"Make Way!" says the Lord. "Clear a path."

A voice of one calling: 

"In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord; 

make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

-- Isaiah 40:3 

God promises abundance over and over in Scripture (John 10:10, for example).

However, we live in a world seemingly surrounded by scarcity and limitations. How do we trust in that abundance? I hear the prophet Isaiah in the quote above--echoed later by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:4)--telling us to make way! 

What does this mean for us today?

It means: Make room. Clear a spot. Bring an extra chair to the dinner table. Make a bed for an unexpected house guest. Move out of the way when an elderly person walks by. Take time to listen to the cries of someone suffering. Clear space in the center for folks who have spent far too long in the margins.

In short: Give a little. Or a lot.

Isn't this at the core of issues we face as a society? In order to make space for others in this world, we often have to give a little? I know this runs completely contrary to what we are told in our popular culture. That culture tells us to "get more"--and more and more---and that we shouldn't have to be inconvenienced ever. Everyone is entitle to fulfillment of all their individual desires. 

But that's not reality. Humans are built for self-realization, yes, but we are also built for cooperation. We find our fulfillment in community even though--or perhaps because--community is difficult. Community requires bending, adjusting and making room. It involves facing difficult stuff so that we can become better. Our individual self is full realized not when we are granted every desire but when we give. That's the paradox spoken of in Scripture: By giving, we receive.

Asylum seekers come to our border. They are fleeing horrific violence and devastating poverty. If we take time to truly listen to them, this becomes apparent. What do we do? Surely, the richest nation in the history of modern civilization has resources to offer. Following the Biblical mandate, we should make way for them--for starters, that means offering them a safe place to rest from the journey, nourishing food to heal their bodies and a friendly ear to listen to them. We can do this while doing whatever legal work we need to process their cases. Then, once admitted into this country, we can work to help find space to settle in, get comfortable, heal wounds and build a new life. We can offer a warm welcome in the short term and also the long term.

Some people are afraid to open the door--what if something bad happens? What if we can't face the truth that their pain is the result in some way of our actions as a nation? What if we are called to give more than we are comfortable giving?

For God has not given us a spirit of fear, 

but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

2 Timothy 1:7

"What if" is the language of fear, not the language of God. Bad things may happen and we have to be on alert, but good things can also happen. Our new guests could be wonderful neighbors. They could offer new foods, new attitudes, new wisdom and new growth for our society--all because we made space for them and took a chance.

It's simply selfish and short-sighted to refuse hospitality when we have so much and their needs are so great. 

Very often, what seems like extra effort is only an extra blessing. We may think these people and circumstances will hamper us but this is Gospel freedom we are talking about. This ins't the freedom of unfettered individualism, but rather the freedom to follow our deepest callings of love, hospitality, compassion and hope. It is the freedom to trust in the God of abundance, not the devil of scarcity.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;

in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil.

This will bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones.

Honor the LORD with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops;

then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine.

Proverbs 3:5-10

We need to prepare the way as if God is personally the one we are greeting--because if we take Scripture seriously--that's exactly who we are welcoming in:

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, 

whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, 

you did for me. (from Matthew 25:31-46).

A voice of one calling:

“In the wilderness prepare

the way for the Lord;

make straight in the desert

a highway for our God.

Every valley shall be raised up,

every mountain and hill made low;

the rough ground shall become level,

the rugged places a plain.

And the glory of the Lord will be revealed,

and all people will see it together.

For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

Isaiah 40:3-5

Our Greatest Sin: Quick to Judge, Exclude and Comdemn

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/jesus/final-ministry/trial-before-sanhedrin/

Good people can rightly disagree on a number of issues. We often forget that. Our culture is heavily polarized. We've grown accustomed to the culture wars. Our political parties have drawn hard lines between each other to where working across the aisle can be considered scandalous instead of wise and prudent. Both the professional media and social media have a role to play in these divisions, as well.

What bothers me the most is not that people disagree on important issues. Disagreement will happen. It's that we can be so quick to judge, exclude and condemn.

For example, anyone who has looked at the hard issues around war, peace and violence knows that there are rarely easy answers. This is specially true with nations with long and complicated histories. I've been in academically tedious debates over the nuances of Just War Theory. Folks may argue from a Christian perspective either for or against war. I can appreciate the points on all sides. But what I can't understand is that some folks are just so eager to go to war. At the drop of a hat, it's All Systems Go.

It's the eagerness to go to war that keeps me up at night.

My own Catholic Church has a long history of theological debate over this issue. But even if war is somehow deemed to be "necessary," it should always be a last resort. It should always come with great sadness. It should always be seen as a sin that all else has failed to prevent it, including our own individual efforts. But when we go to war, I just don't see much regret or sadness. I see triumphalism. I see blood lust. I see dehumanizing of the opponent and cheers over bombings.

I see this playing out around other issues:

Anyone who has looked at the issues around immigration knows that there are no easy answers. There are desperate, hungry people at the border. At least some of their desperation (if not all) is the result of our own policies. But there are points to be made about maintaining borders and knowing who comes and goes. Good people can rightly disagree. But what bothers me is that some of my fellow Americans are just so eager to shut the door to our neighbors before hearing their concerns. They find some technicality in the laws as an excuse to shut their hearts and minds, but let's be honest: The law isn't the real reason for their push to exclude.

Take the death penalty. Sometimes a person on death row has another story to tell. His legal team may be screaming, "Wait! Don't execute! We found new evidence!" I'm shocked by how often they have great difficulty even getting the testimony heard. Before even seeing the new evidence, others say, "Sorry, too late, the case is closed!" They don't even want to hear the evidence. I've worked with groups petitioning the state governor just hours before an execution trying to halt the process so it can be re-evaluated. What's the rush? A life is at stake!

Abortion. Anyone who is a parent knows the great responsibility that comes with parenting. It's an enormous life vocation that challenges every fiber of your being--and that's even if you have a supportive family, access to medical care, gainful employment and are in a socially-acceptable relationship. You don't have to convince me how difficult the life circumstances of some folks may be. But what bothers me the most is how quick many are to devalue the life in the womb and find a reason to abort. Maybe we'll never agree on when life truly begins, but there are many medical indicators that it's very early, and many faiths teach that it's conception. Why the rush to devalue that life?

Take the current NFL protests against police brutality started by Colin Kaepernick. Virtually all the opposition is focused on the method of protest while all but ignoring the stated reasons for the protest. We should all be saying, "Gosh, something extremely important must be going on to compel these players to make such a bold and dramatic statement, even to the point of risking their entire careers over it." It should make us stop in our tracks and listen to their concerns. The whole nation should proverbially sit down and talk this out. Instead, many are quick to shout them down before hearing their concerns. These athletes are practically shaking us, trying to tell us that something big is going on that we aren't paying enough attention to. But we're still avoiding it, so quick to deny before hearing what they have to say.

My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.
- James 1:19-20

By contrast to these examples above, God is slow to anger (Psalms 103:8 and 145:8). God is eager to love (John 3:16), eager to forgive (Matthew 18:21-22) and eager to include (Mark 2:13-17). Jesus was constantly including people that society wanted to exclude, marginalize or offer only a secondary status. Dozens of verses directly attest to this. This is not just a description of God's behavior, but rather we are called to follow their example (James 1:19-20).

People often cite the example of Jesus overturning tables in the table as an example of biblically-justifiable anger.  Yes, but we forget that Jesus was also slow to anger. This does not mean we rush in angrily as a general way of life. Jesus' one example of anger does not mean that all of our anger is justifiable. It means that righteous anger has a role, but that role is not open-ended. The same is true with teachings about war and violence. Perhaps they are justified in some rare instances, but we should be very slow to choose them and always do it with sadness and much regret.

Probably no other instance in the Bible speaks to this more than the trial and crucifixion of Jesus himself. It was a sham trial, a mockery of justice. There was no case against Jesus, Pilate even said so. The crowd shouted "crucify him!" When Pilate tried to reason with them, the crowd only shouted louder. Mob mentality ruled. Nothing puts the masses into a rage more than challenging the social hierarchy. Jesus was constantly putting the last first and including where society wanted to exclude. How different is that from us today who want to exclude the immigrants, condemn the prisoners, dehumanize the unborn or the people in other nations, and shout down those kneeling for justice?

In every one of the examples above, I see a reenactment of the same sham trial. It's the same mockery of justice and mob fervor. The same mob fervor that put Jesus on the cross is the same impulse that puts immigrants in detention centers and separates their families. It's the same impulse that rushes a person to the execution chamber despite compelling evidence of innocence. It is the same sham trial that finds the flimsiest of excuses in the law (or in Church Teaching) to rationalize evil and rush to war, rush to abortion and rush to exclude, condemn and dehumanize. Those who work with the poor, the suffering and the marginalized know that the crucifixion is an ongoing reality in their lives.

"Black lives matter."
"Crucify them!"
"This prisoner may be innocent."
"Crucify him!"
"This fetus is a child."
"CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY!"
"These immigrants are our brothers and sisters in need."
"CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY!"
"These Islamic nations are our neighbors too!"
"CRUCIFY THEM!!!"

Good people can disagree. Even though I have pretty strong opinions about all of these issues, I can at least respect the points from people who differ. But what I can never be comfortable with is the resistance to even hearing the points on the other side. It's the eagerness to exclude, condemn and judge before hearing what others have to say that is so hard to reckon with. Those are signs there is something more going on than mere disagreement. It means that people are resisting the message and resisting the messenger. Where is the resistance coming from? Where is the real discomfort coming from?

Would the real pro-life candidate raise your hand?

I present the following moral dilemma. Which is the true pro-life (read: anti-abortion) candidate?

Candidate A: 

He says he is pro-life on abortion.  However, he wants to reduce abortions solely through the mechanism of making abortion illegal. It is questionable how many opportunities this person will have once in office to address this issue. However, there may be some small legislative battles that can be fought.

However, he does not support legislative measures to improve rights and standards for workers and he is against any notion of a social safety net. He fears these would reduce "incentive to work" and interfere with the workings of the "free market." He believe people are poor and struggling principally by their own choice rather than through a lack of opportunity or systemic pressures of any kind.

Candidate B: 

He says he is pro-choice on abortion. He wants to "keep abortion legal" as part of his political platform. If the opportunity were to come up, he would support legislation further cementing abortion as part of our legal structure.

However, he supports policies addressing poverty and social alienation, such as higher wages and abundant social services. He wants to keep families together rather than see them split through mass incarceration or immigration enforcement. His policies promote strong workers rights, robust maternity/paternity leave and healthcare for all.

Which of these deserves the "pro-life" vote?

As the above illustrates, the issue is not so simple. Both candidates can claim that they are pro-life on abortion.

Candidate A wants to make abortion illegal but his other economic and social policies only serve to intensify the reasons people choose abortion in the first place. In other words, while working to make abortion illegal, he may create an environment where more abortion happens in the meantime.

The reverse is true for Candidate B. He clearly wants abortion to be legal, but his other policies directly alleviate the stressors that drive people to consider abortion. Fewer abortions may actually happen as a result of his policies.

If you vote pro-life, is your goal to reduce the number of abortions or is it to make abortion illegal? Those are not the same thing. Ideally perhaps you would want to do both, but those are not usually available options in the current partisan U.S. political climate.

It also highly questionable whether making abortion illegal would actually stop actual abortions from happening--probably some but not all. People could travel or find an underground provider.

The above illustrates a rough snapshot of the two primary political parties in the U.S. Usually, it has been assumed that the "pro-life" candidate is the one who wants to make abortion illegal. But if that person also promotes policies that may actually increase abortions, then that changes everything--especially when you consider that making abortion illegal may be an unrealistic goal at this time in history.

As a Roman Catholic, we are taught that the intentional taking of innocent human life is always wrong and should never be supported. So how do we apply that teaching to the two candidates above? Having legal abortion does not require anyone to have an abortion, but it does make it easier. In a very likewise, parallel manner, having good economic and social safety net policies does not force anyone to carry their pregnancy to term, but they make it much easier to do so. It has often been assumed that the person who merits the pro-life vote is the candidate who strives to make abortion illegal, but I hope the above illustrates that this should not be taken for granted. This becomes even more complex as there are many other ways that life is threatened besides abortion--the death penalty, euthanasia, war, immigration, poverty, etc.

Putting too much energy into legislative battles while supporting policies that drive people to consider abortion in the meantime is profoundly short sighted, to say the least. This is what gives the pro-life movement a bad name. This is what causes people to point out its hypocrisies. By having a single-minded obsession with making abortion illegal, they turn their backs on very effective ways of saving lives right here today. They support politicians and policies that may actually increase abortions. 

Some have told me this isn't a fair critique of the pro-life movement. They say it IS invested in pregnancy centers, prenatal support and so forth. While I know this to be true, I also know that the phenomenon of the "one-issue voter" tells us where the real priorities lie when the rubber meets the road--it's about legislative action.

Some Concluding Thoughts

I am not suggesting that the pro-life movement should simply give up the struggle for legislative support for pro-life positions. However, I do think it is counter-productive to attempt that when grassroots support for this legislation has not reached a high enough mark. There are many who resign themselves to thinking we should "keep abortion legal" and just try to reduce as many as possible. No, I am absolutely not saying that, but I also don't believe that legislative victories will yield the results the pro-life movement expects. But I am saying that as a strategy I think pro-life voters could prioritize reducing the numbers of actual abortions by alleviating the stressors, promoting a culture of life in the minds and heart of people and put legislative goals on the back burner. This is very feasible. Even though poverty is a huge, complex problem, we know from history that big improvements can be made in the short term with immediate results. We know what those stressors are and we know there are effective ways of addressing them.

What If Roe v. Wade Were Overturned? 4 Recommendations for the Pro-Life Movement

Justice Anthony Kennedy is stepping down from the U.S. Supreme Court. President Donald Trump is poised to appoint Justice Brett Kavanaugh who could tip the scales and possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

The pro-life crowd is excited about the possibilities--not only of overturning Roe v. Wade but an even more ambitious dream of a Constitutional amendment in their favor.

However, the single-minded determination of the pro-life movement to abolish legal abortion has blinded many to the complexities of the situation as well as other avenues of being pro-life. It is unlikely that overturning Roe v. Wade would deliver the results they anticipate.

I write as someone committed to protecting life from conception to natural death but standing outside the formal pro-life movement. Let's think through some likely scenarios:

What would happen if abortion were illegal? 

First, abortion would not automatically become illegal nationally just with a Supreme Court ruling. That decision would go to each and every state. The issue would continue to be complex at both the federal and state levels, as this link details. A simple outcome is not realistic.

In states that criminalize abortion, women of means who want an abortion will simply travel to another state or country to have to procedure done. That would be fairly easy to do. It isn't the 1950s anymore--even global travel is relatively simple and inexpensive.

In addition, there will no doubt be an underground market of abortion providers for those of lesser means.

Despite that, making abortion illegal will almost certainly stop some abortions and save some lives--but only in the short run, in my opinion. I have doubts about whether that would be true in the long run.

A culture with illegal abortion would be a lot like the prohibition of alcohol in the 1930s. An illegal market would thrive and it would also come with other secondary negative consequences. When alcohol was illegal it created an environment that allowed mobsters like Al Capone to proliferate. It wasn't just the prohibition of alcohol itself but rather the whole underground culture that went along with it that was the problem. Something similar would probably happen if abortion were to be illegal again. The whole effort will so thoroughly hated by so many people that a Constitutional amendment will indeed come, but I predict it will be on the pro-choice side. In other words, legal abortion will return with a vengeance and it will be legally cemented more than ever before. The pro-life movement will be set back decades, if not permanently.

How do I know this?  It's easy:

I've done a lot of grassroots organizing. You always have to build a base before you attempt to pass a law. That's just Grassroots Organizing 101. Otherwise, the law won't be accepted by the people and passing it will just erode the credibility of our institutions (government, law enforcement, etc). Forcing a law upon people who clearly do not want that law will end in disaster.

A law will not stand unless the hearts and minds of the people have been opened to support it. After all, a law is only an attempt to codify the will of the people, especially in a representative democracy. Perhaps some obscure laws can be pushed through by a small group of determined activists unbeknownst to the rest of the population. But the issues around abortion impact so many people in such a visceral way that any laws around it must have the support of the people. That is simply not the case right now.

We know that over two-thirds of Americans favor some access to legal abortion. The pro-life movement need not despair, because those same polls also show that similar numbers want some limits on abortion. There is a lot of room for growth here, but the culture is not ready for a dramatic law reversal, yet. However, there are many life-saving things that can be done in the meantime.

Trying to force people to change their behavior by imposing a law on them is short-sighted and would only have limited success. You have to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the people.

Recommendations for the Pro-Life Movement:

In light of the above, here is a strategy I would recommend for the pro-life movement. None of this requires anyone to change their beliefs about abortion. It is simply a prescription for a different method of approaching the issue. This is not a "watered down" approach. In fact, I believe this may very well be more successful than current methods.

1. Work to reduce the number of actual abortions by addressing the drivers. We know what the drivers are. There are social factors--such as social stigma, shame, isolation and social pressure. There are also economic factors, such as access to health care, job security, ample pay, reliability of child support, maternity/paternity leave, etc. We know we can reduce abortions by directly impacting these factors. Let's do that. I even think both pro-choice and pro-life supporters could join together on this.

One example of a social factor: Much of Christianity may be staunchly anti-abortion, but it is also staunchly shame-based when it comes to a pregnancy that occurs outside of certain parameters (marriage, etc). It may preach an anti-abortion message from the pulpit and have some success convincing people. However, the fear of facing scorn and shame from family and community members may drive others to consider abortion, thereby neutralizing the pro-life preaching.

Economic factors: We know that there are legislative solutions that increase rights for parents in the workplace and a safety net for people who fall on hard times. Many women say they would not have chosen abortion if they didn't fear losing their ability to care for themselves and their families. They simply don't see a way forward. Can we help them?

2. Build a grassroots support for a culture of life. The current pro-life movement is never going to do that. Admittedly, it has done the impossible: It has engineered a cultural stalemate. That's amazing given that many assumed the pro-life movement would have disappeared by now. However, it will never really "win" as it is now. But a holistic, consistent ethic of life approach can build the credibility the movement needs.

I know that sounds counter-intuitive, as it seems few Americans hold a truly consistent ethic of life, but it is the only position with sound theology--the individual wins when the community wins, and visa versa. Current ideological debates have the mother pitted against the unborn child in a zero-sum scenario. America is individualism on steroids, but one individual's freedom often impacts another individual's freedom. We have to be realistic about the limits of individualism and instead embrace a communitarian vision that seeks the common good. A new paradigm is needed, or perhaps an old one. 

3. Limit legal interventions for now. The movement can spend some energy on legislative outcomes but should limit its focus on extreme cases for now, such as late term abortions. You could argue that Roe v. Wade as it stands now allows for more abortions than most Americans would support, and that is a fair point. I'm not a big believer that we can address abortion legislatively, but if folks want to go that route, the key here is to only advocate for legislation when grassroots support has reached a critical mass.

4. Reconsider legislative approaches for the future. Once that grassroots culture of life from #2 above has been nurtured and grown, there may come a time in the future to introduce legislation around abortion once again. However, if the culture of life were really strong, a law might not even be needed.

Hypothetical question: Does it really mater if abortion is legal or not if no one has one? I get it that the laws on the books say something about who we are as a people and what we value, and some would argue that if something is legal there are people who will utilize that option. But there is no law preventing anyone from supporting and safeguarding life right here and right now.

Conclusion

Many in the pro-life movement have been so focused on trying to make abortion illegal that they have become blinded to these other realities. I am convinced that a law at this time would be mostly unsuccessful and certainly unsustainable in the long run. I am also doubtful that this is an issue that can be addressed primarily legislatively.

The focus on making abortion illegal while ignoring the drivers just gives credence to the notion that the movement is more about shaming women than saving lives. This is especially true when the politicians who want to make abortion illegal are the same ones who are likely to increase the factors the drive people to consider abortion in the first place--withdrawing economic safety nets and chipping away at workers rights, for example. This puts people into impossible situations while others sit back and judge if they make the "ethical" choice or not. It feels like watching gladiators in the Roman coliseum. Let's not play games with lives! Instead, let's "create a society where it is easier to be good" (Peter Maurin).

Further, the focus on making abortion illegal is a way, I believe, for the pro-life movement not to get its hands dirty. To create a culture of life would require ALL of us to change, not just "those people over there." Most of us find it easier to point fingers than do the interior work on ourselves. If the pro-life movement wants to be successful, the only path forward is to embrace a consistent ethic of life. It will require everyone's "all in."

It's Time for a Pro-Life Rethink

The 45th Annual March for Life was held last week: Another year, another march and another long stalemate in these longstanding culture wars.

I've been observing the pro-life movement from both the inside and sidelines for years now and I've come to a stark realization:

The pro-life movement (overall) is not dedicated to the task of reducing abortions and saving lives. Let that sink in for a minute. Rather, the movement is focused on making abortion illegal. 

They may seem the same at first, but those are actually two very different goals. They require very different courses of action.

There are exceptions to this, of course, but I'm talking about overall trends in the movement itself, especially on the national level.

I understand why people would want abortion to be illegal. It makes sense for the unborn to have the protection of the law, pure and simple.

But you have to look no further than the prohibition of alcohol in the 1930s to see what happens when a law is forced upon a population that does not support it. Despite being illegal nationwide, many people still drank alcohol. An entire industry of organized crime, backwoods 'stills and urban speakeasies sprang up to meet the demand. This underground economy gave opportunity to gangsters like Al Capone and Machine Gun Kelly. The experience was such a colossal failure that it ended up killing the movement against alcohol. The movement not just for prohibition but also for temperance and moderation has been set back decades, if not forever. When is the last time you heard a sermon on temperance? I hope you have, but from what I can tell, they are much rarer than they used to be.

The pro-life movement can and must evolve into a movement that encourages a holistic culture of life—creating a society where abortion would simply not make sense anymore to anyone. Other options and other ways of looking at unplanned, unwanted or problematic pregnancies would be so prevalent. That's going to require everyone's "all in." Making abortion illegal is actually easy by comparison—it doesn't require most of us to change our lives, attitudes or behaviors. We can sit back and judge "those people" from what we think is a safe moral distance.

It is worth asking whether making abortion illegal in this time and place in history would have the net effect of saving lives. Those with resources would simply go abroad to have the procedure done (it's not the 1950's anymore, flights are readily accessible anywhere). There would no doubt be an industry of back alley abortions outside of any kind of regulation or oversight. Offenders could be punished by the law, but I wonder how many additional lives would be lost by botched procedures? Despite that, I'm sure that abortions would probably be significantly reduced  if it were made illegal, but that could get negated when you look at the long-term trajectory: Eventually, our pro-choice culture would revolt against this legislation, putting such strong nails in the coffin to make it hard to ever resurrect it again, with the pro-life movement no doubt in full retreat and unable to mount much of any resistance at that point (just like with the prohibition of alcohol). If by some miracle Roe v Wade were overturned and each stated voted against abortion, it still wouldn't stay illegal for long and that's the piece I never hear anyone mention.

Making abortion illegal would punish people (mainly women), but it may not stop abortions from happening. Those on the pro-choice side often accuse the pro-life movement of being punitive toward women. Making abortion illegal without an underlying culture of life to support it could potentially have that effect.

However, changing the goal of the pro-life movement from "making abortion illegal" to "saving lives" would be very freeing—and at the same time, challenging. Everyone would have to do their part, not just people in difficult pregnancies. It would be about nurturing and supporting people in all stages of life, rather than making life as difficult as possible as some kind of a moral test to see what they will do—we can all do some pretty rotten things when pushed to our limits.

It might also ease some of the tunnel vision. The pro-life movement has thoroughly been used and taken advantage of by politicians. They appreciate the votes but give very little in return outside of occasional showmanship and lip service. Pro-life voters are held hostage because of the distant possibility that politicians might actually do something about abortion rather than just use it to win elections and then play political football with later, always blaming the other party for failures. Pro-life voters have shown they will support the most vile candidates who do the most vile things in office (including murderous policies) in exchange for the *possibility* of anti-abortion legislation.

Stopping abortion does not have to happen legislatively. In fact, it probably cannot happen that way if it is going to be a sustainable cultural change. In our current cultural context, a legislative overturn of Roe vs. Wade would be punitive but not corrective, judgmental but not life-giving.

A final note: If the movement is going to carry the name "pro-life," then it must be a champion of just that—life. All life, all the time, everywhere. From conception to natural death. Otherwise, it is the "anti-abortion movement" but not the "pro-life movement." Words matter, and we need to be honest about what we are about.

In some ways, the anti-abortion movement has no choice. The moral strength of the movement is based on the fact that abortion is the taking of life. It is the taking of life that is wrong. Abortion is simply one instance where the taking of life happens. But if abortion is wrong, then the taking of all life is wrong. Moral theologians make distinctions and add qualifiers such as the "intentional" taking of "innocent" life, but the faith teaches us that all life has dignity. Activists need to pick and choose which causes to dedicate their limited time, talent and treasure toward, and some may chose abortion and not other issues. But it is important when doing so not to deny the legitimacy of other issues. If the pro-life movement is going to carry that name, then it needs to step up to the plate and be a champion of life itself. Those are big shoes. Either fill them or just call yourselves what you actually are. And by supporting other issues, such as ways to reduce poverty, reform immigration and address injustices in the criminal justice system, we may find that rates of abortion also go down in the wake.

My recommendation: The pro-life movement could get out of its stalemate by focusing more on saving lives than making abortion illegal—a subtle but significant distinction. This involves creating a widespread, holistic culture which is life-affirming from conception to natural death. Addressing poverty, immigration, criminal justice and wage theft are proven ways of reducing abortion rates, as well as simply being good neighbors who reach out to the people around us. You may never know how many abortions you might prevent by being a good mentor, neighbor, uncle or teacher, but statistics say you would be directly alleviating the stressors that people claim are the primary reasons that drive them to consider abortion. The movement would have an easier time seeing these connections if it adopted a truly holistic, consistent ethic of life.

Addendum:  I am not suggesting that the movement should entirely give up its goal of making abortion illegal—not at all.  But if that is going to be successful, the culture has to be willing to accept it or else a purely legislative change without the support of the people would most likely seriously backfire and send the movement back decades.

Never Break Relationship

Scott Schaeffer-Duffy knows a thing or two about talking to people about difficult topics. 

As co-founder of the of the Sts. Francis and Thérèse Catholic Worker in Worchester, MA, he publically promotes the consistent ethic of life--a moral framework which ties all issues of life and killing together.  As a result, he takes a stand against abortion, war, the death penalty, poverty and violence of all kinds. 

It is a very Christian idea with deep roots all the way back to Jesus and the Ancient Israelite prophets.  Nevertheless, it is an idea which faces no shortage of resistance.  The odds are high that something he says on some issue is going to be a hot button issue for someone.  It puts him on both sides of the culture wars but at home on neither side.  Emotions can get high, and many red faced people have shouted all manner of insults at him. 

He gave some advice at a Catholic Worker gathering many years ago that has left a profound impression on me:  Never break relationship; stay in dialogue.

This includes--perhaps especially so--the people who are rigidly entrenched and refusing to dialogue in a respectful manner.

The longer I continue in ministry, the more I see the wisdom in that.

I asked in an earlier post if it is okay to be intolerant of intolerance.  The first question to ask is:  Am I getting an accurate read on the other person?  If I sit back and say those people are just intolerant, how do I know whether or not that is actually true?   It could just be my perception of them or what I have been told (or manipulated) to believe about them.  I am never going to understand them well from a distance.  Never break relationship; stay in dialogue.

What is the best way to help facilitate a change?  Assuming I do believe they are mistaken, shunning them is not likely to have much of an impact.  After all, shunning is the first step on the path to dehumanizing and objectifying someone, opening the door to justify later abuse.  I need to see their humanity as God's image and never lose sight of that in my dealings with them--for my sake as well as theirs.  I hope they see my humanity as God's image, too.  Once that happens, we will be in a much better place to truly listen to each other and consider what each other is saying.  Never break relationship; stay in dialogue.
 
Language is important.  Let's not whitewash:  Intolerant of intolerance is exactly that--intolerance.  I may not like intolerance, but saying I am intolerant of it is a red flag on my own spiritual development.  Reacting to their intolerance with an equal and opposite display of intolerance on my part puts them in the driver's set--they end up setting the tone for my behavior.  Never break relationship, stay in dialogue.

I keep coming back to the importance of combining contemplation with action, a theme we have explored a lot in this blog lately.  Mystics have been saying this for centuries, including Richard Rohr and Thomas Merton.  Scott Schaeffer-Duffy's words resonate here greatly. 

It may be a very fine thing to take the action of protesting the behavior of some folks that I find to be intolerant.  My conscience and faith formed in the Gospel may drive me to that action.  However, I also have a duty to combine that with contemplation. In other words I have to be constantly meditating, praying, being in dialogue with others and reading about the subject to make abundantly sure I am not simply wrong or driven by my own agenda.  Knowing how well the ego can hide behind layers of pride, jealousy, fear, real wounds and false humility, I have to be on an ever-watchful vigil.  The exercise of self-reflection never ends.

I have to bring a prayerful, loving, humble stance to my social action because there is no other way to ensure I am not just replacing one prejudice or intolerance with another.  Even that is not foolproof, but it is the best way we have to check and balance our own runaway ego--it is a way to stay rooted in our own faith and values and not just mindlessly react.  Then our actions inform and influence our contemplation in an endless interplay.

Without contemplation, we become what we hate.

Case in point:  A man grows up in an excessively controlling family.  Boundaries are not respected and privacy is not a part of family culture, despite his discomfort and perhaps his protests.  He crawls into an emotional shell only to be regularly prodded, guilted and manipulated out of that.  After coming out of that environment, he declares--consciously or subconsciously--never to let anyone else control him ever again.  His instincts are on high alert to resist any hint at control.  He becomes so engrossed with resisting external control, however, that it becomes very difficult to be in relationship with him.  To be a guest in his house, you have to follow his all-too-rigid rules and endless protocol.  Walking on eggshells is an ever-present reality around him.

While I would never deny him his right to set his own boundaries and preferences for his home, he fails to see that he has actually become like his family of origin.  Like his parents who were not responsive to him as a child, his baggage is so all-engrossing that he cannot be responsive to the needs of his guests and friends--they have to bend to his wishes (even the point of compromising themselves), but he has little flexibility to do likewise.  There is a fine line between his right to protect his boundaries and his tendency to achieve that by imposing increasingly restrictive rules on the people around him.  People are in a compromising position around him, just like he was in a compromising position growing up.

The mechanism he used for breaking away from his family's control is . . . control.  It is the stuff of Greek tragedy, but it makes sense--control is what he knows.  In this way, we come to see our enemies like unto ourselves.  They trigger us because they are more like us than we ever care to imagine.  The seeds for compassion are sown.

This man is not an isolated example--he represents all of us.  We become what we hate, says my uncle.   It is not a question of "if" this may happen but "when" and "how."  Hindus call it karma.  Psychologists call it projection.  Ancient Greeks referred to it as tragedy.  Newtonian physicists talk of actions having equal and opposite reactions.  Jesus told us to love our enemies and hinted that we may find ourselves in them somehow. 

Action without contemplation puts us on due course to become just like our enemies, even when it may seem like we are working to be the complete opposite. 

All too often in history, a government is overthrown for its miscarriage of justice only to be replaced with another regime as evil as the previous one, despite the seemingly good intentions of those struggling for change.  The exceptions are those who are intentional about reconciliation and mature contemplation.  Otherwise, you hurt those who have hurt you, hate those who have hated you and limit those who have limited you.  The subsequent generation would not see justice but only oppression and then their resistance starts.

The Gospel offers an alternative:  Love your enemies. Bless those who persecute you. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for those who mistreat you. 

In other words:  Stop the madness from continuing in a never-ending chain reaction of violence.

No matter how justifiable it may seem, I have got to always stay in relationship and dialogue with those with whom I disagree.  Through faith, I maintain my center despite the storms going on around me.  My dialogue with them--as well as my internal self-reflection--helps ensure that I am not creating a rigid fundamentalism of my own but rather a stance of being rooted in faith while also responsive to the world around me.

There is a depressingly endless array of injustices in this world.  We cannot sit paralyzed, unwilling to take action out of our own self-doubt or sense of humility.  All we can do is take action with a firm commitment to continual self-evaluation and education in prayer, discussion, study and personal growth--and always keep the doors of possibility open with those with whom we disagree so that their methods of exclusion do not become our methods of exclusion.  Never break relationship; stay in dialogue.