Faith and Economy

Share

This past week a study was released that estimated the economic impact of religion on the U.S. economy. The study concluded that the annual revenues of faith-based organizations totaled more than $378 Billion each year, making religion a bigger business than Facebook, Google, and Apple combined! If you read the actual study, you'll also see that the number could even be as high as $4 TRILLION, or nearly one quarter of America's GDP as the good folks over at Get Religion noted. Those are massive numbers!

While listening to NPR yesterday, one of the segments referred to this study. Since the study included organizations as varied as church congregations, social service agencies, and charities, the radio hosts asked the audience if they give to faith-based organizations. The responses were quite eye-opening.

Many (in fact most) of the callers I heard stated they did NOT give to churches or faith-based charities. The reasons given were several: Churches spend too much on themselves; faith-based charities don't offer anything non-faith based charities don't; I want to pay to help people, not to have someone preach; not enough money actually gets to people in need; there's not enough oversight or transparency. I was struck by the repeated cynicism.

However, my shock was likely due to the fact that I live within Christian circles. I have grown up around and worked with many Christian institutions that have done amazing good in communities. But perhaps these responses to the radio question reveal that much of our society does not automatically share that assumption. What do we do with this? What do we take away?

First, it would be rash to simply dismiss the criticisms. We could easily point to the fact that these faith-based charities have helped millions of lives. Or we could point to the largest faith-based sector--healthcare. An estimated 1 in 6 hospital beds in our country belong to a Catholic health system. One response to point out that religion both boosts the economy and helps millions of lives. However, maybe we should approach these criticisms with a bit more humility. Is there any truth to their concerns?

I think many of the concerns I heard on the radio were valid. When it comes to faith-based charities, I think many Christians will blindly give because an organization claims to be "Christian" without doing enough research into how effective the charity actually is. There may indeed be secular organizations that are run more effectively and have better research to support their methods, but sadly many Christians will give money to the one with the "Christian" name.

The same applies to media and entertainment. A "Christian" movie with sub-par plot and production values will be released and Christians will dump their wallets for it because it has a "Christian message." Or we will choose to donate money to Christian radio stations in order to hear more overly-produced, shallow theology, lacking-creativity songs, rather than donate to a public radio station that often prizes journalistic integrity and meaningful, original discussion.

The correlation between religion and money should give us pause, particularly when we see these tendencies among Christians. It is far too easy for Christians to be duped into a shallow commercialism as a substitute for our faith. Greed among both Christians themselves and those marketing to Christians is too strong a temptation. Yes religion is big business, but maybe it shouldn't be quite as big.

Second, we need to listen to the hesitations about giving to faith-based institutions when it comes to local congregations. After faith-based health care, one of the next largest economic segments was individual church congregations. Americans give nearly $75 billion per year to individual churches and religious congregations. In listening to the comments on the radio, this was the type of giving about which people seemed to have the greatest reservations.

But, truth-be-told, I too have big reservations in this area. It's no secret that the majority of the budget for most congregations is spent on the building and grounds. Whether it's a small, dying church overpaying to maintain an aging building, or a megachurch dropping millions for a new state-of-the-art facility complete with stage lights, smoke machines, and a coffee bar, the mentality is the same. I find this a particularly uncomfortable position when I read passages in Scripture, such as Acts 7 where Stephen is killed for challenging the idea that God can be contained to a physical building.

For years churches have assumed that people would give money to them. Or, when giving has waned, we have relied on a good sermon on "tithing" to guilt people into giving. However, those days may be fading fast. If congregations want people to give money, particularly younger people like myself, they will need to re-evaluate how they are spending that money. If congregations continue to spend the vast majority of their budgets on buildings, salaries, and internal programs rather than on ministry to their community, it will be harder and harder to justify the morality of such giving to its members or to the world.

Third, the criticisms of faith-based giving should illuminate a false assumption the church has helped promote. In listening to the various comments on the radio, there was a latent assumption in many of them that faith-based work was somehow inferior to government or secular social services. Embedded within this assumption is the belief that faith-based groups and congregations are primarily focused on "the spiritual." "Yes, churches may give back to their community, but that's not their primary calling," or so the thinking goes.

But churches have also unwittingly pushed this belief. By taming the Gospel down to a mere mental agreement with a set of propositions ("I'm a sinner"--"Jesus died for me"--"If I believe in Him I can go to heaven"), and by reducing our eschatology to an escape to a non-physical dimension called "heaven" we have set up the narrative that the church (and anything relating to faith) is only secondarily concerned with the physical world and with societal concerns. We reason: If it doesn't relate to something "spiritual" or pertain to saving a person's soul, then it doesn't matter.

This is a gross misunderstanding of the Gospel Jesus preached. The Gospel Jesus preached is not about getting into a spiritual realm called heaven; it is about declaring a new allegiance to a Lord and a Kingdom that challenge the empires and powers of the world. A proper understanding of the Gospel should teach us that faith is as much about physical manifestations of grace, mercy, and forgiveness in the world as it is about the personal, inner manifestations of those dynamics of those things. If the church itself could recapture this Kingdom vision of the Gospel, then perhaps the world around us would be less likely to believe the false division between faith, spirituality, and work in the real world.

Finally, this study and the resulting comments should prompt the us to remember religion's broad impact upon society. Our faith not only impacts people's lives in a personal, inward manner, but it has also profoundly shaped our culture for the better. If it were not for religion, there would be far fewer hospitals in our country. If it weren't for the role of faith, countless additional Americans would go hungry and be homeless each year. If it weren't for people and organizations of faith, many orphans and refugees would not be alive today.

The cynicism I heard on the radio tended to too quickly dismiss the massive force of this positive impact. But I can't help but wonder if it's because we as Christians have also neglected this aspect of our faith. As mentioned in my previous point, we have relegated faith to the realm of the personal and metaphysical. Studies like this one should remind us that there is so much more to our faith than that. It should inspire us to continue the work of social justice and compassion for our neighbors. It should drive us to become even more creative within our culture. We can't force outsiders to our faith to accept the positive role of religion in society, but we can live out our faith in such a way that it makes it impossible to ignore this positive impact.

In summary, this study should cause people of faith to both be thankful and to practice introspection. We may be thankful that our faiths have contributed so much good to society. However, we should also take a hard look at our practices and use of money to see when the criticisms of outsiders may in fact be warranted. To do any less would be to forsake our calling in the world.

September 12th

Share

Yesterday, our nation marked the 15th anniversary of September 11th, arguably the worst national tragedy since Pearl Harbor.  Across the country memorial services remembered the lives lost and the heroic acts of bravery. Since September 11th fell on a Sunday this year, many church congregations also joined in the remembrances or had patriotic services.

During many of these services and memorials, as well as on social media, we saw and heard the refrain that we must "Never Forget" 9/11. Now, if we take that sentiment seriously, the task of remembering 9/11 and the accompanying lessons begins today--Sept. 12th. After all, with any holiday or remembrance, the temptation is to forget and move on starting the following day.

However, the challenge with all of this is that the patriotic anthem of "Never Forget" is a bit more ambiguous about what we should remember. At the surface level, we obviously are to remember the event itself, but below the surface many other statements also ask to be believed and remembered. Intertwined with these memorials, we are invited to believe many possible messages: America is the greatest nation ever; America deserves our allegiance; Islamic terrorists should be destroyed; Muslims are evil; an eye for an eye; we need a strong military... On and on the list could go.

However, I think one message we actually should take away from this concerns the topic of Evil. No one will disagree that 9/11 was an "evil" day. The loss of nearly 3,000 innocent lives can be described in no other way than as "evil." But we as Americans have a strained relationship with the concept of "evil."

On the one hand, we often live our lives as if evil does not exist in our world in any significant way. This is largely due to the enormous amounts of security, stability, and prosperity we enjoy here in America. We don't go to work worrying about whether or not our family will be safe at home or if we will make it home from work. We are wealthier than the vast majority of the world. We live under a government that grants us countless freedoms and is far less tainted by corruption than most other counties. This is partly why the events of 9/11 were so shocking. We were not used to encountering evil, and suddenly evil came busting down our front door to stare us in the face.

On the other hand, we are sometimes too quick to use the label of "evil." In the aftermath of 9/11, our politicians, pastors, and pundits rushed to label the terrorists "evil," to call the nations associated with terrorism "evil," to describe an "axis of evil," and in some cases to identify Islam itself as an "evil" religion. Outside of dealing with terrorism, we thrown around the term "evil" in many other careless ways. We label opposing political parties and candidates as "evil" or speak of voting "for the lesser of two evils."

I suspect these two tendencies are related. We live a privileged life divorced from many of the harsher evils that run rampant in our world and are therefore shocked when a powerful evil strikes us. Likewise, since we are often shielded from horrific evils, we are confused about how to rightly apply the label and either attach it to everything we see or flippantly apply it to people or programs with whom we simply disagree. Unfortunately, such an aversion to and discomfort with evil results in poor decision making when true evil rears its ugly head in our midst.

This is perhaps one of the most important lessons we can take away from 9/11. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, the nation was brimming over with powerful emotions--fear, anger, a desire for revenge. Out of this emotional milieu, President Bush declared a "war on terror" a mere 9 days after the attacks, covert troops were inserted in Afghanistan 15 days after the attacks, and bombings and a formal invasion of another nation were initiated less than a month after 9/11.

Although some good came out of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (such as greater freedom and rights, as well as better infrastructure for certain cities), it cannot be disputed that these wars caused just as much evil as the initial terror attacks themselves. While Al Qaeda killed 3,000 innocents on 9/11, the war in Afghanistan killed 3,500 innocent civilians in 2015 alone. As of March 2015 an estimated 210,000 civilians had been killed as a result of these two wars. They were killed by terrorists and insurgents, but also by American and coalition forces. They died as the result of bullets, bombs, poor health, loss of shelter, and starvation. Other estimates place the number in Iraq alone as high as 500,000, although these numbers are almost impossible to know as the U.S. government and military tends to refrain from keeping or releasing such numbers on the civilian costs to these wars. Add to that the roughly 1.5 million refugees from Iraq and 2.5 million Afghan refugees, and the human cost is staggering.

Additionally, after 15 long years of war against terrorism, we have come no closer to preventing or defeating terror than when we began. In fact, the situation today may be worse. The war in Iraq helped create a power vacuum, ignite sectarian conflicts, radicalize new terrorists, and throw the limelight of international attention onto extremists who previously would have had little or no following. All of these facts have culminated in the rise of ISIS--perhaps a bigger threat to both the U.S., Europe, and the entire region of the Middle East than Al-Qaeda ever was.

In hindsight, the problem should appear obvious--we were shocked and angered by evil, and chose to respond poorly in a knee-jerk manner. We demanded blood for the blood of victims that was spilled. And when the Taliban refused to hand over bin-Laden, we foolishly decided that we could defeat evil with bombs and bullets.

But here is the lesson those who are Christians should take away from our memorial services--we cannot defeat evil with violence. We cannot bomb evil into non-existence. We cannot kill enough people to make evil submit.

I will not go so far as to say that war or violence can never be justified, but I will say that we ought to be more wary of such calls in the aftermath of tragedy. Evil is a siren call that deceives us into perpetuating more evil under the banner of "freedom" and "justice." This temptation is exacerbated by the narratives of patriotism, nationalism, and civil religion that usually accompany such tragedies and attacks.

For Christians, when we find ourselves staring into the face of evil, our first response should be to gaze upon the cross--the greatest evil of all time. For it is the cross of Jesus that dealt with evil once and for all. For thousands of years humans have devised methods of overcoming evil, but none of them have succeeded. Only the life, death and resurrection of the Son of God actually responds to evil in a meaningful way. The true answer to evil is found at the cross, and our responses to evil--both individual and national--should be informed by that event.

The cross also reminds us that the world cannot be divided into "good" and "evil." As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote, "the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."  In the wake of 9/11, our nation dubbed our enemies (ideologies, individuals, and nations) to be "evil," while at the same time presenting our own cause as righteous, just, and good. But the truth was so much more complicated. One reason for Islamic terrorism relates back to American imperialist tendencies in the Middle East going back decades, actions which radicalized numerous Muslims and Arabs. During the post-9/11 wars, we have killed innocent civilians, ignored the sovereignty of nations, and committed war crimes including torture. Now certainly we are not as bad as the barbarous individuals who carry out intentional, heartless attacks on civilians, but we must be honest and admit that we are not innocent or blameless either.

Focusing on the cross reminds us of that truth because Jesus died for the sins of all. He died because all of us have evil within us. He died because institutions, nations, governments, and places of power often become "possessed" by evil and commit atrocities. Simultaneously, the cross not only exposes our own guilt, but also illumines an alternative, counter-cultural way of responding to evil.

So how ought we to observe Sept. 12 and beyond? I suggest we do so by remembering not just 9/11, but also by remembering the cross. At the cross I am reminded that evil is constantly present in our world, so I should not be shocked by it. At the cross I am reminded that Jesus has dealt with and will deal with evil, so I can have hope. At the cross I am reminded that there are things worse than physical death, so I am not driven by fear in the face of evil. At the cross I am reminded that Jesus chose love, mercy, and sacrifice as the primary tools for overcoming evil; He did not buy into the myth of redemptive violence. So yes, let's "never forget" 9/11, but more importantly let's "never forget" God's response to evils like 9/11--the cross.

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.