"As they passed the rows of houses they saw through the open doors that men were sweeping and dusting and washing dishes, while the women sat around in groups, gossiping and laughing.
"What has happened?" the Scarecrow asked a sad-looking man with a bushy beard, who wore an apron and was wheeling a baby-carriage along the sidewalk.
"Why, we've had a revolution, your Majesty -- as you ought to know very well," replied the man; "and since you went away the women have been running things to suit themselves. I'm glad you have decided to come back and restore order, for doing housework and minding the children is wearing out the strength of every man in the Emerald City."
"Hm!" said the Scarecrow, thoughtfully. "If it is such hard work as you say, how did the women manage it so easily?"
"I really do not know," replied the man, with a deep sigh. "Perhaps the women are made of cast-iron.""
- L. Frank Baum, "The Land of Oz"
Friday, January 22, 2010
Let me lay my cards on the table:
1) If you put overturning Roe v. Wade to a popular vote, I'm in line early ready to vote in favor of protecting the near half a million unborn babies killed each year, and if you're a politician, the best way to lose my vote is to align with the pro-choice agenda.
2) Nevertheless, I don't believe laws -- or the protests and petitions and politicking that seek to achieve them -- are how we are going to eradicate abortion.
The emancipation of the slaves was necessary. But it didn't end racism.
I am not proposing an either/or. What I'm proposing is that evangelicals take the harder route, adopt the harder cause, that we aim for Spiritual change of hearts more than we aim for legal stay of hands.
Here are some thoughts on how we may do this:
1. Gospel-centered preaching. You knew I was going to go there. :-) Here's the thing: Pastors who preach culture war receive Amens from the already convinced and almost nothing from everybody else. At its worst a steady dose of this creates an unhealthy "us vs. them" mentality that has us thinking of our enemies in ways the Sermon on the Mount strictly forbids. But pastors who proclaim the freedom from sin and abundant life in Christ lay groundwork for zeal for life, not just for winning political battles. A gospel-driven pro-life agenda means hating abortion because we love women and we love the unborn. That sounds like a no-brainer but so many of our evangelical countrymen just sound like they hate abortion. And preaching isn't just for pastors. In general, more evangelicals need to talk Jesus more than they talk politics, or else we unintentionally communicate that our greatest treasure is "getting our country back" and that our chief message is political. We are great with the good news of the kingdom of the founding fathers. Let's return to the good news of the kingdom of God.
2. Reframing the abortion discussion. Lots of others have said this better than I can, but I think we've dropped the ball on how we frame the abortion issue. It is a matter of human rights, which is a perspective I first heard from my deeply pro-life friend who voted for Barack Obama. (I know, figure that one out.) But this is how we will best win in the political arena, I think. In many cases, this involves merely shifting from arguing against selfish moms (or whatever) and arguing for an appropriate definition of when life begins and becoming advocates for the voiceless unborn, exploited and commoditized. We can steer the discussion into the same rhetoric of the abolitionist and civil rights movements and end up stirring more hearts, I think.
3. Creating cultures of adoption and rescue. Human trafficking is the emerging danger. It's been going for a long time, but the Church is recently (and awesomely) stepping up efforts to combat it, even here in America. My friend Justin Holcomb and his wife lead efforts of Mars Hill Church in Seattle to rescue sex workers, sex abuse victims, and runaways in their city. Others are working hard to rescue young girls from the sex trade. On the other front, the Church is exponentially embracing the beauty of adoption. It has become a bona fide movement, thank God. The reactive culture of rhetoric and protests must give way to these proactive missionary movements. We will begin changing hearts and minds on these matters of life and death as we create cultures of adoption and rescue. But only communities can create cultures, so churches have to buy in corporately. More families adopting, more families serving and taking in pregnant teens, more churches helping families do those things, more churches loving families and kids, more churches finding ways to minister to the exploited and marginalized and to support missions and organizations that already are . . . these are the pro-active, missional steps to creating truly pro-life cultures.
4. Prophets, not pundits. I don't know how else to put this. We need an MLK for the pro-life movement, a unifying and prophetic voice. We need intellectually strong but charming, powerful, winsome statesmen. We need people who aren't just jockeying for time on FoxNews. I don't even know if this is possible today, given the nature of media exposure and the divide between political parties -- whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans marched with King; I wonder if we haven't so aligned the pro-life cause with conservative Republicanism that that kind of unity would be impossible for our cause -- but we need a peacemaker with a powerful voice. The only guy I can think of who has access to black, white, right, left, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, Christian and non, U.S., European, and everywhere else -- and has the respect and listening ear of them all -- is Bono. And I think he's probably pro-choice.
5. Technology, technology, technology. Do you know why the abortion rate is going down? I think it's the increasing advances in technology, particularly ultrasound technology. Women are seeing their babies. Technology is catching up with abortion. Smart churches will support their local crisis pregnancy centers, which are often frontlines on the struggle for the unborn, and help them get ultrasound equipment. No, they're not cheap. But life isn't either.
6. Love. I'm coming full circle, here, but if we were to outlaw abortion tomorrow, we'd still have 500,000 women a year who didn't want their babies. You have probably already had unwed teenage girls get pregnant in your church, and if you haven't you probably will at some point, and besides all that, there are plenty in your community and city. Before and in addition to removing abortion as a legal option for them, we have to love them, welcome them, teach them, serve them. Only the love of God can change hearts. Let that be the ammunition of our war.
(Cross-posted at Gospel-Driven Church)
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/5783.
Comments on "A Missional Way for the Pro-Life Cause":
2. Jared
- 01/22/2010 9:18 am CST
Beth, I failed to elaborate. I know part of the expensive cost of ultrasound technology is qualified technicians, medical care, etc. It's a personnel cost as much as an equipment cost.
Our local center has been great at the "helping women" part, with great counseling, family care, helping with food and clothing resources -- most who come in here are at the poverty line -- etc. The success stories of not just saved babies but changed lives are tremendous. But they know the facility, equipment, and personnel involved with providing ultrasound would be a great help; we are trying to help them get there.
It also involves more space, which they don't have, which involves relocating, which they are too cash strapped right now to do. Our church is the greatest church donor to the center of all churches in the area, but only one of 5 or 6 who support it. Granted, there aren't as many churches in our area as there are where I'm from, but the area church support of our community crisis pregnancy center is abysmal, hypocritical, and perhaps disobedient.
4. nhe
- 01/22/2010 10:47 am CST
This is so dead-on Jared, my goodness. You could raise to the level of a "manifesto".
Even the notion of a pro-life Bono - that's exactly right......and I agree, there really isn't someone like this out there - he does come the closest. I would guess that he's not as much pro-choice as he is non-committal on the subject because of how careful he is about who he would be aligning himself with (either way).
You mention the abolition of slavery - and I think that's the template. We need a Wilburforce. He suffered for human rights AND animal rights. Wilburforce today would be an interesting blend - he'd be a friend to both the pro-life movement AND PETA! Doesn't that sound insane? But how unifying would that be?
The problem is - there are Wilburforces out there idealogically, but I wonder if there is anyone out there with this ideology that would labor tirelessly 30+ years in (what appears to be) vein until things began to change. That's what Wilburforce did.
The only thing I would add to this Jared, and I'm going to step on some toes here, is that we need to hold infertile Christian-pro-life couples accountable for their selective abortion. We need to call it what it is. Implanting 4 embryos to get one or two to take is reprehensible. Woe to the Christian doctors who advocate this.
Aligning ourselves against this practice would be winsome to the other side.
7. Bob Sacamento
- 01/22/2010 11:59 am CST
Nevertheless, I don't believe laws -- or the protests and petitions and politicking that seek to achieve them -- are how we are going to eradicate abortion.
If by eradicate, you mean literally get rid of 100% of all abortions, then you are right about the limit of laws. But, then again, such laws haven't eradicated armed robbery, speeding in heavy traffic, or a number of other things. But, looking at how the number of annual abortions has climbed since RvW, it is pretty clear that the laws that were in place before did indeed prevent a massive number of deaths of the unborn. I don't see any reason to believe that similar laws, re-enacted, wouldn't do the same. Also, protests etc. have had a great effect in reducing the number of clinics that do late term abortions. Of course, let's speak the truth in love. But it's going to take laws.
And most of your points, I completely agree with, but I see the most representative parts of the pro-life movement doing most of what you suggest already, the loons that MSNBC likes to show notwithstanding. So I guess I feel like we disagree somehow, but I'm not sure where.
8. Jared
- 01/22/2010 12:09 pm CST
Bob: Thanks?
I knew that even if I clearly wrote I am in favor of anti-abortion legislation and that I'm not saying it's an either/or thing, somebody would "disagree" with me that we should be in favor of anti-abortion legislation as if I'm saying let's not support that.
Nature of the blogosphere and all that.
9. nhe
- 01/22/2010 12:12 pm CST
Bob - I think I would disagree. I don't know that I see the most representative parts of the pro-life movement doing gospel centered preaching, creating cultures of adoption and rescue, seeking prophecy over punditry, etc.
Rather, I see the same drum being beaten over and over. That drum is playing a good tune (showing what happens in 3rd term abortions, moving gestational viability earlier every year, caring for pregnant women, etc.) but its not enough.
I think Jared is advocating a healthy "re-focus".
11. Bill
- 01/22/2010 12:36 pm CST
Great post!
One very interesting change that seems recent - or maybe I've just noticed - is the phenomenon of pro-life Democrat. I don't mean "personnally opposed", but out and out pro-life. This seems new because I remember when there seemed to only be one (Casey).
I find that very hopeful. I've seen the pro-choice movement lose some steam recently because I think people are realizing that it's a baby.
Hoping for more awareness of life and more of what you're pushing for here, Jared.
(And kudos on working Bono in. Almost Bird-like, that was :-)
12. Scott Roche
- 01/22/2010 12:40 pm CST
As a pro-choice moderate Dem, I gotta say I agree. If you're going eradicate abortions (a worthy goal, though one I'm not sure can be accomplished) those are all good steps.
13. beth
- 01/22/2010 12:56 pm CST
Jared,
Thanks for the clarification - so many who are on the ultrasound bandwagon don't see all the extra expenses - thanks for laying out even more than I mentioned!
Churches do need to get more involved - we're in a large metro area where there are an abundance of churches and their support (both monetary and volunteer) is still beyond abysmal. Typically the line trotted out is that it's too political an issue so they can't get involved. I think you'd agree that simply means they just missed the point completely.
nhe - I think your last paragraph is really just the tip of the iceberg. Christians have fallen prey to the press that reproductive control is a right, rather than something from God. If you look at the history of the abortion movement, you'll see it took its roots out of making birth control (the pill particularly) not only easy to come by but something accepted as just par for the course for all women of age. When the church embraced the idea that we should be able to determine when and how we conceive, we started down the slippery slope that makes it easy for many pro-life infertile couples to do IVF in other than ethical ways. (Said by an infertile pro-life woman who, despite the promises of her doctor, decided she wouldn't go down that path even if it meant she'd have no children.)
14. Jared
- 01/22/2010 1:16 pm CST
I don't mean to open up an unnecessary tangent here, but I want to steer clear of birth control discussion.
For one thing, every couple decides how and when they'll conceive, even if they don't use birth control. I mean, unless you're having sex every time you're together, you're controlling how and when you want to conceive.
But, really, that's neither here nor there in this discussion.
I also want to go on record as saying that while it is obviously a common good -- and something we should all be praying for -- for more and more people to join the pro-life side, for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and for Western culture to be swayed by technological advancements and impeccable reasoning into protecting the unborn, if all that were to happen but Christ was not treasured, it would be a self-righteousness that in the eternal end helps nobody.
I am all for the West being "good" again. But I want more the glory of God.
17. Karl
- 01/22/2010 1:49 pm CST
Jared, I've been on the board of a pregnancy center for 10 years (the center itself has been in existence for close to 25 years). We are in the top 10% of centers nationwide in terms of size/budget, own our own building, and have been "medical" complete with ultrasound for about a decade.
I would echo Beth's caution in comment #1 re. the ultrasound. FotF, among others, has really pushed the ultrasound. But in our experience and in the experience of many centers with whom we have talked, the actual results are mixed at best. It's not nearly as effective, with nearly as many women, as it's touted to be. Yet to make the switch from a "counseling based" center, to a center that can call itself a "medical center" with any integrity and be safe from NARAL accusations of "fake clinics" . . . that takes a whole paradigm shift, and a ton of resources.
I have frankly wished at times that we could unwind the clock, go back and re-think the decision to "go medical" and instead focus all of that time, effort and resources into becoming a great counseling center with greater ability to walk with these women AFTER they give birth. I'm not sure that ultrasound is nearly the no-brainer that the Focus people (and many in the CPC community) would have you think that it is. It's a great thing to use to raise money and rally the troops; just not sure its bang is nearly what has been promised or imagined.
18. Bob Sacamento
- 01/22/2010 2:32 pm CST
Jared,
Yeah, I feel your pain (comment 8). I'm just confused because, like I said, I see the most representative parts of the pro-life movement doing exactly what you say in points 1 through 6, so I don't know what exactly your problem is with the pro-life movement. Re point 2, pro-lifers have been making exactly the argument you call for for like twenty five years or more now. Re point 3, the number of prospective parents wanting to adopt infants waaaay outweighs the number of available infants already. (nhe, I know we've mixed it up on this before. Sorry.) Re point 6, take a look at a Crisis Pregnancy Center and see what actually goes on there. But I will give you that we should probably bolster up on your point 1. And on point 4, well, we don't tend to be winsome on any topic. Maybe abortion would be a good place to start.
19. Milly
- 01/23/2010 11:43 am CST
You right the pro abortion people are armed and ready to make abortion possible regardless of the legality of it. They made that announcement years ago. If it becomes illegal the back door so called doctors will be killing women and babies. Many on those women will be little girls who were afraid they’d let their moms and dads down. We need to keep talking to those kids and let them know that we will always love them NO MATTER WHAT.
It’s about making adoption easier. It’s about showing the love. With three adoptions in my family and one on my wasband’s side I see it as the only way.
20. Roy
- 01/23/2010 7:46 pm CST
Jared, I thought for a day, let others comment, went to a March for Life last night.
Let me lay my cards face up. I completely endorse (at personal sacrifice) caring for the folks effected by choices connected to abortion. That care (in my case) comes to expression by giving (to the point it changes my lifestyle) to diaconal work aiding pregnant gals, to a crisis pregnancy center, to organization helping handicapped children, to adopting a handicapped kid. I'm certain I fall short. I wrestle with the question of how much to give, and how much I can honestly spend on luxuries like ice cream (you catch the drift even if I've not specified amounts or percentages). I don't simply encourage the sort of preaching and teaching you urged, Jared, I demand it and attempt to live it. So there are my face up cards.
Couple thousand, give or take 500, at March. Protested by 4 w/ signs endorsing killing kids. After closing rally at end of march, I waivered on talking to 4, who had received no attention, no conversation, no interaction. Finally decided as among last to leave area that I'd talk to 4. Didn't want them to think nobody loved them, did not take them seriously. Conversation crystalized my conclusion re your post, Jared. These folks: 1) could produce no testable, logical reason that kid not human from conception; 2) denied (rabidly, vehemently, with personal ugliness) that their position rested upon a definition obtained by law rather than by science (I'd pointed out the DNA thing, noting a kid wasn't a cow or cat, then I'd asked them why abortion ought not happen up to 17 yrs, 11 mo, 29 days, by which time we could really decide if a kid was gonna be a burden) 3) rejected (almost as rabidly, etc, as 2) that their position had historical precedents, where law had defined who was human or not (not only Nazi genocides, but also under Mao and under Stalin).
I did have tears in my eyes, tho I'm hard hearted enough that these did not flow down my cheeks. Tears because they reminded me of my own resistance to God, mostly. Tears also because I recoiled from seeing Romans 1's "giving over" fleshed out before my eyes, esp v28 and v32, and was deeply grieved that folks would not love and obey God (cf Ps 119:53, 136). Tears, finally, because I hurt for the disaster these 4, apart from grace, called upon themselves probably in time and experience as well as certainly in eternity.
The problem is not that abortions happen. Abortions have always happened and will happen. The problem is that the some 50 million murders since Roe are *legal*, authorized, OK by law.
21. Manders
- 01/24/2010 2:10 pm CST
A-freaking-men to everything here. I'm very glad you mentioned our need to show that we love women--I've heard too many stories of adoption agencies taking advantage of biological mothers. Granted, it's probably a rarity, but even one instance is one too many. Let's make sure that's not what people associate adoption with.
Also, yes, people, promote adoption. Help people financially who are doing it. Do it yourself if you feel called (and yes, I believe it's a calling). Demonstrate how you have been loved by God. I think one big thing, too, is that people need to be comfortable with interracial adoption--that will be a hugely significant part of eliminating abortions.
Leave a Comment:
My mother just retired from 20 years as a director of a crisis pregnancy center and I agree with 99% of this, with the slight exception of ultrasounds. Yes, they're important and useful but what is more effective for long term support of women in an unexpected pregnancy than a center with an ultrasound is a center with a partnership with a pro life doctor. The problem with a center having an ultrasound is not only the expense of the machine but it's finding and keeping qualified personnel to run it and dodging the increase of attack from NARAL etc. because a center has now become "medical" vs a social service.
My mom's center was blessed to have a pro life doctor who would not only work with them (on a referral basis - they went to his office) for ultrasounds but provided a mechanism for the center to pay for all the pre-natal care for women who otherwise couldn't afford it (didn't get medicaid for whatever reason, etc.) at a severely discounted rate to the center. The center then took the money that would otherwise have gone to ultrasound related costs and put it into a fund for this purpose and was able to help - on a more comprehensive scale - considerably more women. Something like this is something I would love to see sweep the pro life arena more than the craze for ultrasounds that really just focuses on "saving babies" and forgets about helping women.