It’s Time for Believers to Talk Graciously About Abortion Again #QDC

There have been a number of Q Talks that stood out to me and this is among them. Part of it is because we need to talk more about the abortion issue but we need to do it with more grace and compassion. Given the sensitivity of the conversation, I’ve been waiting to re-listen to the talk and it has recently become available on Q Premiere. (You can subscribe here and please know that I promoting this completely out of my own volition. I am receiving no compensation or courtesy membership. My gain is participating and the sharing of the conversation).

This panel was moderated by Rebekah Lyons. The panelists include Jenell Paris, professor of anthropology at Messiah College in Grantham, PA; Sarah Brown, CEO of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy; Angie Weszely, President of Caris, a faith-based nonprofit providing support to all women facing unplanned pregnancies; and Johnny Carr, National Director of Church Partnerships for Bethany Christian Services, America’s largest adoption agency (panel description taken from the Q site)

So the first thing that seems obvious to ask is why are some of us still not ready to talk about abortion? It needs to be said that there is a sizable evangelical demographic that is still not ready to talk about it. Of course the abortion issue has never gone away but many cannot bear the thought of discussing it again which begs the question why.

For some of us, we were brought up in “culture war” settings where abortion was the classic example of evil and those that performed them or had one were cast as the worst type of human. Some of us are still drained and disillusioned from this part of the culture war and cannot bare to bring it back up again. I understand that some people will not find that acceptable but among the lessons that I take is the “culture war” does too much damage to too many people (including our “own”).

Further, even if we/they have never actually stood in protest at an abortion clinic, having a pro-life conviction cast a great deal of tension with those that were pro-choice. And many of those that have pro-choice stances hate abortion as much as we do, but they are convinced that the choice must be honored. For me, these include some dear people whom I regard as good friends. We may disagree but it makes less sense to me/us to break fellowship.

So here’s the interesting part. It turns out that despite a sizable demographic not talking about it, teen pregnancy has gone down, the number of teen abortions has gone down and there is always a story of an abortion clinic that has had to close its doors so why bring it up now? This has also resulted in the number of adoptions having gone up. In light of that, it’s tempting to think that if we wait a few more years in complete silence, the whole issue might all go away.

That’s the interesting part. The crazy part is the beginning of the bestseller Freakonomics where there is a connection between the reduction in crime in major cities like New York and the increase in abortions among particular demographics that are believed to would have contributed to the crime rate. It’s horrifying and offensive while being statistically staggering.

Sitting in silence is not going to do any long term good and statistics implying the social benefits of infanticide is not going to help either. It’s time for Christians to talk graciously about reducing abortion.

The first thing that some of my conservative brothers and sisters will notice about that last sentence is why I chose to use “reducing abortion” language than say, overturning Roe v. Wade. My answer is threefold: First using overturning Roe v. Wade rhetoric is a hyper-politically charged conversation, therefore polarizing, therefore not helpful for legitimate conversation.
Two, the reducing language not only avoids villiianzing others but it suggests that people sincerely want to help others.
Three, just about everyone publicly agrees that we need to reduce the number of abortions – therefore we have common ground.

During the panel discussion, Sarah Brown pointed out that of the 1.2 million abortions per year, 85% are by unmarried women and fewer than 20% are by teens. Majority of women who have unplanned/unintended pregnancies and having abortions are unmarried twenty-somethings. Among them are women with stable careers.

Three-fourths of evangelicals have admitted they have had pre-marital sex so as others have pointed out, the message of abstinence has not exactly been well-received. Whether certain people care to admit or not, among the key reasons the teen pregnancy rate has gone down is because of the increased use of contraceptions. Which brought up the need for discussing the use of contraception in churches.

I’ll admit, I don’t really hear myself saying from the pulpit, “Those women who do not wish to get pregnant, you are to be abstinent and if you can’t, use contraception …” For one, when I preach, I don’t preach like that (not intended to sound condescending to those that do). Further, I am not a weekly preacher so most of my ministry happens away from the pulpit. But I am not uncomfortable talking about the use of contraceptives. Truth is, I have in specific instances for years because frankly, you don’t have to wait for the Pew Forum to release the research saying that 3/4s of evangelicals are having pre-marital sex to figure out what’s going on.

And while I do I try to avoid sending conflicting messages, these messages are contextual. If you really listen to what some people are saying whether in your office or your small group or wherever people are choosing to be vulnerable, you might understand what I’m saying here. My point for saying all this here is – let’s be faithful with these opportunities to help reduce the number of abortions.

Which brought up a major theme in the panel discussion. Those in the church need to better express “grace theology” when it comes to women and unplanned pregnancies (and to the men who don’t cut and run). I will say this doesn’t feel as big of an issue in the churches that I’ve been a part of but sadly, I have heard too many horror stories of women feeling shamed in some way. The flip side though is I don’t know how many people never came to the churches I was a part of because of what attitudes and judgements they thought may have been lurking inside. We need to make sure that the church is a place of many things including belonging, grace, and unconditional love.

This is where the graciousness conversation comes in. In my scope I do see a number of churches (and Christians in general) getting better at encouraging each other to adopt, foster and support children. Some are also getting better at reaching out to single moms and families whose financial circumstances make it almost impossible to survive. Some pulpits have eliminated culture war language and a spirit of hospitality is emerging but not only is there so much work to be done, very few actually regard the Church as a place of welcome.

For serious Christians, that needs to change. Much of the work to be done begins in conversation as it is one of the elements that changes culture. We need to invite those that have stopped talking about this issue back into the conversation and foster a gracious discussion on such a crucial issue. Thoughts, concerns, push-backs, feel free to comment. Also, if you share some similar feelings here, please share – the more people that talk about worthy things, the better.

Here are a couple other posts on QDC  – thanks for reading.

Obama, Notre Dame, Abortion, The Church and Me

Obama speaking at Notre Dame has been an absolutely fascinating moment for me and of course, for many others.  You can read his speech here.    There’s a lot to appreciate here.  As mentioned in an earlier post, I respected that Notre Dame invited President Obama.  I respect people’s right to disagree and protest. While not the route I would go, I also respected that some students decided to skip their own graduation as if Obama was the creator of abortion.  The weekend was filled with people were arrested (like ‘Roe’ of Roe v. Wade), heckling, applause and for some of us, we acknowledged that perhaps there is something to gain from listening to someone who has the opposite view.  That spirit can be summed up in Father Jenkins’ introduction.  

I find myself wondering about many things in light of all this.  First, know that I am pro-life.  Second, know that I sympathize with all women who have found themselves to be pregnant and scared.  Third, know that it is my conviction that each child deserves the right to be born.  Fourth, know that I still respect those who passionately feel otherwise.  Fifth, we need to do our part as a Church and a society to come along side the pregnant woman who is struggling with her situation.  And this is just the very basic tip of the surface of what we need to do.

When a woman gets pregnant and is either unwed or wed but living at the poverty level, (or any other scenario, young college student, professional working woman, etc.), we have to say more than, “Well you should have thought before ….” or  “The right thing is to keep the baby or put the child up for adoption.”  I’m not saying the point of that statement is wrong, I’m saying we need to do more.  As an adoptive parent, I obviously see the beauty of adoption but I also know that it takes a very special person to go through the pain of putting a baby up.  But what about the woman who can’t do that?  She wants to keep the baby and if she can’t then, unfortunately abortion becomes her conclusion.

If among our chief goals is fewer abortions then we need to work with people like President Obama and others that we swore off as enemies.  For years I believed in the teaching I was given that if we changed the culture, abortion would lose its stronghold.  While I believe that is a solid theory, it seems we have to do more until it is proven true because I am no longer content in only saying and believing those words.  Thus,  I have found myself wondering what would happen if the pro-life energies were focused on working with places like Planned Parenthood.  I think I can hear some think “What???” 

Here’s what the current situation seems to be to me.  A Planned Parenthood opens on one side of the street.  It is my perception that PP is interested in performing as many abortions as possible (it is a multi-billion dollar business).  Eventually a pro-life clinic opens on the other side and of course they compete against one another.  Every pregnant woman that enters their respective doors is urged to abort or keep their baby or put the child up for adoption.  And here we are. 

What if we converted some of our pro-life clinics into free day cares for those like single working mothers (or whomever) exclusively for those referred by Planned Parenthood? While I am not saying that we should not open pro-life clinics or close all of them, what I am speculating is the need to find ways to work with places such as Planned Parenthood.  The donations made it to the former pro-life clinic could go to day care workers, and among them could be mothers and a percentage of PP’s profits could be contributed to these day cares and needy homes.  Indeed I too see numerous issues that would have to be resolved and a long line of potential abuses but the idea only serves as a start.

Here’s another.  What if we as a Church had “Single Mother Sunday” the week after “Sanctity of Life Sunday”  Is this glorifying the wrong person?  I suppose it depends what you mean by glorifying but I see this very much in tune with the gospel message itself because no matter how I look at it, I am the wrong person.  I am grateful for grace.  Is what I suggest that different?

What if for every missionary our church supported, we also supported a needy family?  The point wouldn’t be too support fewer missionaries, but to help people get on their feet so they don’t repeat the cycle. 

What if our Christian counselors offered free counseling for every woman who had an abortion or for those who struggled with the decision, kept the child and trying to figure out the next step? 

I could probably go on but my point to my fellow evangelicals is this – can we not work together to reduce the number of abortions?  Most of these suggestions have a financial commitment behind them, but I think they also have a mercy, caring element as well.  Would that not change culture?  I argue that it would do more than our current strategies.

Reflecting on Colson's comments regarding Obama, abortion and postmodernism

Chuck Colson wrote on his breakpoint post yesterday (No God Condones What) that the breakdown of today’s society is based on postmodernism:

 

At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, President Obama seemed to signal that he has seen the light and is abandoning his radically pro-abortion agenda. At least, that’s the only reasonable conclusion one could make after hearing the President, who says he’s a Christian, also say: “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.”

 

So I could only surmise that the President now concludes that “no God” would condone the 1.6 million abortions performed each year in America—1.6 million innocent lives destroyed.  But I’ve checked the White House website, and it’s very clear that God’s disapproval hasn’t changed the administration’s agenda one bit.

 

Here’s what the White House website says: “President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration.”

 

Well, in one way I’m glad I wasn’t at the breakfast this year—I was speaking instead at Moody—because I’m not sure I would have been able to stay in my seat.

 

How can a President of the United States say that “there is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being,” when he himself favors a woman’s right to have an abortion under virtually every circumstance? How can he say that, when, as an Illinois state senator, he voted against the Illinois Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected the lives of babies who survived late-term abortions? When he even had the audacity to describe the act as “One more burden on a woman . . . I can’t support.”

 

President Obama is a highly intelligent man with a huge job on his hands. I know what the White House is like, and I pray for him fervently every day. But how does such an intelligent man make a statement like this without understanding its implications for his own pro-abortion policies?

 

The only way to explain it is to understand the intellectual environment, called postmodernism, in which President Obama and his peers have been raised. Generations of Americans have now been taught that truth is subjective. You have your truth, I have mine. And, even worse, I can’t “inflict” my version of truth on you. The law of non-contradiction has been suspended.

 

So politicians can tell us over and over that they can’t allow their personal faith to affect their views on public policy. Or they can take two completely opposing positions at the same time: like believing that no God condones the taking of innocent life and at the same time, condoning—even promoting—the taking of an innocent life.

 

The problem isn’t simply President Obama and his views on life; the problem is a postmodern culture which believes that truth is merely a matter of opinion, and that therefore the sanctity of innocent human life is simply an expression of one viewpoint among many.

 

I have argued for the last 20 years that postmodernism would lead to the unraveling or our society. The fact that so few noticed the contradiction in what the President said and the policies he pursues tells me that we’re far along in the unraveling process.”

 

        

Now first, there is a lot I appreciate about Chuck Colson but it’s these statements that frustrate me because I do not find them to be fair.  Call it whatever you want, but the modern evangelical culture, or the infamous 1950’s or the “Good Ol’ Days” were not the days of the Garden of Eden. 

Second, I am not an Obama fan-boy (but I will support the president).  My convictions are pro-life but I do not want to villianize every person who either believes in pro-choice or has had an abortion.  And while I wish everyone would be pro-life, I think these typical statements made by Colson have failed as a starting point and only serve to rally like-minded individuals. At the same time, I wish those that are pro-choice but also hate abortion would at the very least, participate in pursuing ways to limit the number of abortions.  

Colson is a brilliant, well-educated righteous man.  I do not presume nor dare to correct such a godly man, but with all due respect, postmodernism is not the problem, the selfishness of the human condition is .. and this is not new. 

This is part of the problem with how we as conservative believers engage the world.  It seems to me that we refuse to actually engage the world.  It’s like we’re saying, “We’ll play basketball with you, but we’re not going to acknowledge this 3 point line thing, or this shot clock thing because we used to not have it and we liked the game better then.” 

Yes I know this analogy is not sensitive to the complexities of culture but if we are serious about engaging others, we need to do more then point the finger.  I’m not going to make it another four years if all I am getting from my conservative leaders is negative sound-bytes and pessimistic daily readings.   

My input is that we need to get realistic of how “good” days of old were.  Second, then, we should forget about them (because they are not a standard of entitlement).  Third, engage the culture we are in Christ-like ways.  Fourth, learn to handle the disappointments in Christ-like ways (I could use some extra grace on this one) and lastly, be believers who are committed in pursuing the Kingdom over personal preference or agenda.