abortion

And He Loved Them Too

Frank

“I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”  What a ridiculous statement from Jonah (Jonah 4:9) after not getting his way while God got his.  The temper tantrum of a toddler because God did what Jonah knew he was going to do.

As ridiculous as it sounds, this is my favorite part of Jonah’s story.  Maybe because I relate so well.  You see, I have a self-righteousness problem.  I think I know it all.  I think my interpretation of the Bible, my doctrine, my church is better than yours.  So I always have to check myself when I’m tempted to be critical.

Jonah thought his interpretation of God’s will was better than the the God who gave it, that his faith was better than the Ninevites.  So he ignored God’s instructions.  Actually, he did more than ignore it, he ran as far away from it as he could.

But God’s will couldn’t be ignored for long; a great fish had other ideas.

The stories seemed to come on top of each other- the trial of a church trying to beat the homosexuality out of a man and a congressman declaring holy war on Muslims.  My instinct was to ask, “do these people actually read their Bibles?”  Even today I saw an article at Christianity Today on how we can pray for Muslims during Ramadan.  Yes, the headline was click-bait, but the comments are appalling.  So when I heard the news about a man arrested on his way to shoot doctors, my first thought was “abortion”.

Turns out that wasn’t the case.  But what does it say when that’s what we expect?

You’ve probably heard the saying, Christians are known more for what they are against than what they are for.  While that usually invokes images of protesters in front of abortion clinics or at a funeral holding signs saying, “God hates fags”, we usually don’t think of such exercises of ‘free speech’ as violent.

Until an abortion clinic is bombed.

Or until the son of a famous evangelist and president of a prominent Christian college encourages Christians to carry guns so that they can “end” Muslims.

Or until a gay youth is driven to suicide by family, friends, and a church who reject her.

These types of Christians are so angry they wish others were dead.

And darn right I’m critical.

You see, what made Jonah so angry (besides the heat, because c’mon who isn’t short-tempered in scorching heat) was that God had the nerve to forgive.  It wasn’t up to Jonah to decide who was worthy.  Jonah admitted, “I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.” (4:2)  And that graciousness, that compassion, that love extended even to Jonah’s enemies.

I wonder if the folks at Word of Life Church, or Congressman Higgins, or Jerry Falwell Jr have ever read this story and asked,who the Ninevites are in their lives, because God loves them too.  The homosexual.  The Muslim.  The liberal.  The woman.  The sinner.  God loves them too.

So these headlines make me angry.  Angry because the hatred and the violence is what some people think Christianity is all about.  It makes me so angry at times I was I was dead and didn’t have to deal with it.

Because God loves them too.

The Christians who don’t look like Jesus.  The pastor who confuses nationalism with faith.  The angry crusader.  The homophobe.  The self-righteous.  The face in the mirror.

God loves them too.

Choose Lives

Frank

I shouldn’t be alive.  That sounds dramatic, I know, but statistically it’s true.  In high school I remember debating a girl on the topic of abortion.  Her succinct argument was that I didn’t have a right to speak up because I was a male.  But I think I have more of a right than most, simply for the fact that I am alive to say something.

You see, I was given up for adoption at birth.  My biological parents were unwed teenagers; I don’t know their names or really anything else about them.  I was thankfully adopted at two weeks old; my adoptive family is the only family I’ve ever known.  I know many who haven’t been as fortunate- being shuffled between foster families, never feeling settled or ever having a sense of ‘home’.

So I should be militantly pro-life, knowing that adoption is always an option.  I was part of a youth/campus ministry for a time that had “life” as a top priority.  We would pray daily for the unborn.  I even participated in a march or two.  I got in a fight with a friend in college who refused to eat the Domino’s Pizza I ordered because its owner donated to pro-life causes.

But I’m not.

Shortly after the debate mentioned above, a good friend became pregnant.  She was salutatorian of my graduating class.  She was allowed to walk, but she couldn’t speak (our school was small enough both the valedictorian and salutatorian gave speeches).  She was vice president of our student council, but had to step down.  She was rejected, shunned, and made fun of (I confess to participating in the latter).  And when graduation day arrived, I could see the pain in her face as she held back tears.  My politics had a face.

This wasn’t some Christian school in the bible belt.  This was just a small town, rural high school that remembered a time when a pregnant teenager would be sent away to stay with an “aunt” to save her family from embarrassment.

You might’ve seen a similar story in the past week, or maybe you read the young woman’s op-ed in the Washington Post.  To say I relate is only partly true- I haven’t felt that rejection, I haven’t carried a baby to term, I wasn’t afraid of what my future had in store and how every plan and dream I had now had to change.  But I’ve witnessed it.

I’ve witnessed it as an adult too.  I witnessed it as a young girl in the teen ministry I was helping lead became pregnant and was effectively, though not officially, disfellowshipped.  But my wife and I kept our door open- severing her dinner, babysitting while she looked for a job.  Around the same time, a good friend also got pregnant (must’ve been something in the water, as they say).  She was single.  She too was rejected by the church.  So the door to our home opened wider.  Then a friend of my wife returned from deployment in the Middle East and needed help, as a single mom, getting on her feet.  Another women had the exact opposite need, her husband was deployed and needed help with her kids as a functionally, though not technically, single mother.  All of this happened within a couple of years.  I look back at times like these and can see that God was at work, even if I didn’t feel like it at the time; we had our own kids to deal with, after all!

A friend likes to quote the DJ/artist Moby, how Christians care more about the woman entering the abortion clinic than the woman leaving it.

This is how I feel about the pro-life/pro-choice debate.  My politics have done a complete 180 in the years since my Young Republican and College Republican days.

I wouldn’t say I’m pro-choice however.  I just want to say that I understand.

Despite my politics leaning right, I appreciated the (old) Democratic platform with respect to abortion: it should be available, but rare.  Sadly they removed the “rare” qualifier during the last election cycle.

But a child isn’t a right/left, life/choice dichotomy.  A mother is not a political football, being thrown downfield in either direction depending on who is on offense for the next four years.  There must be a “third way”.

Yesterday, I listened to the latest Phil Vischer podcast with their guest Angie Weszely.  Angie was representing the ministry Pro Grace.  And she expressed everything I feel.

Check out the podcast.  And check out the ministry.  To say we are “pro-life” but only care about one of the two lives (really three, the men responsible are seldom considered in the debate) is only being half-honest.  We should be “pro-lives”, plural.  And that is Pro Grace.

Either Or

Frank
You cannot be compassionate without accepting.
You cannot serve without enabling.
You cannot forgive without being tolerant.
You cannot challenge without judging.
You cannot preach the Gospel without condemning.
You cannot promote something without opposing something else.
Religion divides, politics unites under causes.
Politics divides, religion unites under causes.
You cannot follow Jesus without voting _________

Do any of these seem unreasonable to you? They all sound perfectly logical and have just enough truth to believe. But they are all lies that Satan has used to have us argue that either politics and religion are one in the same or that one cannot have anything to do with the other. And we buy into the lies and divide our churches and our society along lines drawn by politics.

I was browsing through a couple of websites last night, from each side of the political aisle, both claiming to be Christian. I could not believe the hate and divisiveness that permeated every topic, every discussion. Each side assumes that you cannot be for a Social Justice gospel without voting a certain way, nor can you be against immorality in our culture without voting a certain way. Is it possible to  be compassionate yet still hold a high standard of morality?

One side argues that Jesus hung out with sinners, never preached about politics, and had in his small group of apostles an insurrectionist and a swindler. Oh and of course, his first miracle involved alcohol.

The other side argues that Jesus preached morality and religious purity and called his followers to repentance.

Why can’t both be true? So long as politics gives us a choice of either/or between two candidates, we assume the same applies to our religion. Jesus didn’t preach about politics even though he lived under an empire that promoted infanticide and embraced homosexuality because he cared more about how we live than how we vote. Any one of the Gospel writers could have added commentary to fit their political views but they didn’t. God gave his Law to the Israelites not to make them morally superior, but to separate them from the world around them. So following Christ is about how we live, separate from the world’s values; not about how we vote or what social cause we embrace.

But this does not mean to throw away your politics, rather it is a call to not put your faith in it. Instead put your politics into action:

  • Are you pro-life? Then love the unwed mother, accept her when her family rejects her.
  • Are you for the sanctity of marriage? Then remember the commands to keep the marriage bed pure, the definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13, that marriage is as much about love as it is respect and that divorce is as much, if not more, a threat to the traditional family as gay marriage.
  • Do you preach against the immorality in our culture? Then preach against every sin, from gossip to gluttony, with the same amount of bile and venom you spew against the gay community.
  • Do you embrace and accept homosexuals? Then remember that although Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery he commanded her to leave her life of sin.
  • Are you compassionate towards the downtrodden, doing what you can to heal? Recall Jesus’ words to the man healed by the pool to stop sinning or something worse may happen.
  • Do you believe that our nation is a Christian nation? Then remember that you are citizens of Christ’s Kingdom first and that the first command of the Kingdom of God that Jesus ushered in was to repent.
  • Remember that someone’s station in life may have come about because of sin, yet it is an opportunity for the work of God to be displayed.
  • And before you judge the speck in another’s eye, remember the plank in your own.

Unlike politics, following Jesus is not an either/or proposition; it is all or nothing.

Flashback Friday: Walking in Another’s Shoes

Frank

***Originally posted on August 24, 2009. Posted in the wake of the Court overturning California’s Proposition 8. It’s been a while since I kicked this hornet’s nest…***

One of my goals with this blog is to be even-handed in my analysis and commentary, though I do have obvious religious and political beliefs. That doesn’t mean I’m not open to taking a different point of view. Walking in another’s shoes, so to speak, and these two articles do just that. They both highlight how one’s worldview impacts their decisions. By reading these articles, I gained a great deal of respect for both men because they are consistent in applying their worldview, something I seldom see in the present culture-war.

The first is about Ted Olson, a conservative lawyer who is fighting to overturn Proposition 8 in California. His defense of gay-marriage is based on his conservative principles to keep the government out of our personal lives. You can’t argue that he’s not consistent with his conservative view of government, in contrast to a conservative view of social moors taken by many politicians and activists. Now, I’m not about to change my opinion on gay-marriage. However, given the background in this article I will concede the point of “fundamental right” though I still worry about the “slippery slope” and disapprove the means by which homosexuals are trying to gain this right. (Specifically, not responding to Prop 8 with a proposition of their own and instead throwing a legal hissy fit)

The second article is about the “abortion evangelist” (gotta love the sensationalist headlines) LeRoy Carhart. I don’t approve of his practice, but I understand his motivation for providing it. I also admire that he does stick to his guns. In one example, “Carhart asked her what she would do if she had to carry the baby to term. ‘She didn’t say she was going to kill herself,’ he says. ‘She said she would put it up [for adoption].’ He turned her away..” I do regret that he feels the way he does about his own safety. I hope he realizes that not everyone who is opposed to abortion wants him dead. But given the slant of the article, I don’t expect that perspective to be conveyed. What is also important to glean from this article is how tragic abortion really is and that criminalizing it only marginalizes those who “need” (I hesitate using that word, but I think it’s appropriate here) the service. The real war against abortion needs to be against this need (“abortion should be available, but rare”). Think simple supply-demand economics. Legal restrictions to abortion reduce the supply which only increases the cost (emotional and physical in addition to financial) to women. Instead, the demand needs to be brought down. And no, I believe showing pictures of fetuses to women entering a clinic is too late to have any measurable effect. Instead the preciousness of life (via Scripture) needs to be emphasized alongside the value of reserving sex for marriage. There is a moral case for family planning.

In both of these cases, it can be seen how their careers are guided by their respective worldviews. But neither worldview is Biblical. Get Religion points out that the profile of Ted Olson only mentions that Olson is “not a regular churchgoer”, and Newsweek fails to mention any religious affiliation of Carhart. Yet, while we may not agree with them, we should take the lesson that our lives should be guided by some particular worldview. As Christians, our worldview should be built on being Christ-like and “what would Jesus do?” I also think it is important to be open-minded and respectful of others’ worldviews. I linked these two articles above despite my being against both cases. It is always important to see the other side of an argument. That may sound wishy-washy, but I’m not saying “we can both be right” or “truth is relative”. Instead I’m saying that I disagree with, but respect your opinion, just as you are free to disagree with mine.

Counterintuitive

Frank

Today’s the big day. No, not the first day of spring (that was yesterday) or the last day of the Round of 32 in the NCAA Tournament. Today is the day we’ll know whether or not our Federal Government will overhaul health care. I’m not going to use this space to pontificate one side or the other, though I do have strong opinions about it. In fact, it’s important to note here that those strong opinions are are independent of my faith. I have yet to understand why there is such emphasis by some religious organizations (I call out the American Center for Law and Justice specifically because they have been polluting my airwaves on this issue for months now) that this debate is a religious issue.

Oh, wait. I do understand. It’s all about abortions, the prime religious wedge-issue in politics. Even this issue though, I struggle to get up in arms over. I’ve talked about this before, argue that it is not a political issue, and note how it breaks my heart how this issue can drive people to the worst extremes. But now this wedge has grown so large as to scuttle any health care reform whatsoever. Yet as Christians, we should worry about the root-causes of abortions and some argue that passing health care reform would actually reduce this demand, despite whether there is government funding or not. A compelling case that reflects what should be our Christian attitude towards abortion.

But that is not the ends of the health care reform means. This is a complex issue and is about much, much more than abortions. I have family members who would benefit from this reform just as I have family members who would be hurt. There is no winner in this debate, I fear. As such, the appropriate response as Christians is not to fret over abortion, but to offer up prayers of wisdom for our elected officials at this critical time and remember that our purpose on this earth as Christians is not politics, but to “do the will of him who sent me“.

“I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:1-4)

Counterintuitive

Frank

Today’s the big day. No, not the first day of spring (that was yesterday) or the last day of the Round of 32 in the NCAA Tournament. Today is the day we’ll know whether or not our Federal Government will overhaul health care. I’m not going to use this space to pontificate one side or the other, though I do have strong opinions about it. In fact, it’s important to note here that those strong opinions are are independent of my faith. I have yet to understand why there is such emphasis by some religious organizations (I call out the American Center for Law and Justice specifically because they have been polluting my airwaves on this issue for months now) that this debate is a religious issue.

Oh, wait. I do understand. It’s all about abortions, the prime religious wedge-issue in politics. Even this issue though, I struggle to get up in arms over. I’ve talked about this before, argue that it is not a political issue, and note how it breaks my heart how this issue can drive people to the worst extremes. But now this wedge has grown so large as to scuttle any health care reform whatsoever. Yet as Christians, we should worry about the root-causes of abortions and some argue that passing health care reform would actually reduce this demand, despite whether there is government funding or not. A compelling case that reflects what should be our Christian attitude towards abortion.

But that is not the ends of the health care reform means. This is a complex issue and is about much, much more than abortions. I have family members who would benefit from this reform just as I have family members who would be hurt. There is no winner in this debate, I fear. As such, the appropriate response as Christians is not to fret over abortion, but to offer up prayers of wisdom for our elected officials at this critical time and remember that our purpose on this earth as Christians is not politics, but to “do the will of him who sent me“.

“I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:1-4)

My Last Tim Tebow Post… Really

Frank

Ok, today’s the big day. Who cares how the Super Bowl turns out, most of us can’t wait to see the ads (a poll in USA Today showed a 52/48 split between who is more interested in the commercials or the game respectively). The highest ratings might be in the first quarter when Focus on the Family’s pro-life ad staring Tim Tebow airs.

I don’t have much more to add to this other than to offer a little perspective. Teresa Heinz Kerry was blasted during the 2004 Presidential campaign for being “personally pro-life but politically pro-choice”. Her “personal” reason was her faith, which was demonstrated when she had a miscarriage after a doctor recommended having an abortion, much like the case of Tim Tebow’s mother. But her “pro-choice” argument goes that she was given a choice that wasn’t limited by the government. I’ve heard the same argument against the Tebow example, his mother was allowed a choice. Fair enough, but what about the choice of the yet to be born child? They are defenseless, so much so that reckless behavior by an expecting mother can be prosecuted and that crimes against a pregnant woman that results in the death of the fetus can be tried as Second Degree murder. Yes, both Heinz-Kerry and Tebow had a choice, and both chose to have their child. And most importantly, and less debated, is that they both trusted in God to work things out. And he did. Note where the trust is placed- in God, not the government.

Another argument against the Tebow spin on abortion is what if Tim had grown up to be a serial killer instead of a Heisman winner? (This was one comment in USA Today’s letters to the editor on the subject) So it’s ok to abort a could-be Charles Manson or Adolf Hitler? This is a common philosophical/theological debate- would it be moral to go back in time and kill a future killer? See the ending of The Butterfly Effect for a stomach-turning answer to that one. But given free-will, there’s no predestined fate for one child or another to grow up and be “evil”. Yes circumstances come into play (what if Adolf lived in the United States instead of war-torn Germany?) but at least the person has the choice in their life. They are free to grow up and make decisions as they see fit. See the movie Gattaca for this take on the argument.

My take? I was adopted at two weeks old. My birth-parents were a teenage girl and a recently graduated teenage boy. Legally, they had every right to see to it that my life never came to being. I’m grateful for their “choice”. But I’m more grateful that I was given the opportunity to make my own choices. Maybe someday I will be a serial killer. And I’ll never win the Heisman. But at least I’m alive.

***Update***
So the Super Bowl ended dramatically and now it’s time for the postgame evaluation: which ads were the best. The infamous Focus on the Family Tim Tebow ad aired and didn’t amount to the hype surrounding it. The world did not end with, the ads went on. The argument that this ad encroached on a tradition of neutrality, family, and escapism was contradicted by the Green Police ad by Audi, the suggested mastubatory Megan Fox Motorola ad, and the stereotype of the single black mom hooking up with a playa while feeding her kid junk food. Neutral and family-friendly indeed. Anyway, a better take can be found over at Get Religion.

My Last Tim Tebow Post… Really

Frank

Ok, today’s the big day. Who cares how the Super Bowl turns out, most of us can’t wait to see the ads (a poll in USA Today showed a 52/48 split between who is more interested in the commercials or the game respectively). The highest ratings might be in the first quarter when Focus on the Family’s pro-life ad staring Tim Tebow airs.

I don’t have much more to add to this other than to offer a little perspective. Teresa Heinz Kerry was blasted during the 2004 Presidential campaign for being “personally pro-life but politically pro-choice”. Her “personal” reason was her faith, which was demonstrated when she had a miscarriage after a doctor recommended having an abortion, much like the case of Tim Tebow’s mother. But her “pro-choice” argument goes that she was given a choice that wasn’t limited by the government. I’ve heard the same argument against the Tebow example, his mother was allowed a choice. Fair enough, but what about the choice of the yet to be born child? They are defenseless, so much so that reckless behavior by an expecting mother can be prosecuted and that crimes against a pregnant woman that results in the death of the fetus can be tried as Second Degree murder. Yes, both Heinz-Kerry and Tebow had a choice, and both chose to have their child. And most importantly, and less debated, is that they both trusted in God to work things out. And he did. Note where the trust is placed- in God, not the government.

Another argument against the Tebow spin on abortion is what if Tim had grown up to be a serial killer instead of a Heisman winner? (This was one comment in USA Today’s letters to the editor on the subject) So it’s ok to abort a could-be Charles Manson or Adolf Hitler? This is a common philosophical/theological debate- would it be moral to go back in time and kill a future killer? See the ending of The Butterfly Effect for a stomach-turning answer to that one. But given free-will, there’s no predestined fate for one child or another to grow up and be “evil”. Yes circumstances come into play (what if Adolf lived in the United States instead of war-torn Germany?) but at least the person has the choice in their life. They are free to grow up and make decisions as they see fit. See the movie Gattaca for this take on the argument.

My take? I was adopted at two weeks old. My birth-parents were a teenage girl and a recently graduated teenage boy. Legally, they had every right to see to it that my life never came to being. I’m grateful for their “choice”. But I’m more grateful that I was given the opportunity to make my own choices. Maybe someday I will be a serial killer. And I’ll never win the Heisman. But at least I’m alive.

***Update***
So the Super Bowl ended dramatically and now it’s time for the postgame evaluation: which ads were the best. The infamous Focus on the Family Tim Tebow ad aired and didn’t amount to the hype surrounding it. The world did not end with, the ads went on. The argument that this ad encroached on a tradition of neutrality, family, and escapism was contradicted by the Green Police ad by Audi, the suggested mastubatory Megan Fox Motorola ad, and the stereotype of the single black mom hooking up with a playa while feeding her kid junk food. Neutral and family-friendly indeed. Anyway, a better take can be found over at Get Religion.

Does it Matter Where our Taxes Go?

Frank

The big political debate yesterday was over restricting federal funds for abortions in the latest iteration of the Health Care overhaul. Never mind that there is already a statute that prohibits federal funds from paying for abortions, though I agree with the argument that it’s only a shell game of moving lines on a ledger.

This morning coincidentally, I read Matthew 22:15-22 where the Pharisees and Herodians try to trap Jesus by asking him about taxes. The question seemed to be a slam dunk for the Pharisees since any good Jew would agree that the Romans were oppressors and that these taxes went to a government that supported infanticide, homosexuality, and pagan worship. Jesus replied channeling Lee Corso, “not so fast, my friends! Who does this coin belong to? Then that’s who has a say of where it goes.” In other words, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Mt 22:21)

We let ourselves get into such a fuss over what our government does with our money, but we’ll gladly accept grants for our abstinence-only education program. Relating the two, the onus to reduce the number of abortions is not on the federal government, but on the individuals who choose to be irresponsible sexually. In our hyper-sexualized culture, we need to fight this front of the culture war not through politics, but by our own example of purity. The coin bore the image of Caesar, so it was his. We bear the image of God Almighty, and we are his.

Does it Matter Where our Taxes Go?

Frank

The big political debate yesterday was over restricting federal funds for abortions in the latest iteration of the Health Care overhaul. Never mind that there is already a statute that prohibits federal funds from paying for abortions, though I agree with the argument that it’s only a shell game of moving lines on a ledger.

This morning coincidentally, I read Matthew 22:15-22 where the Pharisees and Herodians try to trap Jesus by asking him about taxes. The question seemed to be a slam dunk for the Pharisees since any good Jew would agree that the Romans were oppressors and that these taxes went to a government that supported infanticide, homosexuality, and pagan worship. Jesus replied channeling Lee Corso, “not so fast, my friends! Who does this coin belong to? Then that’s who has a say of where it goes.” In other words, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Mt 22:21)

We let ourselves get into such a fuss over what our government does with our money, but we’ll gladly accept grants for our abstinence-only education program. Relating the two, the onus to reduce the number of abortions is not on the federal government, but on the individuals who choose to be irresponsible sexually. In our hyper-sexualized culture, we need to fight this front of the culture war not through politics, but by our own example of purity. The coin bore the image of Caesar, so it was his. We bear the image of God Almighty, and we are his.