Roe v. Wade gone. Why I hesitate to cheer.

Share

The greatest evil. A stain on our nation. A reason for the decline of America. When I was growing up, this was how abortion were described to me. When it came to politics, I unblinkingly supported Republican "pro-life" candidates and could not fathom how anyone who called themselves a Christian could possibly vote for any Democrat who supported abortion rights. But more than anything, I and those around me longed for the day when Roe v. Wade would be overturned. It always seemed like a pipe dream, but it was a cause worth fighting for. If only this heinous court case could be thrown out, abortion could be illegal again and millions of babies could be saved.

And so, today, as the dream has become reality with the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, my younger self would be rejoicing.

But, I am not so young anymore.

Yes, I am still pro-life, but lived experience and complexity of our world means I have mixed feelings about this day, and even a bit of anxiety.

For starters, let's keep in mind what this legal decision does not do--make abortion disappear. Abortions happened before Roe and they will continue after today. You can't legislate your way out of a challenge like abortion. In fact, the actual impact of the Court's decision today may be fairly minimal. Contrary to the belief of some who celebrate today, the overturning of Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal in the United States. Instead, it pushes the decision on abortion back to the states. So, while conservative states will outlaw abortion, moderate and progressive states will largely keep abortion rights intact and may even choose to expand those rights. The fact is, many conservative states have already enacted strict abortion laws and have seen numbers plummet over the past decade as those laws have limited who can get an abortion and have shut down countless abortion clinics. Rather than ending abortion in places where they are happening unchecked, this legal decision only ends abortion in the places where they were already becoming rare.

If this legal decision miraculously made abortion nonexistent in the U.S. then it would be easier for me to rejoice. But, that will not be the reality. Yes, even a small decrease in abortion numbers would be good, but we also have to ask about the cost.

Second, it's hard for me to rejoice because of how we got here. It's no secret that evangelical Christianity has been a primary driver in the fight against abortion for the past three decades. And, I think this is rightfully so as the Christian faith clearly declares that all humans are made in the image of God and science has increasingly shown there is little division between a "fetus" and a human being. It's hard for anyone who has seen a 3D ultrasound and listened to the heartbeat of a child a mere few weeks old to deny that it is a human life.

However, in our efforts to reduce abortions, white evangelical Christians have sold their souls to political devils without concern for the consequences when it comes to pursuing anti-abortion legislation. The rise of Donald Trump and Trumpian politics in Christian circles is a perfect example of this. Despite the countless moral and character failings of politicians like Trump, many Christians were content to jump on board for the sake of a legal blow against abortion. As one friend of mine who voted for Trump put it, "It's all about the Supreme Court."

Even beyond Trump, Christians backed Republicans as they made increasingly questionable moves to secure a "judicially activist" court of their own making. From stonewalling a qualified court nominee for months on end during Obama's final term, to sticking with a nominee with concerning sexual assault allegations against him, to rushing through their own nominee in the final hours before an election and contradicting their own previous arguments, Republicans seemed willing to do whatever it cost to secure a court majority willing to pursue their own agenda.

Of course, these behaviors are not unique to Republicans (one could look at Democratic efforts to pack the court with more justices), but the underlying point is the rule of modern politics is that the ends justify the means. It doesn't matter what you say, who you back, or how dirty and bloody your hands get, as long as the end results turns out in your favor. With Trump, we were willing to excuse vulgar language, fear-mongering, sexual immorality, lack of self-control, questionable policy, xenophobia, racist language, and more, all for the sake of ending abortion. While there's little hope for that attitude to change in politics, Christians ought to follow a higher standard. For Christians, we leave the ends in God's hands and ensure that the means are Christ-like, humble, and point to the Kingdom of God (read the Sermon on the Mount if you need a reminder of this).

As I've said before, the strange alliance between white evangelical Christians and Trumpian politics has eroded trust in Christians and the witness of the Church almost more than anything else in recent history. I have friends whose children are questioning their faith because of the behaviors they see from "Christians" in the political arena. So, on a day like today, it's hard to get excited about the babies that might be saved when there certainly are a whole lot of bodies in our wake that we made on the way to get here. To cheer today after so much ugliness and un-Christlike behavior is like rewarding bas behavior. It's like telling a child "good job" for helping clear the table when he pushed all his siblings down and yelled at them to do so.

We can also turn this concern to the future. Now that Roe has been overturned, what is the next target our political lords will point us Christians at? The only thing that's certain is that there will be another target. Much of this fight was not just about abortion, but also about power. Republicans can count on evangelicals to vote for them as long as the support the fight to end abortion. Now that the dream of overturning Roe has been realized, they will need something else to energize us. After all, we're already hearing about how the Left will be motivated to vote during the midterms because of this massive defeat. Republicans will need a counter issue. Will the topic be same-sex marriage? Critical Race Theory and civil rights? Immigration? Whatever it will be, there will always be some political interest to pull our strings and corrupt our Christian witness with "necessary" ethical and moral sacrifices for "the cause."

The problem with not caring about the means on the way to our goals is that there are always unintended consequences. What will those unintended consequences be here? 

One potential consequence is the legal ramifications of this decision in other areas. In making its decision on Roe, the Court's majority pointed to the lack of a "Constitutional" protection for abortion. Without getting into a deep philosophical legal discussion about the best interpretations of the Constitution, it should be noted that an "originalist" reading of the Constitution has its limitations because there are many things generally accepted today that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Just because something is or isn't in the Constitution doesn't make it morally acceptable (after all, the Constitution in its most "original" form allowed slavery).

For example, interracial marriage is not directly addressed in the Constitution. Neither is access to birth control by married couples. Yet, the freedom to choose both of these things has been enacted and protected by the court in the past. Does the decision concerning Roe v. Wade today open up the door to reverse countless decisions like this because they are not "constitutional"? Could a whole host of decisions be turned back to the states? If so, this could easily open up the door to many discriminatory practices returning in society. And in case you think this is far-fetched, consider that Justice Clarence Thomas has already hinted that these types of decisions could be on the table in the future in the aftermath of today's decision. Could our enthusiasm to end abortion open up other pitfalls for us and our neighbors?

This leads to a third concern over today--will Christians step up? Growing up, abortion was often presented as a sick practice sought by women and parents who didn't want their babies. Or, in cases where parents wanted to keep their babies, it was doctors who malevolently suggested abortion in difficult circumstances of malformations and disease. Feminists were also to blame because they placed working life above family life.

However, as I've grown older and listened to countless stories (and even faced an unplanned pregnancy myself), I've come to realize that the situation is more complex. Yes, there are women who simply don't want their babies for selfish reasons, but there's usually much more to it than that. Many women who seek abortions already have children, but might be in situations where they really would struggle to care for another child. Indeed, studies have shown that existing children whose mother is denied an abortion for a new child are more likely to experience developmental delays and poverty. Other women have been raped and either are not ready to have a child, fear the child will remind them of the rape, or live in a state that will give the rapist parental rights and continued access to the victim. 

Then, many others face the impossible choice of wanting a baby, but the baby develops a health condition which makes viability of the child nearly impossible. In these situations, we must remember that, despite our amazing advances in medicine, childbirth is still a risky process for the mother. Indeed, one friend of ours nearly died during the birth of her first child with an otherwise healthy pregnancy. In situations where giving birth becomes even riskier for the mother, how do you easily choose between your life and the life of a baby who will likely die even if everything else goes well? It's a difficult decision, and every couple and woman is different in how they will handle it. Some will accept the risk to their own life and pray their child also lives or will do so to hold their child for its few minutes of life. Others will look at the probabilities and not want to chance it. These are incredibly painful and difficult personal choices that are hard to legislate or create one-size-fits-all solutions for.

With all this complexity, though, one theme is consistent: tragedy. The hidden truth few want to acknowledge (because it doesn't fit our political mantras) is that no one really wants abortions to have to happen. An abortion always signals a tragedy or disappointment of some kind. No one is intentionally getting pregnant just so they can get an abortion (which is why comparing abortion to "murder" is problematic). Even someone pursuing abortion for selfish reasons to preserve their career is not particularly happy about having to actually get an abortion. An abortion represents a miscarriage, health problems, poverty, teen pregnancy, rape, career and family plans upended. There's always pain and disappointment in the background. Even for those who have no problem with an abortion and will get one without a second thought, the actual abortion is still likely an inconvenience they'd rather not have.

So, I return to my question--will Christians step up? We claim to be "pro-life," but will we step up and support the women and families of those we are now forbidding from getting an abortion? Now that Roe is overturned, will churches begin emphasizing adoption and foster care as a pressing concern for its members in the same way it emphasized voting against abortion? Will we be there to take the child as an alternative to abortion when a women cannot care for that child?

Will we aggressively seek to alleviate poverty and racial discrimination that create situations of disparity in society? If these forces drive people to seek abortions, let us walk alongside people to give them options besides abortion.

Will the church stand firmly against rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, or will we continue to ignore these very issues among our own clergy and congregations, permitting the very culture that is one cause of abortion?

Will we advocate for better and more accessible medical care for everyone so that those facing impossible choices also have the best doctors and treatments at their disposal? Or will we be content with millions of uninsured women and turn a blind eye to their plight?

And perhaps toughest of all, are we ready to stand with families who have lost a mother to a pregnancy gone wrong that an abortion could have prevented? Are we ready to explain to the surviving children that their mother's life is a small sacrifice for saving thousands of other children like them?

While I'd love to believe that the church will step up in the coming years and truly be "pro-life" for the lives of those who will be affected by today's decision, truth be told, I'm not holding my breath. Certainly, there are many Christians who volunteer or work at crisis-pregnancy centers, foster and adopt, or offer individual support to neighbors who are contemplating abortion. But I've also seen too often over the past years how the church has ignored offering these types of support and has marched on single-mindedly against legal abortion and LGBTQ rights. Rather than stepping up to actually make abortion unthinkable, I fear many Christians will be content with the legal win and will move on to the next legal battle (like overturning Obergefell v. Hodges).

All this may sound like I am pro-Roe or pro-abortion, but that is not necessarily true. Incidentally, today is my middle daughter's birthday. On a day we celebrate her birth, I do recognize that today's decision will result in some lives being saved and born. Some children will have the chance to live just like my daughter. That is a good thing.

However, the question remains--what kind of life will they live? Will it do any good to bring them into this world if they live a miserable life? Will it do any good for the church if our actions continue to alienate that child whose life we "saved"? Just as importantly, what harm are we doing to women when all we care about is a legal restriction and ignore complexities? I would love to see abortion rates drop. I don't think a child should be killed simply because their father is a rapist. I believe that a poor woman can have options besides abortion. However, I also know that withholding abortion in these situations without also giving support to the women affected or ignoring their concerns and wishes is to be complicit in their suffering.

At the end of the day, I'm hopeful that some good may come of this, but also fearful that unintended damage will also follow. My emotions are complex, much like the issue of abortion itself. But, at the end of the day, I will simply commit myself to the same task I had before today--loving my neighbor as myself. I will open up my home to foster children. I will work to fight poverty in my community. I will pray for those who are pregnant. I will speak out against laws that create unnecessary hardships for those in my community. I do these things because, at the end of the day, it's not good enough to be anti-abortion, I must be pro-life. I do these things because I am not called to merely care about the ends, but to ensure my means speak witness to the risen Christ and not merely a lust for political power.

Why Trump?

Share

I think I echo the sentiments of most Americans in saying I'm ready for this election to be over. But, we still have a few more weeks to go. So, I figured I'd address one aspect of my approach to this election cycle.

Typically, I try to avoid writing or posting things that overtly favor one party or the other. I personally consider myself a moderate and am registered as an Independent. Even when I have strong opinions about particular candidates, I usually try to avoid disclosing those opinions openly. This is especially true when bringing issues of faith into politics. I understand that many Christians have different opinions and that good people come down on both sides of the spectrum. As such, voicing my support or displeasure with specific candidates is usually not productive.

For instance, during the past 2 election cycles, I might have privately told someone who I favored if they happened to ask, but I did not go about promoting or attacking particular candidates on Facebook or my blog. I didn't have pro-Romney or pro-Obama posts in 2012 despite having a preference. I've never even gotten a yard sign or bumper sticker for a campaign because I don't feel people really need to know who I'm voting for.

However, anyone who has followed my posts over the past year know that I've gone against this personal rule in strongly advocating against Trump. Several have asked me why I have spoken so harshly against Trump. Well, I really have 2 main reasons for this.

1. Trump is a unique candidate, and one that poses a risk to our democratic system

Inevitably, some readers will say that it's not fair to attack Trump and give Hillary a free pass when "she's just as bad." A few thoughts here. First, the reason I focus almost exclusively on Trump relates to my audience. I grew up in a red state, went to college in a red state, and currently live in a red state. Most of my Facebook friends would identify as conservative Christians. As such, many of my friends and contacts are contemplating voting for Trump rather than Hillary. In fact, 65-70% of evangelicals still plan on voting for Trump.

It's not that I don't think Hillary has her problems (we could certainly talk about her lack of transparency, her overly pragmatic approach to politics, her desire for repealing the Hyde Amendment, etc.), but doing so would not accomplish much as many of the same Christians defending Trump go out of their way to slam Hillary. (I also find it a bit curious when people critique me for only going after Trump yet those same people don't call out other Christians who only go after Hillary). Needless to say, there's no need to preach to the choir about Hillary's faults, but there is a need to get people to admit the depth of Trump's faults.

Second, I really am not convinced it's fair to compare Trump and Hillary. It's like comparing apples and oranges (no comment on who is the orange). Truthfully, I don't see Hillary as fundamentally different from most presidential candidates that have come before. Most prior candidates have been opportunists, have lied to get votes, and have been involved in scandals. One difference is that she has been in public office for longer than most, giving more time for political scandals to come up and more time for the negative narratives and rumors of her opponents to take root.

Furthermore, much of the "Hillary-hate" and fear-mongering being floated out there consists of the exact same charges pronounced 8 years ago about Obama ("He's going to trash the economy," "He's going to take away all our guns," "Abortions will skyrocket," "He's going to declare open season on Christians," etc.). Yet, most of these fears never came to fruition. Some were simply false (the economy has recovered steadily, people own more guns than ever before, and abortions are at their lowest levels since Roe v. Wade). Many attacks also never came true because a President is not responsible for everything that happens in our country and is not all-powerful (for instance, they still have to work within the law and work with Congress). Needless to say, when I hear many of these same charges 8 years later I don't take them too seriously.

In short, I do think Clinton is a seriously flawed candidate, but I don't see her as "evil" or an existential threat to America or as something substantially different from countless candidates and Presidents before her.

However, I do view Trump as something different, and I don't simply mean that he's an outsider to politics (we've had those candidates before). I mean that the way he talks and behaves, the people he energizes, and the ideas he floats out there are dangerous. It's his boasting about sexual assault (and his supporters who incidentally support rape culture by defending him). It's the support he gets from groups like the KKK. It's the chilling ways in which he denounces free press and gets followers at his rallies to follow suit (I recently heard a Trump rally on the radio chanting "CNN sucks" and could not escape how eerily these chants resembled the chants of mobs following dictators throughout history.) It's how he feeds the masses' appetite for circumventing due process and promises to jail his political opponents like a third-world dictator if he wins. It's how he regularly spits upon democratic values and human rights. It's how he has claimed the military will obey his orders even when asked to do something illegal. It's how he talks about undermining a peaceful transition of power post-election and claims the election is rigged (but only when he is losing). And finally, it's how he normalizes lying and routinely creates his own reality when the facts are against him while a societal culture that also ignores facts and votes on pure emotion and rage.

These things truly do set him off in a league of his own, and it's a scary league. I've never felt a need to publicly denounce the political candidate I'm voting against, but Trump's gross immorality on multiple fronts, his lack of concern for Christian values, his ridiculous policy ideas, coupled with his disdain for democratic values and authoritarian tendencies simply cross the threshold where I feel a moral obligation to take a stand against him. Again, that's not to say other candidates are perfect or praiseworthy, but I see Trump as unique. I have still refrained from endorsing any other candidate or from publicly indicating who I am voting for (or if I'll vote at all), but I feel I must be public about my disapproval of this one campaign.

BUT...

2. My main concern is really with what Christian support for Trump says about the American Church

This is really my main reason for speaking out publicly. If it was just that Trump had gotten the Republican nomination, I may have had a few posts about him, but I might still largely stick to my public neutrality about political candidates. However, what has really concerned me about this candidate is the high number of Christians who have so willingly thrown their support behind him.

Before I go further on this point, it should be noted that I do make a distinction between core Trump supporters and those Christians who presently feel forced to vote for him (despite disliking him) simply because they are convinced "Hillary is worse" or because the fear of a liberal Supreme Court. I realize many Christians feel they have no other option. But, what really shocked me was how many Christians started supporting him back when there were other choices.

For instance, I posted this on Facebook over a year ago when the Republican primaries were still in their early stages:

https://www.facebook.com/micah.titterington/posts/803752807546

I felt free at that stage to comment on Trump because I thought for sure Republicans (and Christians) would reject such an immoral and outlandish choice. For me, it was more of a comment on a phenomenon than a comment on an actual, serious political candidate.

But I was wrong.

Now here we are, and to those Christians who were early Trump-supporters we have now added many more Christians who are reluctant supporters. Again, about 70% of white evangelicals still plan to vote for Trump (although it's interesting to note the number of pastors voting for Trump is significantly lower).

My concern with the vast Christian (and specifically white evangelical) support for Trump is three-fold.

First, it seems this support for Trump stems from several idols American Christians have served.

One such idol is political power. By confusing the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of America, many American Christians have become concerned that losing power or influence in Washington is an abomination. We fear it and so we fight violently against it. I suspect this idol is at the heart of arguments over the need to get conservative Supreme Court justices. But since when has God needed a conservative Court or President to do His will in the world? For that matter, since when was God a conservative (or a liberal)? While we may prefer a certain ideology in the White House or in the Courts, the truth is God is bigger than any human ideology or philosophy. At some point we need to ask how much compromise on our Christian values is too much just for the sake of gaining worldly power and influence. Ironically, we when worship political power, it's then that the powers take advantage of us and offer us nothing meaningful in return.

Another idol we seem to have served is the marriage of the Republican party and platform with evangelical Christianity. For several decades now, religious conservatives and evangelicals have aligned themselves with the Republican party in an alliance known as "the Religious Right." This alliance has primarily centered on the key issues of abortion and sexual ethics, namely opposing same-sex marriage.

However, this alliance became too close-knit and resulted in evangelicals confusing "conservative values" with "biblical values." Suddenly, you have Christians advocating for politically conservative ideas and baptizing them as biblical. But when you step back, many of these conservative values really have no better biblical backing than their liberal counterparts.

Flash forward to today, and this marriage between the Republican party and white evangelicals is so strong that many evangelicals practically consider it heresy to even contemplate voting for a Democrat or liberal. To call another Christian a "liberal" is intended as an insult and to question their faithfulness. (I should note here that the same can also apply to progressive Christians attacking conservatives, although evangelicals have traditionally wedded themselves to Republicans). But as alluded to above, God is not a Republican or a Democrat. Both parties hold bits of the truth. Both conservatives and liberals have policies that resonate with what Jesus taught, and both have policies Christians should denounce. Christians should never be considered a "reliable voting block" for either party.

Yet since this marriage exists, many Christians, particularly middle-aged and older ones (as many Millennials evangelicals are eschewing this mentality), feel compelled to vote for Trump. They've been conditioned to believe that liberal values are anathema or a betrayal of their faith in a way that conservative values are not. They've been trained by years of voting Republican that to vote Democrat is to vote against their faith and that only a Republican ticket is able to carry a Christian platform. Likewise, the two-party system of American politics have persuaded them that to vote 3rd party or to abstain is to "waste a vote," or worse, to vote for the enemy. But when we buy into this idol of Republican ideologies, we allow American politics to co-opt and corrupt our faith.

One final idol I see is America itself, and perhaps even democracy itself. "Make America Great Again" has been the mantra of the Trump campaign, but one wonders at what expense? What are we willing to sacrifice to make America "great again"? Are we willing to treat other nationalities as second-class human beings (if that)? Are we willing to promote torture and war? The fact is that America is a great place to live, but she is not holy. She is not God's chosen nation or people. Even democracy itself, while certainly my preferred form of government, is not inerrant or divine. After all, I suspect we won't be voting on who should be King at the end of the age. We shouldn't idolize "making America great again" if it comes at the cost of making the Church sick again.

But thankfully, as one of my former professors, Myles Werntz, pointed out, our glorified image of America is being shattered by this election. We've witnessed how nasty people on both sides can be. We've seen how sometimes our electoral system fails us. We've watched as the masses nominated the two most unpopular candidates in modern history. And we've observed countless people, including many Christians, back the anti-democratic, authoritarian rhetoric of Trump. Even I have been shocked over the past year at how much we actually look like other troubled nations in the world. We might think we are above violence and giving into the voices of oppression, hatred, and authoritarianism, but we aren't.

However, as Werntz points out, this can actually be a good thing. For when our idols get smashed, we are more likely to turn to the real thing.

Second, I'm concerned about how support for Trump will create deeper divides within the Church.

Of course there are always divisions between Christians who disagree about policies and who to vote for. However, this is not my biggest concern. I hope that our friendships and faith are strong enough to overcome these partisan differences. I know a number of people that plan on voting for Trump next month, but I hope we are still able to speak after the election.

Rather, my concern relates to the diversity within the church and how Trump's campaign is decidedly anti-diversity. As Christians, our primary allegiance belongs to the Kingdom of God, which is a multi-national, multi-ethnic reality. As I've written about before, citizenship in God's Kingdom means I, as a Christian, may have more in common with an Iranian or Iraqi or Mexican than with my next-door neighbor. The blood of Christ is stronger than nationality.

Contrast that with Trump's nationalistic, exclusivist rhetoric. He has instilled fear of Mexicans and Arabs. He has insulted the black community. He has retweeted KKK leaders and been endorsed by KKK leaders. He promotes policies that treat non-Americans as less deserving of human rights and dignity. Furthermore, his speeches have incited the worst kind of violence and rhetoric from his most ardent followers.

Think about this in light of the broader Church. Although I mentioned earlier that many "Christians" are voting for Trump, it's really just white Christians who will be voting for Trump. When you ask Hispanic Christians or Black Protestants about Trump, most of them strongly oppose him. Let's widen that even further. How do you think our brothers and sisters in Mexico, or Syria, or China, or Iran feel about us voting for Trump? If the majority of world leaders (excluding tyrants like Putin) look down on and mock Trump, I doubt many foreign believers think highly of him.

The fact that Christian support for Trump is mostly a white phenomenon should give us pause. It's most certainly not because all other races or nationalities are idiots who can't see the light (such a response would most certainly be racist). Perhaps we white Christians should pay a bit more heed to our brothers and sisters of color.

In other words, a second reason I vocally oppose Trump is because I fear Christian support of his candidacy will imply that the Church is racist, or that only white Christians matter. As Christians, is this really the message that we want to send?

Third, I have concerns with support for Trump because of how it will (and is) impacting the Church's reputation

Several years ago, David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons published a book entitled UnChristian. In it they detailed how non-Christians in America predominantly described Christians in un-Christlike terms. Among the primary adjectives used were "judgmental," "antihomosexual," "hypocritical," and "too political." The Church already had an image problem long before this election.

Now certainly, we should not expect the world to always give us favorable reviews. Indeed, if the world is never critical we probably have a different problem. Jesus did tell us to expect persecution.

But at the same time, the early church was respected by outsiders for many things. Pagans didn't understand it and thought it was foolish, but they did admire Christian chastity. When plagues ravaged the Roman Empire and only Christians remained to help the sick, this drew admiration from non-believers, even if such actions were seen as suicidal and stupid. Or if we look at Jesus, his compassion and mercy drew large crowds. So while the Church will inevitably be misunderstood and opposed, the Church should be seen as attractive and praiseworthy by outsiders as well (1 Pet. 2:11-12).

One particular verse that has lodged in my brain this election cycle has been 1 Cor. 5:1. Here, Paul calls out the Corinthians for approving or ignoring an incestuous relationship in their midst. In response, Paul says this act is a double tragedy because it is an "immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles." It's one thing for Christians to sin, but it's especially egregious when that failing is recognized as evil by those who do not even know Christ.

This is what I see in our current election. Almost no one, Republican or Democrat, approves of the things Trump has said and done. Many of the things Trump has done or is alleged of doing (sexual assault, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, lying, defrauding workers, etc.) are things that even non-Christians almost universally condemn. And yet, we have many Christians willing to vote for this man, minimizing and ignoring these behaviors, and sometimes even arguing he is a "moral choice."

Here is my concern. When the Church weds itself to a political ideology and feel a duty to vote for that party's candidate, and when that candidate spews immorality from just about every pore of his being, how can the Church claim any moral authority? Look at some of the many hateful, disgusting, immoral things Trump has said that I've compiled; how can we vote FOR him? After all, we don't simply vote against a person, but are also voting for someone. The world looks at the church and laughs cynically:

"If you claim to be 'pro-life,' how can you support a candidate who never talks about abortion, is willing to kill the families of terrorists, approves of torture, and who will leave desperate refugees to rot and bleed to death?"

"If you claim to be for family values and against sexual sins, why do you endorse a sexually promiscuous candidate who has boasted of sexually assaulting women? You realize he once boasted about not taking care of his kids, right? The Church as pro-family values? Yeah right!"

"All your talk about morals, character, and righteousness is just a load of crap. All the church really cares about is political power."

"Did you see that another pastor endorsed and posed with Trump? Don't pastors usually preach on Sundays against everything Trump stands for?"

"Oh sure, you Christians say the Church is for everyone, but it definitely seems like the Church only cares about you if you're a white, middle class or wealthy American."

And on and on the inconsistencies come.

I've repeatedly asked pro-Trump Christians, "At what point does Trump become unacceptable? What moral failing makes him unelectable in your view?" Sadly, I have not heard a satisfactory answer here. If anyone answers, they usually just say: "If he were running against a different candidate," "If he changed his policy statements or Supreme Court promises," or "If he did what Hillary has done." But these are all lacking. They all point the finger elsewhere and ignore Trump's character. And for Christians, this should alarm us.

Again--and I can't stress this enough--I am NOT saying that rejecting Trump means voting for Hillary. I understand many Christians feel Hillary is also morally intolerable. However, there is no objective way to say that Trump is morally superior. Every single moral criticism of Clinton also sticks to Trump, and often with more force. If we must reject Clinton on moral grounds, then we better do the same with Trump, regardless of what he promises us. Anything less is hypocrisy. The faithful Christian response to facing two evils has always been to creatively and subversively choose a third option.

You can make an argument that engaging in politics will always involve some level of compromise (one reason why the Anabaptist tradition often eschews politics altogether), but at some point we must face the reality that too much compromise jeopardizes the identity and authority of the Church.

The current acquiescence of white evangelicals to American partisan politics is even more embarrassing given that Mormons (a tradition viewed as heretical in traditional Christian theology) seem poised to give an Independent candidate--Evan McMullin--the top vote in Utah. What's happening in Utah shows what politics can be when people of faith choose to stand up for their consciences against a system where they feel comfortable with neither side.

Sadly, it's a Christian heresy taking the moral high ground rather than evangelical Christians who are supposed to have a better concept of Jesus. Christians are called to a counter-cultural politic that challenges the politics of our society. We are to be committed first and foremost to faithfulness to God in all matters. If we feel neither major party represents our consciences and convictions, then the task is to create an alternative, not simply bow before the powers and hope for minimal damage.

But we have compromised and acquiesced. Polls have even come out showing that white evangelicals are MORE likely than non-religious voters to ignore and excuse immorality in political candidates. The facts are there. We are doing irreparable damage to the image and integrity of the Church. And this breaks my heart.

In summary, my concern is less a political one than a religious one. What happens after the election? If we sully our vote by marrying it to Trump and to a morally compromised Republican party (or Democratic party), what will that say about us as Christians and about the Church going forward? How will the world accept our preaching and teaching about morality and character if we sacrifice all that for the sake of political power and expediency? For me, I care a heck of a lot more for the Church than I do for my country because it's the Church, not the U.S.A, that's the bride of Christ.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it. There's my confession. I hate feeling the need to post about Trump in this election year--and part of this compulsion is probably a weakness on my part--but I truly do see great harm in this candidacy that I cannot attribute to any other candidacy (Republican or Democrat) in my life. And while I have concerns about how irrational Trump-support can be and how Trump poses a likely threat to our country, the PRIMARY concern I have with Christians voting for or supporting Trump is the long-term damage it is doing to the Church.

I don't have a particular stake in either political party and I don't care who a person votes for beyond Trump, but I do feel an obligation to defend the Church. This is what Paul, Peter, and other apostles did. They called the Church to repent of her deficiencies and to "come out" of the world. It's a shame when the Bride of Christ blemishes herself with other lovers. And that is why I have been speaking out.

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.

10 Thoughts on the Homosexuality Debate

I don't talk very frequently about this topic, particularly online, since raising the issue can quickly descend into emotional irrationality and unhelpful stereotypes (from both sides). However, the past year has seen an unprecedented acceleration of the conversation. I now hear or see news stories daily  regarding homosexuality. Numerous stories in recent months have especially forced the topic into the spotlight. From the first openly gay NFL player, to the current back and forth in Alabama's court system, to the mayor of Houston subpoenaing a pastor's sermons, and yes, ultimately to the upcoming Supreme Court decision on whether or not to legalize same-sex marriages. With this issue bubbling to the surface, I decided to pen a few of my thoughts here.

That being said, I am just listing a few highlights of where I currently stand. As with any online opinion, it can always be misconstrued and taken out of context. Each of the following points could easily be an entire (lengthy) blog post itself, so please be cautious before you rush to judgment of what is listed here. The best way to sort through such a complex issue is in the flesh, but nevertheless, here it goes:

1) Same-sex marriages will become legal in the U.S. 
 There, I said it. It is no longer a matter of "if" this will happen, but simply "when." Many people (myself included) suspect the Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriages later this year. For Christians, we need to come to terms with this and accept that this is where our culture is. Even if it does not happen this year, it will happen. Just in the past decade I have seen an incredible shift in opinion among the population regarding homosexuality. And this is not my mere opinion, you can check out the facts here as well. Rather than living in denial or nostalgia, Christians need to accept this reality and discover how to live faithfully within it.

2) We need to recognize that 2 marriages are at work in "marriage."
When bans against same-sex marriages are struck down, many will cry that the sky is falling. "Marriage has been redefined and has been polluted." However, we need to recognize that there are 2 aspects to any wedding/marriage. There is the civil/contractual aspect, and the covenant aspect. All a Supreme Court decision will do is redefine the LEGAL/CIVIL definition of marriage. Certainly this will be a symbol of the overall attitudes of our culture, but is does not mean that the covenant of marriage has automatically been redefined as well. I am not married because my wife and I signed a paper in front of an authorized witness, even though this is what the government calls "marriage." I am married because we pledged ourselves to each other in a covenant relationship before a community of Christian believers in the sight of God. I personally am not fond of calling same-sex unions "marriages," but knowing this distinction allows me to accept civil marriages for gays and lesbians while not fearing that my church's definition of covenant marriage has been altered. What is really at stake currently is whether the LGBT community may enjoy the benefits and responsibilities government grants to those who are "married" on paper. And I, for one, am not willing to go on a witch hunt to deny other sinners these civil entitlements because they drink too much, are prideful, or view pornography.

3) The Old Testament doesn't really help us sort through the current debate.
 When you ask Christians what Bible verses condemn homosexual behavior, they will typically point you to the story of Sodom and Gamorrah as well as to Leviticus. The Mosaic law identifies male on male sexual behavior as "an abomination," and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah seems to confirm this condemnation--entire cities destroyed after the men of the city wanted to have sex with Lot's male visitors. However, I don't use these passages anymore. In fact, if all we had were these Old Testament passages, I could easily accept homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation.
The problem is our modern concept of "sexual orientation" did not exist in the Old Testament world. Rather, the homoerotic behavior described in the Old Testament was of a different nature. Namely, men typically had sex with other men to shame them. In this sense, homosexual behavior in the Old Testament can be better thought of as sexual assault, rather than as a loving, committed relationship as many envision it today.
Sodom and Gomorrah are a perfect example of this. They wanted Lot's visitors not because of their lust, but because of their violence and lack of hospitality. They wanted to shame and defile these visitors, rather than show them kindness and welcome. If this seems an odd interpretation to you, simply read the rest of the references to Sodom or Gomorrah in the Old Testament. The sin of these cities is not identified as "homosexuality," but is named as violence and injustice. Simply check out Isaiah 1:9-17 where the the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that they have "blood on their hands." In contrast, the remedy is not chastity, but is to "learn to do right; seek justice, defend the oppressed, take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow."
Likewise, the verses about homosexuality in Old Testament law are surrounded by many other verses that we ignore or chalk up to simple cultural instructions that don't apply to us. It should also give us pause when we see that activities like wearing clothes of mixed fabrics, touching dead bodies, and eating shrimp are called "abominations." So, be careful in calling homosexual acts "abominations" unless you stand ready to do the same to your neighbor at Red Lobster.

4) The New Testament leads me to still say homosexuality is a sin.
Before my more conservative friends start getting spitting mad and formulating a response to my anticipated heresy, let me also say that at this moment I still believe homosexual practice is a sin. While I find the Old Testament less than helpful, I cannot get around the verses in the New Testament that address homosexuality. In particular, Romans 1 is a sticking point for me. Here, Paul connects idolatry to men and women engaging in homoerotic behavior. While I have read the explanations and interpretations from LGBTQ advocates, I have simply not found any of those arguments convincing. Additionally, Paul's words do seem to better address our contemporary debate for two reasons.
First, Paul describes the behavior as giving up their "natural" function for something "unnatural." The Greek word Paul uses here is physis, and as far as I can tell it means something embedded within the created order of the world, not simply a cultural conviction. Second, Paul describes the cause of these homoerotic sexual acts as "lust of the heart" and "degrading passions." This seems to be addressing sexual passion, not sexual violence. Indeed, there were individuals in Greek and Roman culture who seem to have preferred homosexual intercourse and who pursued same-sex relationships for lustful/romantic reasons. Perhaps Paul was addressing the custom of adult men having sexual relationships with young boys for pleasure or to instruct those boys about sex, but this doesn't really explain Paul's mention of female-female sex as well in Romans. To me, it seems like Paul is saying there is something about the very act of homosexual sex that runs contrary to nature and to God's will. If this is the case, we are left with the decision of whether to believe the Bible on this topic or to believe our current cultural convictions.

5) Same-sex attraction is NOT a sin.
 While I still maintain that homosexual practice is sinful, I do not believe that simply having same-sex attraction is sinful. I believe there are people who identify as lesbian or gay that will never be able to become straight. Being attracted to those of the same sex is no more sinful than me being tempted to lust after women. The temptation is not the sin. Even Jesus was tempted (perhaps even with same-sex attraction? Heb. 4:15?). The problem is when we choose to act on those temptations--that is what is sinful. The church needs to admit that it will have gay and lesbian members. In fact, we need these people, just like we need married and single straight people. We just need to be cautious in accepting acting upon those attractions.

6) Genetic predisposition does not mean a lifestyle is acceptable.
 One common argument I've heard in defense of homosexuality is that science shows that certain people are predisposed to have same-sex attraction. To be honest, I have not studied the science of homosexuality as much as I should have, but I also find this line of reasoning lacking. To sum up my thoughts here, I think saying it's okay to be gay because of genetic reasons is essentially genetic fatalism. However, we get into dangerous territory if we say that our genetic makeup should determine our behavior in life.
For example, I've read studies about the "warrior gene," which is a gene that might predispose a person to violence. Now, is it acceptable for an individual to kill another human simply because their genes may predispose them towards that action? Of course not. So why do we rush to genetic fatalism when it comes to homosexuality?
Similarly, the argument that "God made me this way" falls apart. Just because your biology may drive you towards certain behaviors does not mean that "God made you that way." Human biology is corrupted like the rest of human life. We should be careful of using the "God made me this way" argument unless we also want to say that God made people with mental retardation and fatal birth defects those ways as well. But in the end, whatever the consensus on the biology of homosexuality ends up being, it cannot be the deciding factor in the rightness or wrongness of a behavior. That moral choice must come from an outside source that is informed, but not determined, by biology.

7) Use caution when arguing for "right side of history."
 With the impending court decisions and growing cultural acceptance of the LGBT community, I have heard the phrase "be on the right side of history" countless times in the past few months. Those inside and outside of the church have urged for complete acceptance of homosexuality because you want to make sure you're "on the right side of history." After all, you don't want to be looked back on as we look back at those who supported slavery and racism.
However, this is an emotional argument more than anything else because it can cut both ways. This same argument has also been used to justify horrible atrocities (most famously by Hitler who saw his Aryan race as the future humanity). While I do want to make sure I am not defending injustice or oppression, I also recognize that sometimes the masses get it wrong. Societal acceptance of an idea does not make it right. Likewise, history does not always progress in a just direction (simply consider that the 20th and 21st centuries have been the most bloody in human history). As long as we live in a fallen world awaiting Christ's return, both history and society will sometimes go astray. So please, drop the "right side of history" crap and actually have an educated, logical discussion.

8) This is one of most crucial debates for church in this generation.
 With that invitation to have a discussion, I also believe that this will be one of the most important discussions within the church of our generation. The reason I believe this is because we are debating over whether or not a particular act is a sin. Therefore, we are either going to get this one very right or very wrong. Either we will end the church's perpetuation of injustice much like we did with slavery decades ago, or we will tragically declare a sin to be an acceptable part of holy living. Either way, the stakes are high.
As such, it is imperative that we not rush into decisions and that we thoroughly study the matter. We need to examine the whole of Scripture to discern what it says and does not say. We need to keep up with the cutting edge of scientific and social research on the issue. We need to have conversations with those actually struggling with (and living out) same-sex attraction.
One of my biggest fears is that we have become too polarized on this issue and have stopped talking with the other side. Instead, we rely on stereotypes and straw-man arguments. Those who advocate for full-acceptance say that calling homosexuality a sin is an injustice akin to racism and constitutes "hate-speech." Those who hold to traditional beliefs dismiss LGBT arguments as part of a "liberal/homosexual agenda" constructed by those who don't believe the Bible.
But the issue is so much more complex than that. For example, I still hold that homosexuality is a sin, but I also do not see my actions as equating anything near racism. I also have struggled long and hard over my own personal beliefs and actually know people who identify as gay or lesbian. To label me a bigot is to dismiss my own story and journey I have been on. Likewise, my friends who also believe homosexuality is a sin need to make friends with the LGBTQ community and listen to Christians who believe differently than them. Again, the stakes are too high to stop listening.

9) The only acceptable gay lifestyle would be in the covenant of marriage.
 Although at this moment I still believe homosexuality to be a sin, I want to maintain the humility to admit that at some point in the future my views may change. Perhaps as I continue to study Scripture, pray for guidance, engage culture, and listen for God's voice I will come to the decision that there is nothing inherently wrong with male-male or female-female sexual expression. However, if (and that's a big "if") I ever came to that conclusion, my sexual ethic would still look very different from the world's. If I could declare gay or lesbian sexual expression as acceptable, I would also be clear that the only appropriate context for this sexual expression would be in the context of a covenantal relationship/marriage. The same standards that currently apply to heterosexual relationships would also apply to lesbian/gay relationships, namely "chastity in singleness and fidelity in marriage." Those in same-sex relationships would be expected to abstain from sex and lust until they are married, and would be expected to remain faithful and flee adultery within marriage.
 Ironically, this is one reason why I'm not quick to jump on the cultural bandwagon regarding homosexuality. As I look at my culture, it quite clearly does not reflect Christ's desire for sexuality. Sexual expression outside the context of marriage is becoming increasingly the norm. Whether heterosexual or lesbian/gay, such sexual activity outside the covenant of marriage is clearly in violation of God's desires. In returning to point number 7, this dishonoring of sexuality in our culture makes me all the more cautious to simply follow societal voices that call me to accept homosexuality as a sinless lifestyle.

10) The Church must love the LGBT community and its shift focus to more pressing sins.
 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Church needs to love and accept the LGBT community. They are still humans and many are Christ-followers. Even when we still confess that homosexuality is a sin, we must do a better job of embracing the person. The church's default position has been to reject both sin and sinner. But these are people the church needs in its ranks.
I admit this is a tough thing to do, but perhaps one thing that will help is if the church becomes a little less sex-obsessed and shifts its focus to more pressing sins. While it is true that "sin is sin," most of us can agree that certain sins are more destructive than others. Honestly, when it comes down to homosexuality or lust and infidelity, the latter two are the more significant in my eyes. As noted in the previous point, it is possible to have a loving, committed gay/lesbian relationship. However, love, trust, and commitment are all abolished in acts of adultery. Likewise, cohabitation presents a much bigger problem to Christians and churches (I think) than does homosexuality. Similarly, divorce rates in the church are just about as bad as in the world. If we really want to insist on talking about sex and marriage, then perhaps we should start with the problems of lust, pornography, adultery, cohabitation, and divorce, matters of which the Bible is abundantly clear, unlike homosexuality which is a little ambiguous at times in the Bible (for reasons named above).
Or perhaps the church could demonstrate to the world that is does care about justice. If the church were more vocal in its opposition to racism, violence, poverty, domestic abuse, and oppression then it would be much harder to label opposition to homosexuality as "hate speech." If we became "pro-life" in all matters, not just on abortion, then perhaps outsiders would be convinced that we really do love all people.

-----

So there it is. Again, there is so much more that could be said under each point, but that's the short of where I currently am in my journey. Maybe some of these thoughts will help you sort through your own struggles (or maybe not). Feel free to post your opinions and comments below. Just make sure to maintain humility and avoid demonizing others. Thanks!