modern issue") seems to be disingenuous. We hear from pastors over and over again that the Bible is relevant and that the Gospel can be applied to the whole of life. Why not to our politics? There are countless issues not found directly in the Bible, and yet we make faith judgments about them. The modern concept of abortion is not directly addressed in the Bible, and yet it's easy to bring the Bible to bear on that issue. The modern idea of romantic same-sex attraction as an orientation is a far cry from the types of "homosexuality" referred to in the Bible, and yet most Christians have an opinion on the matter informed by the Bible. Why should we not turn to the teachings of Jesus, such as the Sermon on the Mount, to inform other modern debates, such as on guns, war, nationalism, death penalty, health insurance, sexual violence, poverty, economics, etc.?

However, I find the second argument the more common: "It's not realistic to live out these standards in a fallen, evil world." If someone brings up Jesus' words about "turning the other cheek" or "loving your enemies," the response is almost always, "Well that's great for Jesus, but let's be realistic..."

Reinhold Niebuhr, the father of "Christian Realism," a
position that states Jesus' ethics cannot be fully realized on
earth because of the sinful tendencies of society

When faced with the tension of Jesus' words and actions compared to our reality, we always rush to use these types of phrases. "That's not realistic..." "These [sub-Christian] actions are necessary..." "We have to be reasonable..." "That just won't work because..." The argument always seems to be that the ethics of Jesus won't work in the "real world."

But the problem I have with this is the incarnation. We cannot relegate Jesus to being some far-off, spiritual deity. He was a real human who lived in a real place at an actual point in history. He faced his own very real political realities and was ultimately executed for a political crime--treason. If Jesus lived out His ethics in the real world, why do we rush to believe that we (His followers) cannot?

The question I'll leave you with is simply this--How many times are we able to do what is "realistic" or "necessary" before we fail to live like Christ? At what point does our compromise on the ethics of God's Kingdom and the Gospel lead us to cease following Jesus? At what point do we forsake the name of "Christian"?

The reality is you are either following Jesus and seeking to imitate His life, or you are not. "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the Kingdom of God." Yes, following Jesus' example may seem foolish, stupid, or suicidal at times, but isn't that the way the Gospel works?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God.”

1 Cor. 1:25-30

Our Future in a Face

Share

Last week my wife and I watched The Lady in the Van, a recounting of the true story of the relationship between Alan Bennett and the ornery homeless woman Miss Shepherd, played by Maggie Smith, Miss Shepherd brings her old van to a Camden neighborhood and sets up residence on the curbside. Eventually, one of the residents, Alan Bennett, invites her to park in his driveway, which is where she stays for 15 years.

One scene that stood out in my mind is when two young men come up to Miss Shepherd's van--to her home--and begin to rock the vehicle while taunting her. Eventually Mr. Bennett chases them off and shames them for picking on the old lady. This particular scene stands out to me because these young men harass Miss Shepherd simply because she is old and eccentric. However, as the movie progresses, we learn more about Miss Shepherd's past, and even see scenes from her own life as a young woman.

In that scene, I could not escape the thought that what these young men were taunting was their own lives. They attack her because she is old, but she was once young and beautiful as well. They mock her eccentricities, but these were caused from the traumas of living her life, traumas that could easily await them too in their own futures.

Our culture does a poor job of valuing the elderly. We are a society consumed with values like productivity and health. We stress the importance of citizens "contributing to society" and hold people in low esteem when they don't contribute. But this causes a problem for the elderly. As we grow old, we are not as productive as we used to be as our memories strain and our joints move slower. Many of our seniors feel they cannot "contribute to society" because they are home-bound. When our society places heavy emphasis on productivity, health, and work, what do we implicitly say about the value of those who grow old and frail?

The effects of this devaluing of elderly life are disastrous. It becomes easier to neglect, abuse, and exploit aging parents or neighbors. We sentence the old to nursing homes and then never see or talk to them. We rush about our busy lives and ignore a grandmother or grandfather despairing at home in their loneliness. Although seniors only make up 12% of the overall population, 16% of all suicides come from this age bracket, most of these related to depression.

However, the Bible offers a different vision of growing old. Rather than viewing the elderly as a drain on society, the Bible sees age as a gift to society. Proverbs 16:31 states that "Gray hair is a crown of splendor; it is attained in the way of righteousness." Leviticus 19:32 says, "Stand in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God."

While our culture ties value and the need for care and respect to a person's utility, the Bible ties value and worth to the person of God. The elderly deserve our respect and care because they have lived the longest in the presence of God. As such, they have wisdom to impact on those of us who are younger.

But I also see another reason to value and cherish our seniors. They are living reminders of our own future. In their frailty and weakness, they remind us of the inevitable frailty and weakness of human life itself. American culture does a poor job of thinking about death and the finitude of life. We distract ourselves with a million tasks and with endless entertainment, but this does not change the truth. One day, we will grow old. One day, we will lose our memories and faculties. One day, we will struggle to walk across the room. And one day, we will die.

One of the blessings of spending time with and caring for the elderly is that their presence anchors us in these harsh realities. When I look into the wrinkled face of a grandparent struggling with dementia, I am looking into a mirror. Someday soon it will be me with wrinkles and gray hair (or likely no hair).

As we are embroiled in another bitter election cycle, one of the words that will get thrown around is the term "pro-life." For some time now I've tried disconnecting that term from the abortion debate because I find equating being "anti-abortion" and being "pro-life" to be reductionistic. I want to hold to a consistent life ethic, which means valuing ALL life in ALL its stages, from womb to tomb. As such, an extension of my pro-life ethic means caring for the frail and weak among us, including our seniors.

So in the hectic pace of your life, take some time caring for an elderly individual in your life. Maybe it is simply a phone call to a parent or grandparent. Maybe it's making a visit to a local nursing home. Perhaps you'll stop and talk with an aging neighbor for 10 minutes before immediately hiding in your own house after work.

Whatever form it takes, you may find that these encounters are actually healing for your busy soul too because, as you look into that aged face, you are staring into the eyes of your own future. And this future reminds us that life is fleeting, that so much that we are actively pursuing really does not matter. However, we will only step into this truth if we have the eyes and courage to see the least of these among us.

What if Kaepernick had been Tebow?

Share

I confess, I am tired. I'm tired of the ongoing racial arguments that continue to spin in circles. I'm not saying these conversations don't need to happen--they do. But I'm tired of the ignorant, knee-jerk yelling that often takes place. I'm tired of people plugging their ears and refusing to listen to other opinions. I'm tired of the countless memes and diatribes white folk put out there that surely make my black friends and peers shake their heads.

I've avoided jumping into discussions about race in the past few months for this very reason, and perhaps I should apologize to my black friends, former students, and co-workers for not speaking out. But this time there are just too many notable points for me to ignore.

On Friday night, 49ers quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, protested the continuing "oppression" of African Americans in the U.S. by refusing to stand for the National Anthem. While quite a few praised his actions, countless other heaped ridicule upon him. Social media lit up with angry and critical memes such as these:

There's also no shortage of videos and articles mocking and attacking Kaepernick's protest. These arguments mainly attack his person and character: Kaepernick is "spoiled," is rich, is "half-black" and therefore is disqualified from speaking about oppression. He's a second-rate quarterback. Sitting down is not "doing anything" meaningful. He's never served in the military.

Even worse, I've seen many arguments that he is protesting an "imaginary" oppression. One video even flat out states that "there is no oppression." Such arguments inevitably go on to discuss how the NFL is 70% black, how we have a black president and congressmen, and how more white people are killed by police than blacks. If you can prove that equality exists, then you also discredit Kaepernick.

At the end of the day, Kaepernick committed 2 "sins." First, he challenged the claims of American nationalism. Second, he challenged white privilege. Combine these two sins, and the inevitable outcome was for adversity to come his way.

However, for me, I can't help but wonder which of these two is really driving people's angst. Is it his seeming "disrespect" for the American flag and anthem, or his claims about oppression of people of color? This led to a thought experiment.

What if it had been Tim Tebow who had protested the flag? What if Tebow had tuned into some stray Anabaptist vibe Friday night and decided to sit during the national anthem? What if after the game he linked his actions to abortion? Imagine if Tebow did this and said something like: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that kills the unborn and calls this acceptable." I wonder what the reaction would have been, particularly from white Christians.

This is a tough questions to answer, but I have a good feeling that white Christians would have responded quite differently. I suspect one of two things would have happened. If this scenario had taken place, I suspect white Christians would have only criticized Tebow for dishonoring the flag or not criticized him at all. I highly doubt many Christians would have taken issue with Tebow's critique of abortion.

But here lies the problem if that scernario actually took place--it reveals a deep hypocrisy and moral shortsightedness among white Christians. If we go with the first outcome (attacking Tebow's lack of patriotism), then we should pay attention to our Anabaptist brothers and sisters who point out that such unwavering belief and allegiance to any nation is dangerously close to idolatry. However, if the second outcome had happened (Christians take no issue at all with Tebow but support him), that reveals our problem is not really with patriotism, but with our refusal to acknowledge racism.

However, this scenario is even more damning for us white Christians when we think about it because BOTH likely outcomes reveal a lack of concern about racism. The truth is we would support Tebow's critique of abortion even if we disagreed with his means. You would NEVER see statements from conservatives or white Christians trying to discredit Tebow for attacking abortion, even if he did so in defiance of nationalism.

You would never see memes declaring that "abortion is not a problem," or "Tebow is not a real American hero," or "Tebow is rich and spoiled [and therefore knows nothing about the realities of abortion.]" You might see some left-wing memes assert things like this, but certainly not from conservatives or most white Christians.

This thought experiment reveals that the vitriol directed against Kaepernick is not just due to a passionate patriotism, it's also due to a lack of concern about racism among whites. And that's a problem..

It's a problem because RACISM DOES EXIST. Sure, it may not exist is the same overt, violent forms as 50, 100, or 200 years ago, but it sure as hell exists today (and I'm no universalist when it comes to hell).

Yes, we have a black President, but how many white Presidents were there before him? How many racist attacks have been slung at him in 8 years? And remind me how getting a black President magically made all racism in this country disappear.

Yes, there are many African-Americans in the NFL and in Congress, but in how many countless other professions are they underrepresented and underpaid ? How many times has a black man been passed over for a job because of an unconscious bias and fear of black men in the minds of many whites?

Yes more white people are killed by cops, but there are also a heck of a lot more white people in this country than black people. When you look at the same stats proportionally, black men are more likely to be killed than whites, and that's a fact.

Yet, one of the big problems I see in all of these conversations is that, in the absence of "legal" racism, we have created our own form of segregation as whites remove themselves from all areas of black life. We moved out of the cities, we refuse to integrate our churches, and we formed nice subdivisions away from poverty and diversity. But this has the nasty effect of blinding us. How many white individuals complaining about Kaepernick have more than 2 or 3 close black friends (or have any at all)? How many of them go to church at a place that has more than 1 or 2 black families (if any at all)? How many of them have shut their mouths for a minute to ask a black friend their honest thoughts and opinions about #BlackLivesMatter or Kaepernick or anything along those lines? I suspect not many.


For me, I tend to operate with the default assumption that, as a white male, I have NO RIGHT to criticize a person of color when they point out oppression or racism. I recognize that I have benefited from centuries of white privilege and from a history that has silenced voices of color. As such, I recognize that it's time white males like me just shut up and listen, even if it's uncomfortable. We've done enough talking over the years, it's time for other voices.

I've been blessed to live for the past 6 years in a city that is 45% African-American, and to have worked with numerous black teens, seminary students, and co-workers, and to have several black friends. And here's what I've seen and heard as I've listened.

I've seen firsthand black teens have racial slurs hurled at them. My wife was once told by a white church member that the church needed "more white kids." I've seen how racism continues to devastate an entire city through white flight. I've witnessed a school garner a bad reputation for little more than the fact that less than 5% of that school is white.

I've talked with fellow seminarians who've experienced discrimination from others, including from law enforcement. One fellow student once related how he was stopped by white officers in a parking lot while he was waiting in his car for a bookstore to open so he could buy a textbook. No good reason was given by the officers for this inconvenience. Sadly, ask about any black male and they can easily relate multiple such stories.

I've also listened as many whites equate being black with being poor (which itself is a racist oversimplification of reality), but then never think to ask about what systemic problems may exist that keep so many people of color financially depressed.

Both my wife and I have occasionally been the target of what some might call "reverse racism"--the tendency of some persons of color to be hateful towards white people simply because they are white. Although it's certainly uncomfortable for me, I don't get upset and I certainly don't use those incidents to justify by own racist tendencies. Instead, I wonder how much hate and racism that person has experienced in their life to conclude that all white people are bad. But then again, as I reflect on history, I could very easily come to the same conclusion if I were in their shoes.

So, don't tell me that racism doesn't exist today. Don't tell me that there's no oppression. I've seen too much of it, and I'm not even someone who has to live through it.

As we think about and respond to Kaepernick, I hope my fellow white people, especially those who claim to follow Christ, will shut up for a few minutes and humbly listen to a different perspective. And as Kaepernick looks to continue his protest, let's think seriously about what we are truly upset about. Are we really upset simply because he refuses to stand during the national anthem, or would we be less upset if he linked it with a cause we cared about?

If we conclude that we'd be less upset if he'd pick a different cause, then we must also conclude that he is "sitting" against us, because we've become the oppressors.

.......................................................................
"But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it." 1 Cor. 12:24-26

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!