A "justice" agenda that ignores the shedding of innocent blood (i.e. the killing of unborn babies for convenience) is a sham.
Like Wallis, McLaren offers no serious challenge to liberal groupthink. So much for "transcending" left and right political stereotypes.
Yawn.
Why ignore abortion, the death penalty, etc.? Is avoiding war really the only life issue worthy of consideration?
The others values McLaren mentions are good and important, as well, but there is this fear of saying "yes, abortion *is* wrong" among the emergent types and Jim Wallis that "conflicts and contradicts" (to use Jim Wallis' phrase) what Jesus taught about human life.
I would add that the entire spectrum of the Catholic "seamless garment" (including war, the death penalty, etc.) is important.
The Protestant inability to acknowledge that *all* life issues are important - war AND abortion AND the death penalty AND etc. - is enough to make a guy Catholic.
Brad
Having been a preacher a number of years, I find narrowing things to 3 points is problematic, although it does summarize things. I think the values we face are more than just 3, although I would think if we analyze these 3, we could group several other "sub-values" under them. I was rather surprised that an author of his caliber (although I admit my ignorance in that I haven't read any of his books) would make such a brief post, since I can publish more than that just by thinking out loud. I know he is capable of more substance.
But I would agree those three issues are most important and are often neglected by both sides. Dems- what is the answer in Iraq? Repub- do you remember people do need food stamps and health care? Those on the right- remember this is the only planet we have, and environmentalism is not a secular liberal conspiracy. Those on the left- show how the country can be protected from terrorism even if we can get out of Iraq.
Both sides- mention world & national poverty and what we can do about it.
Brian McLaren is standing up for the values reflected in the teachings of Jesus. We need more evangelicals speaking up for the "least of these" (defined in Matthew 25:35-46 as prisoners, the poor and hungry).
McLaren and other progressive evangelicals call us to remember "the things which make for peace." Jesus says nothing about abortion but does teach his followers to love enemies (Matthew 5:44). I am so grateful that McLaren and other progressive evangelicals are broadening our contemporary values conversation. Everything that McLaren mentioned --- stewardship of creation, concern for the poor, and the pursuit of peace --- are values rooted in Holy Scripture and Christian Tradition.
Brad,
There are a handful of evangelicals (such as Ron Sider) that uphold a consistent pro-life ethic.
Will,
Surely, helpless unborn babies are the least of "the least of these."
I've never heard Jim Wallis or Brian McLaren say that killing babies is "right" or that capital punishment is "right." What I've heard them say is we have huge moral issues at stake that involve way more than those 2 issues. Why have Conservatives
refused to recognize the part that poverty and education play in those issues and that being a follower of Jesus will not permit us to ignore these other issues--ones so important that Jesus spoke to them (while he didn't speak to others such as abortion, homosexuality and capital punishment).
If we are truly concerned about values then we must value the whole person, whatever their skin color, or address, or position in life is. We cannot do that while disrespecting them, while ignoring them and while making them our enemies.
The US has lost its moral authority in the eyes of most of the world because of rationalizing our own injustices and torture, while saying one thing in one place, and another in another place; while using arrogant and belitting language when speaking of anyone who disagrees with us. Why would God want to bless America these days?
First off, choosing 3 or 5 or 7 values is a nod to the "frame" that Mr. Reed & the "religious right" have been so successful at branding as Christian.
I like what Brian said - these 3 areas are sorely in need of attention. He does a solid job at focusing on what strikes me as root causes.
That said, here are 3 Jesus following values I wish were more central to the civial (church) discourse:
Humility: Psalms 25:9 The humble He guides in justice, And the humble He teaches His way.
Welcome: Matthew 10:40 He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.
Grace: Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
Rather than clicking into the power grid of FOX vs. Michael Moore, the NATION vs. WEEKLY STANDARD, it strikes me that our "call" to embody a sense of calling to the reign of God here & now.
First I'll start by saying thanks to HuckFinn for the reference to Ron Sider - I have his recent book on values and it's great!
To Will and Jeanie - Jesus repeatedly talked of the danger of hurting children and he was clearly a valuer (to coin a word) of all life (save a few pigs and a fig tree 
).
That you could seriously suggest Jesus wasn't concerned for life from the beginning to the end is quite suspect and flies in the face of several references to God knowing the unborn in the Old Testament.
For the record, I am against torture - and I am pro-environment - and pro-life in all its forms. I approve of programs to help the helpless, such as social programs, etc. as well as random acts of kindness that we can all do.
I think the most important theme from a Biblical, as well as a political, social, cultural, etc. standpoint, is to uphold both the existence and the quality of each life. This covers everything from war to abortion and I just can't get my head around why this combination of stances, while so logical, seems so controversial.
Brad
Jeanie,
My frustration with Wallis (and McLaren) is that he claims to be pro-life, but he essentially embraces the Democratic Party platform that endorses unfettered abortion on demand. I share many of his criticisms of conservatives, but his timid critiques of fellow Democrats lack substance and credibility.
This blog has made me a Bible thumper. I'm looking in my Bible and I haven't found "abortion" anywhere in the words of Jesus. I am pro-life yet I do not believe that we can end abortion with legislation. Women suffered tremendously when abortion was illegal. In my opinion abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
Being pro-life to me means that I must stand up against the genocide in the Sudan, against war anywhere, and against the death penalty. Being pro-life means standing up for programs that fight poverty, provide health care and strengthen working families. We must advocate alternatives to abortion --- and encourage Christians to adopt especially if they are having a hard time getting pregnant.
Progressive evangelicals are helping deepen and broaden the conversation about values in this nation. McLaren's words help us remember the many biblical values that have been marginalized by the monologue of the Religious Right. Those angry, tired voices are fading and new voices of hope, compassion and justice are emerging. McLaren's articulate and inspiring voice is so encouraging to young adults who yearn to be part of a transformational Christian witness in these challenging times.
Will:
This blog has made me a Bible thumper. I'm looking in my Bible and I haven't found "abortion" anywhere in the words of Jesus.
That's a straw man argument. Abortion was scarcely an issue in Jesus' day. The Bible says plenty about turning a blind eye to the slaughter of the innocent.
I am pro-life yet I do not believe that we can end abortion with legislation.
We can't end it, but we can drastically reduce it, as Poland has:
http://www.ortl.org/publications...hp?
articleID=88
Women suffered tremendously when abortion was illegal.
What's your evidence for this? Check out:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/sfl/il...l/
illegbeck.htm
In my opinion abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
This Democrat mantra rings hollow when they stridently oppose even the most modest abortion restrictions, such as:
banning partial birth abortion
informed consent (providing information about fetal development, abortion methods, risks, and alternatives)
parental notification for minors
barring tax-funded abortions
regulating abortion clinics like other ambulatory surgical centers
You know Huck they just stoned unmarried pregnant women in Jesus' day --- they didn't need abortion.
Illegal abortions are a major cause of death among mothers in Latin America --- according to the World Health Organization. Hundreds of thousands of women die or are seriously injured due to illegal abortions. According to a BBC report "In Peru alone, an estimated 50,000 women a year either die or suffer serious complications after an illegal abortion."
I know a woman who had an abortion when she was in college back in the early 70's (when it was illegal)-- her "Christian" boyfriend pressured her to do so. She suffers emotionally and physically still because of that decision. I am pro-life --- yet I do not believe that legislation can stop abortion. I am pro-life --- yet I do not believe it is moral or just public policy to endanger the lives of women by making abortion illegal.
I am often shocked by the amount money some Christian parents are willing to spend in order to have a child of their very own. Why not strongly encourage Christians to adopt rather than spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments?
Will,
Could one plausibly stnd up to genocide in the Sudan while claiming that it should be legal? Further, one of the leading proponents of action in the Sudan is Sam Brownback, who would certainly be considered a member of the religious right.
I agree that we must do something about the situation in the Sudan. However, when we talk about committing peacekeeping troops, we have to make an effort to delineate between peacekeeping and warmaking, yes? At a certain point, our peacekeeping runs the risk of becoming occupation, which leads to a number of logistical problems.
Brad, it is so great to read you talking thru how radical an appreciation for all of life is. It is so easy to fall into a party POV in terms of one wedge issue or the other, rather than claiming the space that transcends a candidate of a consultant's polling data.
I would also add that herbal abortion techniques go back centuries, even pre-Jesus. Don't you think that as part of his mission, directly representing the Father, he might have mentioned it? Or are we willing to drop a significant omni from our theological repertoire: omniscience.
And I'm sorry, friend, but the OT arguments seem as strawmen to me. You can no more extrapolate from Psalm 139 that abortion is wrong as you can extrapolate from Genesis 1 that Christians should, in light of the coming of the second Adam, be vegetarians just as it was before sin entered the world. Further, Levitical codes citing the price to be paid for a man killing a pregnant woman causing the unborn to die have to do with property rights, not a Western sense of individualization.
These are the things that make me struggle. I still maintain, however, that when it comes to abortion, I am an agnostic who prefers to err on the side of caution.
I will likely never find a candidate whose values coincide 100% with mine, so what I look for is consistency--does she/he state the same values no matter what group is being spoken to. I also check the candidate's past record to verify the values statements. But values alone are not enough. The 3 questions I ask of any candidate are: (1) what do you understand to be the role and function of government? (2) what are your most foundational values? and (3) what process will you use to make decisions, i.e. how will you apply your values when making decisions? I am especially interested in how decisions will be made in the midst of an ethical or moral dilemma, when authentic values come into conflict and one has to say yes to some values and no to others, as in Dietrich Bonhoeffer's participation in the attempt on Hitler's life. Bonhoeffer's reflection was that decisions are rarely choices between right and wrong, but more often between wrong and wrong, or right and right. In such cases, according to Bonhoeffer, the decision must be made and the judgment left to God.
Good word, Randy.
Thanks to Brian McLaren for a concise statement of values.
Brian says "...a whole constellation of issues coalesce around three values that I find rooted in Scripture and especially the teachings of Jesus...".
Brian says that our moral values should be: (1) stewardship of the earth; (2) justice; and (3) opposition to war.
Stewardship: we must intervene when human beings through greed or ignorance damage the earth. Justice: we need to narrow the gap between rich and poor and improve the lives of the billions who are living in desperate need while others live in extreme luxury. Opposition to war: religious, ethnic, political, and racial hatred (the root causes of war or terrorism) contradict and conflict with the message of Jesus, which is a call to reconciliation with God and neighbor and enemy.
I think communication of this concise statement of values might successfully compete with the present focus on abortion and gay marriage.
Actually, I have some further thoughts. Does anyone know about abortion in Ireland? First off, it's officially illegal. However, if you look off the coast, in international waters, you will see cruise ships that ferry women out to the ships to have abortions.
Now picture the US. Where does most of the population live? Of course, on the coasts. In 2008, the total population of the US that live in counties touching the coastline will be 160 million (see here: http://www.oceanservice.noaa.gov...opulation.html)
. Currently that's 54% of the US population.
How many abortions will be performed in coastal waters as is happening in Ireland if the Supreme Court bans abortion? Consider further that the northern population along the Canadian border could easily go into Canada to receive abortions. I don't have figures on the number of US citizens on the Canadian border, but consider that Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York and several of the New England states are on the border.
The question that remains is: by how MANY will we have reduced the REAL number of abortions by US citizens if Roe v. Wade is overturned?
See this is the real problem I have with this discussion. I don't think much of the Right (and I used to be on the Christian Right marching in Pro-Life rallies back in the 90's) is really trying to get at a reduced number of abortions. The level of discussion has been shallow and focused entirely on Roe/Wade. It has made no effort for "post-war planning", i.e.: for making an effort to see what would happen if their goals were really accomplished.
So is it really about babies? Is it really about the preservation of life? I suspect more and more (and as I search my own 1990's heart) that it really was more about the SYMBOL of Roe/Wade that functioned as a STAIN on a mythologized Christian America. It was a focus on the letter of the law--in a truly literal sense--and not the spirit, nor the situation on the ground ("Would even you not pull your ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath?"), the situation right before our eyes.
So why do Wallis and now McLaren direct our attention to larger matters? At least in part it is because they get this.
Brian was responding to a question designed to list a small number of values. And the values he listed are critical ones. Whenever you do that you will wind up omitting things that are important, so give him a break.
Trying to attack Brian from a pro-life (on abortion) perspective is not appropriate. Brian is an endorser of Consistent Life. He does understand the connections among the issues.
I'm not sure why Brian is being blamed for the faults of the Democratic Party. He's never been a Party activist or maintained that a particular political party had the corner on what is right.
I think creating a culture of life, which to me means combining the issues of peace, protection of the unborn, protection of the right to life of the severely handicapped, and abolition of the barabaric institution of the death penalty, is absolutely key.
I also think ethnic issues are critical, and while not explicitly mentioned by Brian, are key factors in both his 2nd and 3rd points.
I would have expressed myself a little differently in such a short exposition, but I find myself 100% in agreement with Brian.
My last line should have said "other matters" not larger matters. My intent was to say that abortion has become such a laser-focused topic that the "larger" matters (i.e. matters that are in a picture with a wider scope) are lost.
I don't find anything other than "pro-life" in Brian's brief post. He has been criticised here for his brevity. If he wrote several pages, he would be criticised for being long-winded. Personally, I am happy with succint. Pro life includes babies. It also includes the poor, the oppressed, the war-ravaged, our land (the sustainer of all physical life). Justice,poverty and the environment are inextricably linked - sacrificing these in the political arena for the sake of a moral bandwagon or two is to fight a losing battle.
One of the items missing from the above discussion about valuing life and stewardship is responsible control of our own population. Human population growth is pushing the ability of the Earth to sustain life. We have to include access to effective contaception in our discussion of how to decrease abortion rates.
Thank you for the comment bob c! It is sometimes a lonely position, since people in one party or another inevitably tow their party's whole line, despite the automatic inconsistency that entails.
Matt, I don't claim eliminating abortion would be easy, nor do I claim that we should address the law alone, to the detriment of social programs to help mothers who can't handle the babies they have created (usually of their own volition) to deal with how to take care of the baby or give it to someone else. These are *all* important things.
However, the argument that, because Jesus didn't explicitly mention it, he must not've been concerned is flimsy. Jesus concentrated on addressing those sins that people didn't consider sins. Everyone at the time (at least among his Jewish counterparts) knew that abortion was wrong. At the time it was a common practice to kill a baby after it was born through "exposure" - by just leaving it outside to die in the elements, from dogs, etc. This was essentially a common "abortion" technique of the day. This is clearly murder even by the most "pro-choice" standards and Jesus didn't address it - because everyone knew better (whereas people didn't really realize how sinful the Jewish leaders of the day was - so this is where Jesus concentrated his fire).
My problem with Brian's approach isn't that any of his points are bad, it's that they are too narrow. He deliberately avoids admitting that the conservative evangelicals' issues are also important in an all-consuming effort to acknowledge the seekers' likely issues.
Just as Jesus admonished the Pharisees for focusing on the tithe and ignoring the poor, saying "you should have done the former without ignoring the latter," this applies to Brian's list - he should have mentioned the importance of the more traditional life issues without ignoring those he mentioned.
They're all important and the theme here is life - its quantity and its quality (so education, healthcare, eliminating poverty, etc.) are all our responsibility as a collective - life is precious, inviolable and absolutely all our responsibility as a society to protect, from before birth, through death and at all points in between!
Brad
If we treat all life as sacred the born and the unborn will be safe; they will have clean air and water, food, clothing, home and love. They will not have to fear being born into a bi-polar world of starvation and greed; they will have a chance to be educated. We kill to eat, we kill because we hate, we kill because we are afraid, and we kill because we forgot that vengeance belongs to God. There is a crisis going on and each one of us is responsible to resolve it; if we are going to speak of life then speak of all life or don’t speak of it at all. This is not about human law- this is a matter of conscience, of God’s Law. God knows; stop pretending you don’t. The truth hurts, now do something with that pain.
Brad,
I have a strong respect for (and include myself in) a position that stands on an entire ethic of human life, such as I take yours to be. I believe we share a lot in common.
However, to continue the debate I must take issue with your premise on Jesus mission and with the hint of mysogeny I sense in your comments. First, women don't create babies: men and women do. The "usually of their own volition" comment, I fear, propogates a mysogynistic line of reasoning that wants to "punish" women for having sex (presumed outside of marriage) by forcing them to have children. Saying the way I do in my analysis probably sounds atrocious to you (and I trust it does) but that is among the assumptions implicit in your argument, I fear. The image of women as whores (and the secondary assumption that children are punishment for it) is not one I am sure either of us want to take part in. Please search your heart on that one.
Secondly, I'm not sure Jesus concentrated on addressing sins that no one thought was sin. I don't think his "fulfilling the law" meant that he was writing a few more chapters to the already existing one. Rather--and feel free to disagree with me on this one--I feel Jesus was focusing his attention on those who were EXCLUDED from justice because of the practice of the law. One of the ways to reconcile this was to show that sin originated in the heart, not in the print of a papyrus. The kingdom, we are told, belongs to those who were explicitly excluded from righteousness (i.e. justice, GR: dikaiosyne). Under this approach EVERYONE, not just the Jewish religious leaders who were more corrupt than most and more powerful than most (a really bad combination), needed to repent and believe (i.e.: act in accordance with) in the inbreaking Kingdom: the prostitute, the tax collector, the centurian, and the religious leaders.
From this context I dispute that Jesus was only confronting sins that "people didn't consider sins". Herbal abortion is something that was NOT commonly known or discussed among the ancients. Why? It was robbery: the husband was robbed of potential sons, i.e.: property. As hard as it is for us to fathom, kids were property under Jewish law. Yet sometimes women had abortions for various reasons. And the secret on which herbs would do the trick was a WOMAN'S secret, passed down from woman to woman in an oral tradition through the ages and practiced in secret, not clinics. If there was ever a time to uncover a hidden sin, THAT WAS IT.
Why didn't he?
I'm not trying to justify abortion on this point. That would be completely simplistic (remember, I'm an agnostic on the subject, but a deeply committed -to-the-kingdom believer). But I do want to point out that it is SO VERY MUCH MORE complicated than it is portrayed, even by "consistent ethic of lifers".
Until I hear those with pro-life views engage--seriously engage--this topic in all its incredible minutia, I will feel there are other reasons at play behind our choices. And sometimes they don't appear to be very honorable or Christian, to be quite frank.
Matt,
First of all, I think that, regardless of the degree to which it takes 2 (and of course it does!) there is an issue with the premise that to "create" life is a bad thing. Maybe the very fact that you think that is an insult to women helps explain why you and I differ on this point.
Secondly, I was aware of my word choice and did mean to tweak there, so I apologize for the intentional provocation. I find it exasperating that people who otherwise appear to have a consistent life ethic can be "agnostic" on this one and I sometimes react on that exasperation.
I don't see the "herbal abortion" which you keep referring to as relevant given that, as I mentioned before, "exposure" was widely practiced and he didn't mention that either. Again, does that mean Jesus didn't think there was anything wrong with this practice? I would argue that's not at all what that omission means. There were many things Jesus didn't mention that he undoubtedly saw as sin.
The fact is, a mere glance at Jesus' teachings show that he was concerned for lives (as well as the quality of those lives). To argue that because he didn't explicitly mention "herbal abortion" he must be ok with today's practice is to focus (like the Pharisees) on the letter, not the spirt, of the New Testament.
Brad
PS - I would also point out that, while the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn abortion, the Didache (circa ~100), a document that came very close to being in the NT, is quite orthodox and, regardless of its status vis-a-vie the NT was often used by Christians, does explicitly condemn abortion.
"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).
I think the 2nd one of poverty and 3rd one of war stems from our ethical commitment for other human beings. We are supposed to be committed to them ethically, regardless of their specific attributes and capabilities, and despite our differences and conflicts.
I think this also underlies the answer to the politics of abortion, which I have laid out in my pragmatic prolife manifesto that I've been trying to get Jim Wallis, Ron Sider and others to interact with for some time...
dlw
Will:
Illegal abortions are a major cause of death among mothers in Latin America --- according to the World Health Organization. Hundreds of thousands of women die or are seriously injured due to illegal abortions. According to a BBC report "In Peru alone, an estimated 50,000 women a year either die or suffer serious complications after an illegal abortion."
The problem in such countries isn't the fact that abortion is illegal, but the lack of basic health care:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/
NR...n_estimates.htm
I am pro-life --- yet I do not believe that legislation can stop abortion.
Your belief doesn't fit the facts. Again, I refer you to the case of Poland.
I am pro-life --- yet I do not believe it is moral or just public policy to endanger the lives of women by making abortion illegal.
Would you support any of the abortion restrictions I've mentioned above?
I am often shocked by the amount money some Christian parents are willing to spend in order to have a child of their very own. Why not strongly encourage Christians to adopt rather than spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments?
I agree 100%.
Matt:
I would also add that herbal abortion techniques go back centuries, even pre-Jesus. Don't you think that as part of his mission, directly representing the Father, he might have mentioned it? Or are we willing to drop a significant omni from our theological repertoire: omniscience.
I suspect that he didn't specifically mention abortion for the same reason he didn't mention homosexuality. He didn't need to; his Jewish audience generally understood that these were wrong.
Further, Levitical codes citing the price to be paid for a man killing a pregnant woman causing the unborn to die have to do with property rights, not a Western sense of individualization.
The passage mandates "life for life, eye for eye" (etc.) in the case of serious injury to mother or child. A fine is levied only for a premature birth.
The question that remains is: by how MANY will we have reduced the REAL number of abortions by US citizens if Roe v. Wade is overturned?
They would undoubtedly be drastically reduced, which is why the abortion lobby is so zealous about upholding the Roe fiat. Of course, the only way to be sure is to allow states to democratically enact their own laws. If states' constitutional authority in this matter is ever reinstated, I would anticipate few outright bans, but many reasonable restrictions.
See this is the real problem I have with this discussion. I don't think much of the Right (and I used to be on the Christian Right marching in Pro-Life rallies back in the 90's) is really trying to get at a reduced number of abortions. The level of discussion has been shallow and focused entirely on Roe/Wade. It has made no effort for "post-war planning", i.e.: for making an effort to see what would happen if their goals were really accomplished.
Nonsense. Crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies are central to the pro-life movement.
I love that Jim Wallis counts the population-growth police among his followers... Good grief... The earth is more important than human beings? Please show me the scriptural (our ethical, or common-sensical) backing for controlling population growth for the sake of controlling it.
Matt,
You seem to think making abortion illegal will have no effect on the number of abortions. Are you, then, arguing that 1.3 million women will ignore laws against the practice, and inflict upon themselves? Even the most liberal estimates of pre Roe v. Wade numbers indicate a sharp increase in the number of abortions. If reversing Roe v. Wade, and enacting bans on abortion results in, say, a 20% reduction in abortion, that will save 2.6 million children over the next ten years. If it results in a 2% reduction, that is 260,000.
Are those significant figures or not?
If, say, Walmart were killing 260,000 people annually with their business practices, would anyone suggest that we shouldn't forbid that practice? Would we overlook their murderous nature in favor of more important, or less divisive issues? Of course not.
Just one question, primarilly for Huck but also Kevin or anyone else who wants to respond.
If you no longer want to have tax-payer supported abortions, (as Huck claimed in his earlier post) then can I stop having my tax dollars go to supporting our military which, as a Christian pacifist I abhore?
Where is the sense in such a sentiment? The other thing that I want to bring up is consideration for inter-faith dialouge.
Wallis has stated numerous times that he is for encouraging all peoples of faith. And as someone who comes from a blended Jewish/Christian family and married to a Taoist I look over some of our posts and wonder what commonalities we could find with each other beyond just "Christian" ones.
I think that may also explain why some liberals are somewhat hesitant to dictate specifics because they understand that people come to these issues from multiple points, not just one and wish to at least honor others with a respectful hearing of where their faith journey has led them.
Anyway, just some late night thoughts.
M.
Kevin:
I love that Jim Wallis counts the population-growth police among his followers... Good grief... The earth is more important than human beings? Please show me the scriptural (our ethical, or common-sensical) backing for controlling population growth for the sake of controlling it.
Of course the Earth IS far more important than human beings will ever be because it was here long before we were. With or without God's blessing, it can and will most certainly survive without us, so there's no sense in expecting it to sustain us to infinite numbers. It has proven time and again that people tend to die by nature's hand whenever we take for granted our place in it, or powers over it.
Because, with or without God's blessing, we most certainly cannot survive without the Earth, so we have no choice but to be concerned for it's health and stability, secondary to our own. The mere existence of our species is more important than getting prideful about our numbers.
We are "stewards" of the Earth. Nowhere in the Bible to I see any mention by God that we are "masters" over it. There's a big difference between the two concerning responsibility and humility.
I think the relevant stats kevin shd be considering are the ones for the overall fertility rates before and after RoeVWade. It is true that the number of abortions likely went up as a result of RoeVWade, but this seems not to have resulted in fewer children being born.
So the irony is that there are many who would not likely exist right now if there mother's had not had earlier abortions.
It doesn't settle the question, but it adds a little extra perspective.
I personally think it's more important to change hearts than laws as laws are always more effective when most people believe that what they enforce is right anyways. This is why the prohibition of Alcohol failed.
I call for changing hearts and then when we treat the human unborn as legally-protected persons, in my pragmatic prolife manifesto. You shd check it out...
M.A. Robison,
I think some Christians break Mark 7:7 by teaching their human precepts to the status of doctrine. I think the more irenic approach you described is better from a missiological standpoint as spirited argumentation does not change hearts.
"Liberals" can thank the German Halle Pietists(Jakob Spener and Auguste Hermann Francke) for that, as they later influenced the Philosophes, the Moravians and Kant and Hegel.
dlw
Just a thought here, but isn't abortion a symptom rather than a cause?
Seems to me war, abortion, abuse of mother earth, are all symptoms of a sick (dare I call it sinful?) society.
Maybe an oversimplification, but sin appears to be based on fear.
"Fear not, . . . "
Brad:
I'm sorry, but I can't help you if you don't read my post carefully.
Brad and Huck,
You are both still making the argument that Jesus' teachings focused on issues that Israel simply didn't know--before Jesus--were wrong. That's simply false. Here's only one of many examples:
"You shall not cheat in measuring length, weight or quantity. You shall have honest balances, honest weights, an honest ephah, and an honest hin." Leviticus 19:35-36
And so in response to Jesus' bringing of the kingdom to him, Zaccheus, a JEW, seeks to immediately make recompense for his having broken this commandment over a lifetime. There are plenty more examples.
HuckFinn:
Exodus 21:22
"When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooh, hand for hand, foot for foot..."
I would follow your interpretation if I didn't have this verse immediately preceding v. 22:
"When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave DIES IMMEDIATELY, the owner shall be punished. But IF THE SLAVE SURVIVES A DAY OR TWO, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property (literally: silver)."
This passage isn't exactly a manifesto on the value of life.
Furthermore, Huck, on your comments about Crisis Pregnancy Centers, I'm afraid you have drastically overestimated their potential. I was on the board of one in my town at the tender age of 19. We barely could keep the doors open with a mostly volunteer staff. They could not possibly support an influx as you suppose. The post-war planning comment has to do with the infrastructure AND the political fallout AFTER an overturn. Your comments suggesting that adoption and crisis pregnancy centers could fill the gaps apparently right away demonstrates my point exactly.
Abortion is a justice issue, and it is more about the poor than most Christians are willing to consider. Abortion is a convenience only for the economically stable woman, and laws against abortion would only increase the percentage of poor minority women in the legal system. It is the poor urban female I'm concerned about. While we expound our rhetorics about keeping abortion on the political agenda, we fail to provide the education, adoption agencies and social services necessary to combat the complex social problems behind the issue. I think we should take abortion off the political platform and get to work on the streets and in our schools. We would do much more to save the babies if we diverted our energies to the more practical ... like asking our elected officials to provide more social services for young single mothers, increasing the minimum wage or getting involved in a local faith-based adoption placement agency.
Brian McLaren says,
"For me, a whole constellation of issues coalesce around three values that I find rooted in Scripture and especially the teachings of Jesus."
This whole "constellation" must include some of the issues that some people seem to think he has omitted such as abortion. I come for Northern Ireland and can identify wih the republican right of the political spectrum and have found that we need to look down the road to see where some of the more extreme right views will ultimately lead. we, in Northern Ireland, also have a significant of people who would place themselves on the right of the spectrum, both in church and in state matters. The idea, for example, of terrorising the terrorist was an idea first suggested as the only response to terrorism by the Ulster Defence Association [protestant/loyalist and unionist] and has been found to be both impractical in a democratic society and unbiblical for people who say that they will follow a Jesus, or better still are following a Jesus who said we were to turn the other cheek. The suggestion of returning to capital punishment has also proved unacceptable. The present government or no one i can conceive of in this country would have the nerve to put these policies into operation and WE ARE GLAD ABOUT THAT TOO. We too have politicians who will not countenance abortion and that includes all the unionists.
We too have too few of the same politicians who are shouting about changing our lifestyles to save the planet that God made. Too few who will
get excited about the injustices by the British establishment which have adversely affected bot sections of our divided community.
The Makepovertycampaign which had some of the most evangelical groups in Northern Ireland involved found it all but impossible to get some of the right wing unionist politicains involved while the nationalist and republicians were right in the middle of it and all power to their elbow, as we would say.
Right wing political thinking must also, in our context, deal with the problem of racism. It is disgraceful, and that it too weak a term, that we have many who consider themselves on the strong wing of the evangelical church, who demonstrate racist views, Since we are living in a world which is shifting from an Atlantic domination to a Pacific and Asian domination you wood think that we would alter our thinking if only from a self-preservation point of view but, there agsin unionist politicians have been saying for many years that eventually the Roman Catholic/Nationalist [the same thing in unionist thinking] community wouod eventually take over, so why, since the demographics are 50-50 are they not ready to talk to the "enemy" let alone love him?
We too need to tackle these issues because the untimate conclusion is the experience of the 30 years of War in Northern Ireland which has become a stumbling bloc to faith for many.
To say that Brian McLaren or Jim Wallis has ignored other life issues is like saying that Jesus neglected them also even though he said "Love one another"
His concluding statement, "The most important issues, it seems to me. centre in thses three values" I think so too, "love your neighbour as your self"
Brad,
"there is this fear of saying "yes, abortion *is* wrong""
YOU don't seem to be "afraid" of saying it!
Be that as it may, when YOU 'get pregnant' by being raped by YOUR father, I wonder if you might change your tune.
Melissa said
"We are "stewards" of the Earth. Nowhere in the Bible to I see any mention by God that we are "masters" over it. There's a big difference between the two concerning responsibility and humility."
Genesis 1:26 says
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
That doesn't mean we trash the earth, but the zero-population growth stuff just isn't scriptural.
Kathy,
I agree with you that our nation needs to streamline our adoption system by eliminating expensive bureaucracies (it costs thousands of dollars and take years to adopt in this country).
However, pretending that abortion is just a poor issue isn't realistic. Half of those who obtain abortions make over $30,000 per year (which, considering that they are mostly single females under 25, is a significant figure). Either way, I don't think it should factor into the logical and ethical argument against the practice.
Kevin:
That doesn't mean we trash the earth, but the zero-population growth stuff just isn't scriptural.
Does common sense have to be written down for us in scriptures?
So how do we double or triple our numbers without trashing the earth? Every action we take has a reaction in the physical world. Every child born adds to the impact we're having.
Even if the Earth is made for us, it's still missing the point. Everything has its limits. No matter how careful we are about the environment, we still can't blindly multiply like rabbits and expect the Earth to remain plentiful just because we think we deserve it. When other creatures become too numerous, nature (Or God, depending on your beliefs) bites them in the ass one way or another to put things back into balance. To think that just because we're human we're above that rule is just arrogance. (Even if it's written in scripture, it's still arrogance to think our freedom has no limit at all and take it for granted.)
So which would you rather do? Maintain our population through educated volunary means such as contraception; or strut proudly towards the millions of deaths through worldwide epidemics or famine?
It doesn't matter how far we think we are from that limit. I don't want to get close enough to find out. It's best if we start becoming more humble and taking precautions now, while we still have it good.
"(Even if it's written in scripture, it's still arrogance to think our freedom has no limit at all and take it for granted.)"
You rephrased my argument in a light more favorable to your point of view. We have enough food to feed our population. It's the world's geopolitical structure that generates famine. Scripture encourages us to have many children (though, certainly, not out of wedlock).
I don't believe in mother nature.
M:
If you no longer want to have tax-payer supported abortions, (as Huck claimed in his earlier post) then can I stop having my tax dollars go to supporting our military which, as a Christian pacifist I abhore?
Unlike funding the military or police, legalized abortion has been framed primarily as a matter of "choice." This logic collapses when people are forced to subsidize abortion.
Matt:
You are both still making the argument that Jesus' teachings focused on issues that Israel simply didn't know--before Jesus--were wrong. That's simply false.
What I meant was that he focused on issues that his contemporaries needed correction on. This would include disobedience as well as misunderstanding.
"When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave DIES IMMEDIATELY, the owner shall be punished. But IF THE SLAVE SURVIVES A DAY OR TWO, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property (literally: silver)."
This passage isn't exactly a manifesto on the value of life.
Note that the death penalty isn't called for, even if the slave dies immediately. This situation is not analogous to killing a pregnant (Hebrew) woman or her unborn child. (The harsh treatment of foreign slaves is another discussion altogether.)
Furthermore, Huck, on your comments about Crisis Pregnancy Centers, I'm afraid you have drastically overestimated their potential. I was on the board of one in my town at the tender age of 19. We barely could keep the doors open with a mostly volunteer staff. They could not possibly support an influx as you suppose. The post-war planning comment has to do with the infrastructure AND the political fallout AFTER an overturn. Your comments suggesting that adoption and crisis pregnancy centers could fill the gaps apparently right away demonstrates my point exactly.
If all the tax money now given to Planned Parenthood were redirected to CPCs and adoption agencies, there would be few (if any) gaps. The 95-10 initiative would go a long way toward addressing this problem.
Christina (from yesterday), Gram and Kathy - good points.
Ultimately abortion is a very complex issue. I was born and put up for adoption pre- Roe V. Wade. My life is and was valuable. However, I realize that my birth mother had a lot going for her... a family that supported her and people to help her through the pregnancy and with the adoption. I have tons of respect for her. And when I pastorally council people I will always encourage adoption when an unwanted preganancy is involved. I am generally pro-life. However, we are talking about sweeping laws, here. I find that I have little faith that laws can bring about the valuing of life in this area. There are some states in the U.S. who want to outlaw abortion options if a teenage girl is raped by her father... who do we value more in that scenario? Often times women see anti-abortion activists as generally misogynistic... and with our church track record... they are not far off the mark.
So.. there are a few things to consider other than just the black and white issues we tend to lean on. There are root problems to unwanted pregancies. Issues brought up before are economical... and we should not take those lightly. We live in a consumer driven society. We view sex, relationships, etc. as means to our own happiness. And throw away easily anyone or anything that is detrimental to our own perceived well being. We compartmentalize our lives significantly. Which leaves us with sex without committment. Bodies separated from minds and spirit. One of the only industries that women get paid more than men on any regular basis is in porn. Who buys porn?... primarily men. And if statistics are any indication some of those men would call themselves Christians. In this we see women valued for their bodies, as if they have nothing more to offer. Women think sexuality is empowering. We try to be the sexual objects men desire. Men both Christan and non are encouraged to see sex as pleasure to have for themselves (I think even a fairly popular Christian marriage book calls Christian married women to be something like "concubines"). Inevitabley with the loss of valuing sex as sacred... men and women have sex more and more outside of committed relationships. The consequence (fair or unfair) rests primarily with us women. The problem: death (on many levels). The solution: empowerment of women, valuing of committment, decline of pornography, affordable healthcare, making sexuality amazing and sacred again...
I don't think a law on abortion will accomplish any long term solutions to the valuing of life. But I do think God cares about the value of life. Honestly... voting pro-life is easy. Because it engages nothing but our brains... and we aren't accountable for anything other than a check box (or punched out chad) on election day.
If you are on this comments list and you are vehimently pro-life... kudos to you... but if you do not participate in one or more of the following: adoption, foster care, helping provide babysitting for low income families and single parents... helping out pregnant teens... than frankly, your opinion is just that: an opinion. How many opinions did Jesus have without actions? So ultimately it is actions that will stop abortions... not from the top down (big government)... rather, from a grass roots effort where the church cares so much for pregnant teens and unwanted kids... where churches value women as equals and not as objects of men... where we give of our lives and resources to care for the orphan and widow (James 1:27)... that is when we will see life truly valued.
I've read it quite a few times in these postings and in Wallis's writings that the Bible talks a lot about poverty and says nothing about prohibiting abortion. This line of reasoning is faulty for a few reasons:
1) the Bible does not directly prohibit slavery, but would anyone criticize abolitionists for being too "narrow-minded" in focusing so much on slavery? Would you vote for someone who was going to spend billions on poverty but also supported the enslavement of blacks? If you believe that abortion is the killing of innocent life, then you must also accept that abortion is worse than slavery, for an attack on life is worse than an attack on liberty. I feel a okay with being a single issue "exclusionary" voter, because there are some things that are just too awful to support.
2) It is only very recently that people have started interpreting Jesus's teachings on poverty as meaning "care for poverty must be done coercively through the government." It has generally been interpreted as meaning that it should be down charitably (ie, voluntarily). Is taking money from some people and giving it to others really "compassionate"? God cares more about the PROCESS than the end result. We see that again and again in scripture.
3) Poor people in biblical times were generally homeless and without food.They also did not have the same rights as others. The average poor person in the US has all of these things. Obesity, not starvation, is one of the biggest problems among the poor in the US. Let's get our terms right, please.
The three points above seem pretty straightforward. I have NEVER heard Wallis, McLaren, et al. address these points, yet they provide the strongest evidence against their political/theological positions. Do any left-leaning people here have anything to say about these points?
can I stop having my tax dollars go to supporting our military which, as a Christian pacifist I abhore?
Check out the Peace Tax Fund bill.
Couple of things.
1. Thanks to Erin for her response. I am here because of abortion. My mother has MS and the first time she got pregnant the doctors were so concerned about the state of her health that they had to abort the fetus. A couple of years later they kept trying and praying and they got *me*. In the meantime they were foster parents and adopted my older sister. Since then my mother, while certainly not viewing abortion as a form of birth control, has stayed on the pro-choice side of the fence because as Erin said, the way to end abortions is to deal with the roots not the effect.
2. As a social worker specializing in DV (Domestic Violence) and troubled teens I have to take issue with Jesse's statement about the "average homeless person". I have seen teens kicked out of their homes or run away from situations that would make you sick to your stomach and who do not have a place to live because funding for our shelters is inadequate, who have little or no food because they don't qualify for assistance or don't have anyplace for that assistance to be sent. And there are plenty of people who look at our homeless poor population with eyes of prejudice and fear and would gladly and have fought to take away what few rights they have.
M.
M.A.,
Sorry, but you totally misquoted me. I said the "average poor person" (i.e., person who is defined as "poor" in the US) has food, shelter, and the same basic rights as everyone else. I didn't say the "average homeless person". I never said that some people in the US go without shelter. If they go without food, then they basically are not connected with the right resources, because food is available everywhere.
Many of the people who comment here seem to be men. If abortion was made illegal would you agree that if a girl has an abortion that her male partner should also go to jail?
An aborted fetus, if GOD decides that that is a life, will certainly go to Heaven. However there are millions of children who are born to parents who don't want them. These children usually have terrible lives. When is the last time you saw someone in your church who had adopted a baby? I think that the majority of people in church are too busy living the good life, and many are too selfish to help the misfortunate.
I wish that nobody had an abortion but I also have grief knowing that children are starving and cold and are bring abused every day of their life, and most people just look down on them instead of trying to help them.
But, does the BIBLE really address when life begins? Doesn't GENESIS say that GOD made Adam and Eve and then he breathed life into them!
As far as GAY Marriage is concerned, Gays have been ostracized for centuries - and THEY ARE ALSO MADE BY GOD. I have heard psychiatrists say that people are born GAY. Why not allow them to have legal rights, like employee health care, etc.? Can you open your heart and see that maybe GOD would be pleased because you had helped these people?
When the people were going to STONE the woman who committed adultery, Jesus said for the person without sin to cast the first stone. Are any of you without sin?
And when the Disciples asked Jesus if they should call down fire from Heaven if the town did not accept their message -- Jesus said NO, just shake the dust off your feet and go to the next town. GOD is the only being who is supposed to judge and to cast judgment on people.
The Evangelicals whom I see on TV usually live in very expensive houses and live like Kings. Doesn't the BIBLE say that it is harder for a rich man to go to Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle!
The TV Evangelicals whom I see misinterpret the BIBLE to their advantage. They scare me because they misinterpret it so much.
Instead of saying there should be no abortions, why not be positive and say that every young couple in your church will adopt a child who would have been aborted?
PRAY for GOD's Guidance.
Jessie, no offense, but do you actually work with poor/homeless people? Have you read any literature, seen anyone in person more than the guy on the streetcorner with a cup? I have. I work with them on the streets. And the first time you see a guy reach for the food you have made for him and his hands are shaking yet he still waits for the prayer and devotions to be completed, your opinion will change. Hopefully then you will leave your political talking points behind.
Secondly, regarding Jesus valuing the process over the end result, that's frankly absurd. "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath" Jesus responds as he breaks the law to feed the hungry (himself and the disciples). Healing on the Sabbath. His mission was strictly to Jews yet he still heals the daughter of a woman who begs for the crumbs from the table. It's not "my time" Jesus says but he still makes wine at a party. So I say to you as Jesus said to the Pharisees, "But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless."
Thirdly, in your comparison with slavery, please remember that slavery was not merely a loss of liberty. That's a slap in the face to those scarred and killed by their masters. And your line of argument about the need for extra-biblical approaches to abortion...IS A GOOD ONE! But consider this: Evangelicals are DEFINED by their adherence to scripture. "The only rule for faith and practice" is a commonly cited mantra of the good book. As Mark Noll, American Evangelical historian points out (and his credentials are better than yours or mine as an Evangelical), the south WON the battle of exegesis pre-civil war. Their arguments carried the day. YOUR arguments may carry the day and I applaud efforts that try to do more than cut and paste on the abortion issue (because I feel it is so very complex!). But remember this: you are veering from your otherwise stout approach to scripture. So when others use this line of argument to support views that are "liberal"...please don't condemn them (and I cannot confirm that you would, but I wanted to make the observation). Homosexuality comes to mind...
How many opinions did Jesus have without actions?
First of all Jesus did not have opinions. He spoke the truth of God. His actions and words were in line with the will of the Father. To argue otherwise cheapens the truth of God.
Interesting things strawmen. They are so easily burned.
To discount an argument such as someone being pro-life and then questioning whether the commenter is doing anything such as adoption and so forth is an invalid argument just an opinion is bogus.
We are called to the purpose of God that he puts before us. I work with Alcoholics and go to the prisons. My time is sufficiently filled, so I do not have time to deal with helping unwed mothers or the like. Frankly the opportunity has not presented itself either. This does not make my opinion that abortion is wrong any less valid.
This argument is an invalid guilt trip and I do not subscribe to it.
Erin:
Often times women see anti-abortion activists as generally misogynistic...
A majority of these activists are women.
I don't think a law on abortion will accomplish any long term solutions to the valuing of life.
Laws by themselves don't determine societal values, but they do shape them, as well as reflecting them. (The same can be said about the entertainment industry, for example.)
So ultimately it is actions that will stop abortions... not from the top down (big government)...
In our system, the government supposedly answers to "we the people." Even if it didn't, we'd still have a duty to speak prophetically against unjust polcies, such as failing to protect the most helpless members of the human family from violence.
Jenny:
If abortion was made illegal would you agree that if a girl has an abortion that her male partner should also go to jail?
I would send the abortionist to jail, not the woman.
An aborted fetus, if GOD decides that that is a life, will certainly go to Heaven. However there are millions of children who are born to parents who don't want them. These children usually have terrible lives.
By this logic, we should kill all kids in foster care.
When is the last time you saw someone in your church who had adopted a baby?
Besides me and my wife, I know several couples in our church who've adopted and/or become foster parents.
But, does the BIBLE really address when life begins?
God knows us in the womb.
Doesn't GENESIS say that GOD made Adam and Eve and then he breathed life into them!
By this logic, abortion up to a minute before birth is morally inconsequential. (You might be interested to know that babies are often killed during and even after birth, with impunity.)
Why not allow [gays] to have legal rights, like employee health care, etc.?
Spouses don't even have such a guarantee.
Matt:
And your line of argument about the need for extra-biblical approaches to abortion...IS A GOOD ONE! But consider this: Evangelicals are DEFINED by their adherence to scripture. "The only rule for faith and practice" is a commonly cited mantra of the good book. As Mark Noll, American Evangelical historian points out (and his credentials are better than yours or mine as an Evangelical), the south WON the battle of exegesis pre-civil war. Their arguments carried the day. YOUR arguments may carry the day and I applaud efforts that try to do more than cut and paste on the abortion issue (because I feel it is so very complex!). But remember this: you are veering from your otherwise stout approach to scripture.
American slavery was based entirely on a racist premise that is demonstrably unbiblical.
So when others use this line of argument to support views that are "liberal"...please don't condemn them (and I cannot confirm that you would, but I wanted to make the observation). Homosexuality comes to mind...
This analogy is bogus. Unlike abortion, the Bible explicitly and consistently condemns homosexual relations.
Matt,
I don't work with poor/homeless people but the numbers speak for themselves. Most people classified as "poor" in the US (which is about 12%) have homes and are well fed. Show me data that say otherwise.
Regarding my point about process vs end result, it still stands. God desires us to obey Him no matter what the costs. This isn't Phariseeism. It's about obedience and doing what is right. The ends do not justify the means. Wouldn't you agree?
Your third point is interesting...I believe a Biblical case can be made for outlawing slavery and abortion. The reason I give these things as examples is to counter Wallis et al.'s constant refrain about how many verses there are in the Bible about poverty and the fact that there are none that directly speak about abortion (or prohibiting slavery) means that these other issues are much less important. It is just a bad, shallow argument that the religious left make again and again. Let's have some clear thinking and let's get past shallow rhetoric, please.
In Matthew, Jesus lays out an agenda that any politician should follow when he talks about separating the sheep from the goats, and how the sheep fed the poor, gave drink to the thirsty and clothes to the naked, and visited the sick and imprisoned.
The sacrilegious right in this country (the corporatist Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson, for example) have sold out to the big dollars and dumped the real teachings of Jesus in the trash can in the name of billion dollar empires and political power, that for them is only serving them. It's amazing to me how they can speak their venom and get other "Christians" to go along with it, when they are really just using other Christians to make sure that the Republicans get those tax cuts through that benefit billionaires like Robertson.
That tax cut means more to him, in my opinion, than anything Jesus ever said. If not, he wouldn't have been calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez who is loved and adored by the people of Venezuela because Chavez nationalized the oil in their country and uses many of the proceeds from it to help the poor and less fortunate in his country.
For corporatists like Bush and Robertson, that's anathema. It's heresy. For Jesus, it's wonderful, because the nations will be judged based on how they treat the poor within them, as the Bible so clearly states.
The United States if it continues on its current path, will be judged harshly. The wicked shall be cast into hell and every nation that "forgets" God.
Just saying "God bless America," doesn't mean you remember him. How the poor is being treated clearly shows that those claiming moral authority in this country, have indeed forgotten him.
Brad mentioned abortion in this thread. Here's a rant:
Abortion is not the killing of a life. Abortion is the temination of potential. Cancer cells have "life" to them. All cells can be classified as "life," including a zygote.
Here's where I take issue.
It's great that when it comes to zygotes, the sacrilegious right is all about the potential of that fertilized ovum. It's great that they focus on the "potential baby" that would result from that diploid cell if allowed to mature. Still, it's not a baby, it's "potential" for one. Is it life? Like I said, it's a cell and all cells "have life" in them.
Still, there are many examples of "potential" that these one-track-minded peons seem not too concerned about that also speak to issues of life and faith.
There is potential in this country for every child to have health care, which would enhance "life" for them after they are born. Why demand they be born just to end up dying or struggling because they don't have access to health care? Because the sacrilegious are not really about "life," they are about "birth." Life doesn't end at birth, but their argument usually does.
Poverty increases always under Republicans, and increased poverty results in people feeling worse about the future, which leads to more abortions including those from married couples who feel like they couldn't afford another pregnacy or child the way things are going. There is potential in this country to eliminate poverty if we put a greater emphasis on that than tax cuts for the rich. I don't see the sacrilegious right saying much about that, because the sad truth is a lot of people misinterpret a lot of things in the Bible and think that that's how "our" society should be. Just becaue there were "kings" in the bible does not mean that we need them here in the United States, so stop redistributing wealth upward and spread it out so that poverty decreases, prospects for people's futures improve, and abortion and abuse decrease simultaneously.
Likewise, there is potential for universal health care and very affordable (even free) college education in this country. For Americans, such a concept is unimagineable. "Free college"? Many other countries have it. There is potential for it, but the sacrilegious never speak of either. Universal health care would have a direct impact on "life." Greater access to college would have a direct impact on life over the long haul, because it increases earning potential for most, which could result in a better life for them and their families.
But some would say, how can you compare the potential life of an unborn fetus to the issues that you just addressed? Easily. Because the fact is that the potentials that I just laid out are being ignored and leading to all other kinds of societal problems that can and sometimes do result in death, as well.
Abortion is the termination of potential. Many types of potential are being terminated on a daily basis in this country. We need to embrace and cultivate potential. If you are going to rail on about the potential of a zygote, then you need to be demanding fairness for all who are born, otherwise, you are shortsighted.
Anonymous:
"American slavery was based entirely on a racist premise that is demonstrably unbiblical."
...and...
"This analogy is bogus. Unlike abortion, the Bible explicitly and consistently condemns homosexual relations."
Sorry. Though I believe that slavery is unChristian, its not so easy on the "unbiblical" front. You aren't God. You can't just declare something into existence.
Jessie,
"Show me data that say otherwise."
You can have your data. Feel free to pass on by, but I will tell you what I find on the Jericho road.
You are right. I don't believe that the ends justify the means. That would be atrocious ethics. But nor am I a principalist ("means only" - while admirable, principalism is often nothing more than Phariseeism in righteous clothing). I am a deontologist, which means the ends AND the means are important. And both should be fed and informed by the other.
"Your third point is interesting...I believe a Biblical case can be made for outlawing slavery and abortion. The reason I give these things as examples is to counter Wallis et al.'s constant refrain about how many verses there are in the Bible about poverty and the fact that there are none that directly speak about abortion (or prohibiting slavery) means that these other issues are much less important."
This last point is where I think we can have a more productive conversation. I can assure you that neither Wallis (representing what people will call the "religious left" for purposes of derogation, generally) DO NOT feel that abortion is less important than other concerns. I have done significant reading (to include books) into Wallis and this is a big concern for him. What he is attempting to do, friend, is simply to push other needs forward in the agenda and abortion back so that they meet in a middle that sees them all equally important. His voice must be set in the context of our other Christian brothers and sisters on the right who make only abortion and homosexuality the issues to be concerned with in the public sphere. To understand him out of this context is to MIS-understand him. He would argue that even though abortion is not mentioned in the scripture, it is un-Christian and not consistent with the Spirit of life.
Matt,
Wallis can say a lot of things about whatever, but he clearly thinks abortion is of lesser concern than poverty, war, the environment, etc. When does he ever condemn the Democrats' very strong support of abortion? What has he ever said about Roe v. Wade? Their litmus test for pro-abortion judges? For tax payer funding of abortion? If he talks about abortion, it's usually through dealing with "root causes". To me that sounds like "we need to really understand slavery and deal with root causes".
He is also clearly against passing any legislation that would protect unborn children. His position on abortion is no different than any "personally opposed" Democrat. He calls himself "prolife" but this is just deceptive.
It is ironic that the same political party that wants to outlaw abortion also wants to cut taxes on the rich and cut health-care programs, social security, and aid to the poor.
It seems that the real agenda of the religious right is to maintain their current economic balance of power in the world. Outlawing abortion would worsen the poverty problem in America because most of the abortions occur among the poor and the uneducated. This would mean more difficulties for poor single women (now mothers) who have little or no chance to ever create a stable life for themselves and their children.
That is sick and twisted and extremely selfish coming from a bunch of white suburbarn yuppies worried more about the yeilds on their 401k programs than the enormous baby boom they would like to create by outlawing abortion. Of course if/when their daughter gets pregnant they will still be able to pay to send them out of country for an abortion.
kevin s.,
"We have enough food to feed our population."
Then why do so many people in the world die of starvation?
Just askin'.
Kevin S.: It's the world's geopolitical structure that generates famine.
Agreed.
C&C,
I answered your question in the very same post!
Danutz,
"That is sick and twisted and extremely selfish coming from a bunch of white suburbarn yuppies worried more about the yields on their 401k programs than the enormous baby boom they would like to create by outlawing abortion."
From this statement we can derive the following
1) You think preventing population growth is a sufficient reason to encourage abortion.
2) You believe that wealthy suburban white men are leading the charge to ban abortion.
Neither lends much credibility to your argument I'm afraid.
RHEMA,
Did you want to engage any of the arguments on this board? Many of the issues (free college, for example) have been addressed on this blog.
Jenny,
"Many of the people who comment here seem to be men. If abortion was made illegal would you agree that if a girl has an abortion that her male partner should also go to jail?"
Many men, in fact, coerce women into having abortions. In this case, absolutely, they can head to jail. If the man is not complicit in the act (and simply having sex with the women would be insufficient by any legal standard) then no.
"But, does the BIBLE really address when life begins?"
It says God knit us in the womb. If you were God, and you knit a person, would you be cool if someone thought it should be legal to kill it? Where, by the way, does it say that life does NOT begin at conception? Why do you wish nobody had an abortion?
"As far as GAY Marriage is concerned, Gays have been ostracized for centuries - and THEY ARE ALSO MADE BY GOD."
Not being allowed to marry and being ostracized are two different things.
"When the people were going to STONE the woman who committed adultery, Jesus said for the person without sin to cast the first stone. Are any of you without sin?"
The only people casting stones (by way of hurling insults) are the most liberal folks on here. Am I not allowed to disagree, lest I be deemed a stonethrower?
"The Evangelicals whom I see on TV usually live in very expensive houses and live like Kings."
And have martinis with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Tony Blair... It cuts both ways.
Rhema,
You fail to grasp the uniqueness of the human zygote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/
co...00601250829.asp
Matt,
How can you deny that racism is unbiblical? Do I really need to prove this point to you?
Seriously, Huck. Do you think that is what I said? Are you attempting to have a reasoned conversation or simply to flamethrow?
I told you that historians have shown (Mark Noll, for instance) that the exegetical battle over slavery was won by the South. This can be documented because abolitionists in the north largely switched their arguments after seminary profs made their (successful) cases to the public.
Racism wasn't anywhere in that argument. Rather it was in YOUR argument where you said that racism is wrong therefore slavery is wrong. You interjected racism (a term, by the way, foreign to the antebellum US) as a category. So why do you insist that I am attempting to justify it, biblically nonetheless? You are either trying to have a sustained intellectual argument on your 15 minute coffee break using shallow hit and run techniques for lack of time, or you are just engaging in polemics. I presume, of course, that you are able to have such a discussion.
Please try harder.
Pay closer attention, Matt. I said specifically that American slavery was based on a racist premise (the supposed ontological inferiority of Blacks) that is demonstrably unbiblical. The fact that the term "racism" was unknown to the antebellum US is totally irrelevant. Racist thinking was pervasive and foundational to the US system of slavery.
I'm not accusing you of racism. I'm disputing your claim that the historic US enslavement of Blacks can't be condemned on biblical grounds.
Am I clear, now?
Hi Brian McLaren,
The subject of your post: three values for voters to consider:
1. stewardship of the earth
2. wealth and poverty
3. war and peace
got hijacked by antiabortionists who just wanted to dominate the discussion with their Republican Party wedge issue.
It is this kind of one track mind that has given America a corrupted, incompetent government.
To get elected all a corrupt politician has to do is pander to these one issue voters.
I guess they don't expect anything else from their leaders.
This thread is a waste of time and intelligence.
.
Nonsense,
This thread has seen debates on population-growth, famine, Darfur, among others. You just ignored all that and focused on one issue that is being discussed.
I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy of the one-issue anti-abortion crowd. I have no idea why they are so strong on this issue, but I'm pretty sure it has very little to do with sympathy for the unborn child. They are irrational, applying their own little litmus test and rejecting anyone who doesn't make the anti-abortion cause their one-item agenda, no matter what else that person says.
I don't know MacLaren's position on abortion, and I don't care what it is. I'm pretty sure, though, that he's never had an abortion.
Kay:
"I have no idea why they are so strong on this issue, but I'm pretty sure it has very little to do with sympathy for the unborn child."
If you have no idea, why don't you ask? A conversation might be illuminating for you. You might also discover that they are not "single issue" people after all.
Kevin,
Go back and read this thread again.
I've read it twice and I stand by the pattern I described above.
90% of the posts on this thread are either antiabortion diatribe or responses to antiabortion diatribe.
The 10% of the posts that tried to get the discussion back onto the topics put on the table by Pastor McLaren were either ignored or dismissed by the antiabortion posters.
Kevin, your posts had little to do with the topics raised by Pastor McLaren.
On Darfur, you advise us that Sam Brownback is concerned about Darfur and you are concerned that if we do peacekeeping we must be cautious that we don't slip into the role of occupiers.
So what do either you or Sam Brownback propose to actually do about the human tragedy in Darfur?
You advance no ideas that I could see.
You also assure us that we have enough food to feed the starving if it weren't for the world's geopolitical structure.
My guess is that you are against the United Nations, no?
You seem to be against population control in any form because "it's not scriptural".
Are there any viable solutions for any of mankind's current problems that are not scriptural?
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS FOR SOLVING THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS, KEVIN?
Or are you just wasting time with us?
.
Sam Brownback co-sponsored legislation to pledge $60 million to peacekeeping forces in Darfur. As the situation is now, I think that is a good step. I just have concerns about getting involved in a quagmire.
I have articulated a number of ideas for improving the world on other threads on this blog. To imply that I'm not advancing any ideas is incorrect.
Am I "against" the United Nations? I don't know what that means. Do i think United Nations members have contributed to the problem of world hunger, and do I think the organization itself needs to clean up before I'm interested in trusting it with my tax dollars? Absolutely. Would you disagree?
What are some of your ideas?
I raised the abortion issue because a "justice" agenda that ignores the state-sanctioned mass murder of unborn babies is standard liberal fare. Wallis is supposedly championing a movement that defies left and right stereotypes, but I've yet to see anything on this blog that truly challenges the left.
Huckleberry,
Can you talk about anything else besides abortion?
You keep turning discussions about other subjects into a discussion of the cause most dear to you - outlawing abortion.
Probably all of us here are against abortion.
We may differ on what to do about it.
But you're preaching to the choir.
I get a feeling that if you were to devote as much energy enabling adoption as you expend on outlawing abortion you might actually make more progress reducing abortion.
Give your obsession a momentary rest, Huck, broaden your perspective, listen to others and learn about the causes that are dear to the rest of us.
Isn't that what dialogue is all about?
It would also help the dialogue if you would stop challenging the "liberal" stereotype.
Do you think you are talking to stereotypes instead of other Christians?
We're Christian progressives here.
And I hope we're all on the same side of the equation.
.
Kevin says:
I have articulated a number of ideas for improving the world on other threads on this blog. To imply that I'm not advancing any ideas is incorrect.
Am I "against" the United Nations? I don't know what that means. Do i think United Nations members have contributed to the problem of world hunger, and do I think the organization itself needs to clean up before I'm interested in trusting it with my tax dollars? Absolutely. Would you disagree?
What are some of your ideas?
Kevin, frankly I don't remember any of your positive ideas for improving the world.
Please refresh my memory.
On the other hand, you don't remember any of the ideas I've advanced, either.
That's probably because you dismiss ideas out of hand without careful consideration, especially if the ideas aren't "scriptural".
Regarding the United Nations, I notice your explanation for why people starve in this world is because of "geopolitical" issues.
Yet you delight in denigrating the UN - an institution designed to transcend geopolitics.
You'll have to explain why you think the UN is causing hunger in the world.
Did you mean to say that?
While I can agree there has been corruption at the UN, at this point I would be more likely to trust the UN with my tax dollars than the thoroughly corrupted Bush administration.
.
Sorry for those who feel this has become single-issue, but I have to agree that the noticeable absence of any conviction on the abortion issue in this article is worth talking about.
To connect this with concerns of those who are not against the legality of abortion (even if personally opposed), let me address adoption. It has been suggested here and elsewhere that if adoption were easier then abortion would be more rare (ex. Sister Helen Prejean's post). As someone in the process of an adoption, let me share a bit that I have learned.
(1) There are WAY more parents wanting to adopt than American infants being given up for adoption. One reason people probably do extended infertility treatments is that they are unlikely to find an infant child to adopt in this country. So the argument that there would be no parents for the children being aborted is simply false. I will note that I think an earlier poster is right - that many of them would not have been conceived. This makes it all the easier for me to argue that they could be taken care of.
(2) The current process for domestic adoption, though it is certainly heart-wrenching for the birthmother (as would an abortion decision), is set up to make it as easy as possible for her. Her expenses during pregnancy and all hospital bills are generally covered by the parents planning to adopt the child, and she is able to decide how much contact she wants to have with her birthchild. She is also able to choose precisely the family she wants her child to go to - adoption agencies keep scrapbooks for the prospective families and the birthmothers are allowed to look at these to aid their decisions. And as we all know, the mother still has the option of changing her mind after the birth. So it's not clear to me what policies the government could implement to help a pregnant woman choose adoption over abortion. (Now, making it easier for parents to adopt is another story! But there are no shortage of them for the infants we are talking about.)
(3) Infertile people, for whatever reason, are sometimes assumed to be the people responsible for caring for the needy kids in our society. Why would this be exclusive to the infertile?
(4) I have heard statistics that abused and neglected children are no more likely to have been "surprise" pregnancies than other children. The assumption that the aborted children would have been mistreated is a major assumption indeed. (Not to mention the usual point that some seem to argue it's better to just be dead).
(5) The U.S. has a substantial tax credit (over $10,000) available to adoptive parents for the cost of their adoption, but it is still very expensive in most cases.
For context, I'll let you know that we have decided to adopt from an orphanage in Russia instead of trying the U.S. adoption scene. We've just learned about it through research and through a local adoptive parents group.
Sarah,
Thanks for your thoughtful post on the practical side of adoption as an alternative to abortion.
You imply that it isn't easy for parents who want to adopt American children.
What could be done to make it easier?
Does the process intimidate prospective parents wanting to adopt?
.
A few things that make domestic adoption difficult and what could help:
(1) The fact that children can actually be placed with the adoptive parents and then removed (different states have different time limits) makes it a bit of a scary process. On the other hand, I don't think anyone would say that the birthmother doesn't have the right to change her mind at the time of birth...but maybe a more limited time period where she can change her mind afterward would help.
(2) Prospective parents may feel awkward marketing themselves. If you go to any adoption website, you'll see photos of people wanting to adopt. They have to pay to have those ads put there, with hopes that a birthmother is looking into adoption and sees them on the website. In addition there are the scrapbooks I mentioned, which are of course very competitive -- does our family look beautiful or rich enough to attract a birthmother? The whole thing seems too much like a market to people like me (it's particularly acute because I'm an economist!). I was more comfortable with the old system of a queue of approved parents who waited until their turn to receive an available child. There are downsides to this too, but it is a matter of personal preference I think. Not much can be done about that policy-wise I don't think. Any regulation would work against the natural operation of this market, which - like any market - would be hard to change. Why shouldn't birthmothers get to choose the adoptive parents when there are so many available?
(3) I want to reiterate that the main discouraging factor is the simple fact that not very many women are giving up infants for adoption compared to the number of couples wanting to adopt. With the availability of abortion, I think women sometimes (mistakenly) think it would be less emotionally taxing to have an abortion than to give up a child for adoption. An obvious policy issue here are the full-information rules that institutions that provide abortions also provide info on prenatal development and the adoption option. I think women are sometimes under the impression that if they can't raise their child, no one will. I would love to see a gathering of prospective adoptive parents stand in a group outside an abortion clinic with signs that say "Talk to me about adoption!" There are often accusations about pro-life protesters not being willing to adopt the kids -- well, this group would!
Justintime:
Probably all of us here are against abortion.
We may differ on what to do about it.
But you're preaching to the choir.
What should be done about it?
I get a feeling that if you were to devote as much energy enabling adoption as you expend on outlawing abortion you might actually make more progress reducing abortion.
Not that it's any of your business, but my wife has been a volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center, and we've adopted 2 sons. A large portion of our (substantial) adoption fees have gone into a fund that the agency uses to assist birth mothers.
Give your obsession a momentary rest, Huck, broaden your perspective, listen to others and learn about the causes that are dear to the rest of us.
Isn't that what dialogue is all about?
Were the abolitionists "obsessed" with slavery? For Christian progressives to remain silent in the face of the astronomical abortion death toll is unconscionable.
Again, I owe you no explanation, but a number of progressive causes are dear to my heart. I serve on the board of a Christian environmental organization. Back in my college days, I participated in marches protesting US military aid to El Salvador. I once worked as a canvasser for the Public Interest Research Group, and I've been a supporting member ever since. When I'm in dialogue with conservative Christians, these are the issues I focus on. I don't enjoy ruffling feathers, but I do feel a need to call attention to critical issues that are overlooked. On this blog, abortion is clearly the elephant in the room that most are ignoring.
Sarah,
Thanks for your insight into the adoption process in America.
I found your posts more useful in understanding the abortion issue than many of the confrontational posts I've read here.
You point out some specific areas in the process that clearly need more thought.
The psychology of pregnancy and parenthood has been much overlooked in this debate.
Is there any data on the spread between adoption supply and demand in America?
Do you think that more effective education about adoption would be effective in reducing the abortion rate?
Better sex education in schools?
Availability of contraceptives?
.
Huck,
Thanks for letting us know where you're coming from.
I admire you for walking your talk on abortion, adoption, environment, peace and justice.
I hadn't heard you weigh in on any of the other facets of your activism.
You come across as rather one dimensional and confrontational.
I can see how frustration drives your confrontational style.
My obsession is war and peace, as you probably have noticed.
I agree that abortion has been overlooked in the progressive movement.
Can we explore some common ground between the progressive and conservative approaches to the abortion problem?
.
Justintime,
I hope you could support something like this:
http://www.democratsforlife.org/
..._10brochure.pdf
I fear that most Democrats will try to gut this legislation of the women's right to know and parental notification provisions, just as they've been opposing the Child Custody Protection Act:
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/CCPA...CCPA/
index.html
Huck,
I will study this information and get back to you later in the day.
It looks promising and constructive.
Here's my main beef with the Christian anti abortion movement, from an earlier thread that you may have missed:
Separation of Church and State is a crucial part of America's Constitution.
Our Founding Fathers were only too familiar with religious persecution by the tyranny of a majority.
That's why they put it in there.
Religious reformers make a big mistake when they ignore the Constitution in their efforts to make things right.
All this does is create resentment, divisiveness, fear, friction, heat, anger, even violence, with little progress made on the very issues dear to the reformers.
Religious reformers need to find other ways to accomplish their goals besides destroying Separation of Church and State provisions in the United States Constitution.
Also I very much resent Republican strategists using abortion and gay rights as wedge issues to peel off Christians from the Democratic agenda.
This is cynical and divisive.
And if this is the only way Republicans can win elections in America, they are doomed.
.
Justintime,
I reject the notion that the rights of the unborn and the basic meaning of marriage are sectarian matters. They're fundamental human concerns. Democrats are generally on the wrong side of both of these issues, and they can blame themselves for driving Christians away from their party.
HuckFinn:
I raised the abortion issue because a "justice" agenda that ignores the state-sanctioned mass murder of unborn babies is standard liberal fare.
So, I suppose you could care less about the state-sanctioned mass murder of born and unborn people around the world in your name. People, who by the way have done nothing to you but live in countries that own the oil that the oil executives in your Oval Office want.
Does middle eastern children being born deformed because of your government's insistance on using depleted uranium bother you any?
What about US soldiers' children?
You are naive, single-minded, and uninformed, and I don't care for anything that you have to say until you expand the scope of your focus. There are more ways to reduce unwanted pregnacies that lead to abortion than by outlawing the procedure which will result in nothing but in women dying as well.
Huck,
I like the 95-10 initiative.
These are all good ideas.
Not confrontational ideas.
Senate 403, Child Custody Protection Act, went right by me, probably because I've been focused on the war, civil liberties and corruption in government.
Is S 403 identical to 95-10?
If it is, I'm really pissed it didn't pass.
And I would be dismayed at the Dem leadership for deciding to kill the bill.
Or did the Republicans put in a poison pill clause to force the Dems to vote no?
The vote went almost party line except for a handful of Republican traitors.
Interesting that Snowe/Collins (R-ME)voted yes while Murray/Cantwell(D-WA) voted no.
Obviously, all four of these women senators were afraid of losing their particular constituency.
It's tougher than all hell getting good legislation passed.
Ever since Gingrich came to town.
I agree Dem leadership is missing the boat on abortion.
But the folks that put together 95-10 are on to something worthwhile, I think.
I hope they try it again with the next congress.
Were you involved with 95-10?
Wonder what Sarah thinks about 95-10?
Do we have common ground here?
.
My last post needs correction:
All four women Senators voted no.
two Republicans, two Dems.
.
By posting here, you agree to abide by the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct.
