Abandoning Trench Warfare: 8 Ways to Find Common Ground in the Abortion Debate

Trench warfare.

More than any other issue, abortion is the poster child of the polarized culture wars. People just scream at each other. They recite talking points, often with their fingers firmly in their own ears. They lob verbal grenades at each other while staying lodged within their respective bunkers. Neither side gives an inch, and, perhaps because of this, neither side advances an inch. These steps are repeated ad infinitum. Many are weary of the fighting but don't know how to stop.

Trench warfare is getting us nowhere fast.

Literal trench warfare didn't work well in World War I, either—it mostly left a wake of immense trauma and loss of life while battle lines moved only a few meters back and forth. As the war lingered on, no side abandoned the trenches all at once, but each starting putting resources into other strategies. It was obvious that the trenches were a losing endeavor.

This analogy works quite well for the culture wars today, too. Incredible energy is expended by both sides. All this effort may enable each side to hold its ground, but each also gains very little with no end in sight. For every small "victory," you have to wonder how many people are forever alienated by the brutal conflict.

Can we open pathways for discussion so that energy can move more freely? Is there any way to tip the scales to encourage people to talk in a different way?

A number of people are hard at work trying to figure this out. Some great examples are these articles in Nurturing Faith and Secular Pro-Life Perspectives. The organization The New Pro Life Movement is also an attempt to find a new way. Along with this blog, that includes Baptist, Catholic and non-religious viewpoints, suggesting that people from multiple backgrounds are trying to re-think how we approach this issue.

It is my hope that this essay can contribute to that discussion. Let me suggest the following 8 points:

1.  Reflect on how we talk to each other.

We can bravely set aside our talking points for a while and just reflect on how we regard each other and talk to each other. Take a step back—instead of talking about "the issue," talk instead about how you talk about it. That can be a difficult thing to do when your hands have been clenched around your weapon for so long, when you can pull out your talking points faster than Bill the Kid could pull out his six-shooter. Yet, there are stories in every war where this happens. After fighting each other in battle after battle, sometimes soldiers put down their weapons and say, "We can't keep doing this, we've got to find another way." Do you practice active listening and nonviolent communication when someone with contrary views talks to you? Is it more important for you to "be right" and "change people" than it is to help others? Would you like being talked to in the way that you talk to others?

Check out The Story of the Christmas Truce, which incidentally occurred in the trenches of World War I.

Perhaps we can learn to speak the language of conversation and conversion rather than condemnation.

2.  Admit it: People of goodwill exist on either side of this debate.

The culture wars have gotten to the point where it has become impossible for people on either side to say anything good about the other side. They are afraid of giving ground or appearing to soften their viewpoints. Personally, I have strong views on this issue, but I can still affirm the people and perspectives on the other side.

I've met a lot of people on either side of the abortion debate and in every position in between. I've come away from that with a strong belief that there are simply good people of good will on either side, as well as in the middle. They aren't monsters. They simply disagree on a very contentious issue. I still think some people are very, very wrong and have huge blinders on.  But I respect them as people. I like them. I love them.

People can often be so disgusted by differing views that it can be hard to even acknowledge each other's humanity. They look at each other in disgust, thinking, how could someone possibly hold that viewpoint? 

Admittedly, it is a fair question. I sometimes find myself asking it, as well. We may never fully understand how or why someone could take the opposite view in this debate. But we also have to admit that millions and millions of people do. We also have to realize this debate is probably not going to be settled anytime soon. We may want it to go away, but it's not. Yet, somehow we have to live together, share this world together and function in society together in the meantime. That's simply a fact.

3.  I can understand and affirm the concerns on either side. 

Even though I may not completely understand why someone could hold a differing view on abortion, I can still sympathize with the profound issues in play on either side of this debate. It is not hard to see why people are passionate about this issue.

People on either side should be able to at least affirm that the other side has valid concerns. You may not think their conclusions are good, but I'm talking here about their concerns.

For example, I am a strong proponent of peace and nonviolence, but I can certainly understand why someone would choose to go to war.  I think that in most (if not all) cases, war and other forms of violence come from an unenlightened place. However, I can at least understand the emotions and fears that go into that decision, even though I hold out for a still more excellent way (1 Corinthians 12:31). There are all sorts of actions that would make violence a tempting response for me, and I don't lose my nonviolence credentials by acknowledging this temptation.

4.  Understanding the other side does not mean I have to lessen my own views.

We are afraid that if we affirm the people on the "other side" and validate their concerns, that our own argument will lose something. That does not sound like a person who is confident in his or her point of view. Odds are, my position will be strengthened because I have the courage to face the points from both sides.

But you can still respect the other side even if you think they are totally missing the boat.

5. Some people do a good job of living up (or down) to the stereotypes—but most don't.

Some spokespeople for both sides are all to often caricatures of their positions. There are some pro-life people who seem to have an anti-feminist bent and there are some pro-choice supporters who express a lot of anti-male fervor. So what?

These people do not represent everyone. There are good, decent people who have arrived at their viewpoint on either side of this debate through the hard road of life. 

6.  People on both sides can be accused of being inconsistent.

There are some pro-life supports who are very inconsistent—they seem to be against abortion but rarely invest time or energy in other "life" issues, even those that may yield less abortions. You could make the same argument on the other side—why are some on the left so concerned with just about every social injustice except for the unborn baby in their own body?

Contradictions are sometimes useful to point out, but most of this is just deflection. Instead of addressing the argument, people instead try to discredit the people on the other side. These arguments usually assume people fall along political party lines, but many people fall somewhere in between the two parties.

7. Find a goal we can share

There is possibly one thing that pro-choice and pro-life activists have in common: Many are weary of the culture wars but don't know how to end them. They feel they can't give up, but they see little hope in continuing the battles.

Can we all commit to ending the trench warfare? Can we all apply ourselves to the task of melting the stalemate? In other words:  Can we try to figure out how to figure this out?

What's interesting is that many people on both sides want to live in a society where no abortion occurs. Let that sink in for a moment. The linked articles above go into more detail about this. Do you agree? If so, this seems like a profound unifying platform to work toward!

8.  Redefine victory.

Ardent activists on either side might define victory as convincing the other side to change its stance. I'm not asking anyone to give up this goal. But perhaps we need other short-term goals along the way: Can we at least agree to disagree and find a way to respect each other in this? Maybe that's not the magic answer anyone was looking for, but don't knock it till you try it. Simply agreeing to disagree can be an immensely healing experience:  The plates shift. The whole discussion may not be resolved, but it could graduate to a higher level, laying the groundwork so that a more substantive change may happen later.

***

We don't trust each other.

I can't promise that in any of this there is a magic bullet that will break the stalemate. But perhaps if we did the recommendations above we might get somewhere over time. This is a marathon, not a sprint.  But one thing is clear to me:  The current trench warfare is getting us nowhere fast. We need to be brave and try something else.

Listening deeply to the concerns on either side has not changed my mind on this issue a whole lot. I still hold the views I held previously, and actually my viewpoint is stronger because I am no longer afraid of what the other side might say because I have had the courage to hear them out.

But it has helped me see the human beings behind those views.  And that matters.

The Darth Vaderization of America through Guns

Picture source: https://pixabay.com/en/darth-vader-star-wars-geek-1207142/

"He's more machine now than man. Twisted and evil."

―Obi-Wan Kenobi

Darth Vader is not just a bad guy. He's a tragic and sad character, perhaps even pathetic. It's hard to feel sorry for him when he's intimidating the bejesus out of everyone, blowing up planets and leading an assault on peace and goodwill in the galaxy.

But he's not a happy guy. He's barely even a guy at all, anymore.

Driven by pain, anger and ultimately fear, and literally torn apart by his numerous scuffles, his once graceful form was replaced by cold machine. Part by part.

He may have been the galaxy's chief bad ass, but that armor hid another truth. The loss of his flesh and blood mirrored the loss of his own humanity.

It must have been uncomfortable under all those circuits and wires—for whatever flesh he had left to feel with, that is. He was literally on life support. There was no more potential for human touch or experiencing life with his natural senses. His armor both protected and imprisoned him.

He didn't just participate in a war. His own body was the war zone.

In light of the alarming rate of mass shootings in U.S. schools, a number of plans are being proposed. Some involve stricter regulations around guns and gun ownership. Other plans involve turning schools into barricaded fortress with armed teachers.

This online meme from a Twitter discussion captures the basic idea. @FoxNews issues the following, from Judge Jeanie Pirro: "We need to protect kids, & that means we've got to have metal detectors, we've got to have experienced cops..., & we've got to be able to have perimeter controls. We've got to have teachers who can carry a weapon & react to this kind of nonsense." #Hannity

Journalist Scott Gilmore replied with: "That's a prison. You're describing a prison."

These measures are perhaps what you would do in the temporary, extreme conditions of an actual war zone. It should never be accepted as a regular way of life.

There is a cost to living like Darth Vader. Every piece of armor replaces your own flesh and blood. Every wall between you and someone else means another wall between a part of your own self. You could drape armor over yourself, never leave home without packing firepower and be always on the lookout for danger. Somewhere along the line, perhaps in shades of gray, you lose your humanity and become a hunted beast— always on the lookout, always afraid, always griping this metal extension of your body tightly. No one can shoot you, no one can beat you . . . but is there any "you" left?

Whenever this happens, the gun has become an "essential" part of your life. It is a continuation of your own hand—it starts where your hand stops. It may be held around your heart. Or gut. The gun has in effect become a part of you. By definition—that's what "essential" means. At this point, you will have taken a large step forward on the path to becoming like Darth Vader.

A gun may bring additional power and security, but it always comes with a cost. It's important to weigh that cost before going down that rabbit hole. The gun demands a high price. It wants to become enmeshed into your identity. It wants your very soul.

Case in point: The way the Parkland, FL, students are being insulted, harassed and villified—when they are asking questions, speaking their voices and sharing their testimonies—all during this time of grief—tells me all I need to know about the gun lobby and its bought-and-paid-for politicians: Mean spirited, juvenile, heartless and ultimately selfish. There is no humanity left in the gun lobby.  Or if there is, it is buried so far beneath its armor that it can barely breathe without it.

I don't know what motivates the gun lobby, but it's clearly not freedom. If they were concerned about freedom, they would be supporting these students' free speech. Instead, they slander them and try their various smear, diversion and distraction tactics that have worked so well in the past. America may finally have had enough.

The Darth Vaderization of the gun lobby is complete. When grieving high school students are the subject of political spin and slander, there is no line of decency left that won't be crossed. Anyone who comes between them and their gun is an enemy who must be discredited and destroyed. They live, and we die, for the gun. The gun no longer serves them—rather, they serve the gun. They worship the gun. It is supreme. All other concerns are in a far secondary place, if at all.  Everything is negotiable except the wishes of the almighty gun. No other liberty or right matters other than the liberty to carry a gun—even the right to life itself.

Van Morrison sings "Ain't it lonely when you're livin' with a gun?"

The song is Who Was That Masked Man? Fans of old westerns know that masked man was the Lone Ranger—aptly named.

Oh ain't it lonely

When you're livin' with a gun

Well you can't slow down and you can't turn 'round

And you can't trust anyone

You just sit there like a butterfly

And you're all encased in glass

You're so fragile you just may break

And you don't know who to ask

Oh ain't it lonely

When you're livin' with a gun

Well you can't slow down and you can't turn 'round

And you can't trust anyone

You just sit there like a butterfly

You're well protected by the glass

You're such a rare collector's item

When they throw away what's the trash

You can hang suspended from a star

Or wish on a toilet roll

You can just soak up the atmosphere

Like a fish inside a bowl

When the ghost comes round at midnight

Well you both can have some fun

He can drive you mad, he can make you sad

He can keep you from the sun

When they take him down, he'll be both safe and sound

And the hand does fit the glove

And no matter what they tell you,

There's good and evil in everyone

A Surprising Place of Common Ground in the Mass Shootings Debate

When it comes to mass shootings in the U.S., there is something we should all be able to agree on no matter where on the political spectrum we fall.

Whether we are strong supporters of gun rights, gun restrictions or some other approach, there is at least one thing we can all say.

This doesn't happen very often in our polarized nation, so it's worth taking notice.

Mass shootings are very common in our country. Virtually nothing has actually been done to address any of the suspected causes. For the last several years, Congress has not been actively debating the pros and cons of any proposed plans to address this problem with any serious intent. 

Therefore, we should all be willing to admit that mass shootings will continue at about the same rate.

Right?

This is just basic logic.

Like the old saying goes: If you do what you've always done, you're going to get what you've always gotten.

We should all be willing to agree on this regardless on where we stand politically or what we think are the causes of mass shootings. That's simply the most likely scenario. If anyone disagrees with this, I'd sure like to hear it.

Is this something we are willing to accept?

Is this just the way life is going to be going forward?  The new normal?

Who's Job Is It?

So whose job is it to ensure the safety of school children? Liberals and conservatives may have some different views. However, even the most conservative libertarians—who want as small of a government as possible—will argue that "that government's only legitimate role is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property."

The government mandates that children go to school, but it seems incapable of ensuring their safety while there. When politicians say "now is not the time to talk about gun violence" they are derelict in their elected duties no matter which political philosophy you follow. People are free to use self-defense, but that should be a last resort, not a first resort. The first and primary responsibility for security falls directly on our elected leaders.

What Do We Do?

Gun control supporters actually have plans with lots of ideas. Here's one. There are others. Maybe they will work, maybe they won't, but they are based on real data and real experience in other parts of the world, as well as previous laws in the U.S. The causes of mass shootings are complex, but more and more the data is showing us that the sheer availability of firearms is the strongest correlating factor in mass shootings, like this NY Times article. Other countries have comparable rates of mental illness, breakdown of the family and (lack of) religious commitment of the population, but most don't have many mass shootings. The U.S. has more guns and more gun-related deaths—those are the only two data points that are unique for us.

Other data, like in this Washington Post article, is showing us that a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would result in a significant drop in mass gun deaths. We already had a version of that law from 1994-2004 and no one lost their basic liberties over it. It probably wouldn't solve the whole problem, but it would be a significant step in the right direction.

If gun control isn't the solution, then what, pray tell, is?

Some say the solution is better mental health treatment. In this NY Times article, a psychiatrist shares the cold reality about why mental health treatment will not fix the problem of mass shootings. She argues convincingly for better gun control.

Some gun rights supporters don't actually have a plan, other than the slow arming of the entire population. It seems like the only scenario they support is turning this country into some kind of a Wild West video game, where everyone walks around all day packin' in some kind of testosterone-fueled action movie and schools are turned into fortresses. That seems like a fantasy for little boys, but this is a situation that calls for mature men and women. The fact that virtually every other nation in the world has figured out how to keep school children safe without having to resort to this should be our first clue that there is a better way.

It is hard to accept someone telling me that my child is safer if teachers are armed when the halls of Congress is a gun free zone. 

Don't Believe the Hype: Regulations Work.

Despite all the negative comments you may hear about gun regulations, the truth is that the government does a fantastic job regulating weapons. The vast majority of weapons are only available to the military, and the military does a great job of keeping it that way: Armed tanks, missiles, nukes, chemical and biological weapons, most bombs and grenades, you name it. You just can't go out and buy that stuff, because regulation actually works quite well. In fact, if you want a bomb, you pretty much have to make it yourself. Try to research how to do it and acquire the ingredients without attracting the attention of Homeland Security in the process! A few domestic terrorists have shown us that it can be done, but it's clearly not easy. I'm tired of making it easy for mass murderers.

But you need a comprehensive control. You can't allow it in one city then ban it in the next city (i.e. Chicago). 

People act like a ban on assault rifles would be some major break with the Constitution, but the vast majority of weapons have always been unavailable to civilians. Given our long and bloody history with mass shootings, the line between "military" and civilian" weapons has become blurred and needs to be re-evaluated.

There are clearly some weapons circulating in the general population that only belong in the military. Civilized countries just don't let random people walk around the streets carrying loaded machine guns. You can't even do that in the military—weapons are kept under a strict chain of command and there are detailed procedures for how to use and store them. Large scale firepower should never be in the power of random citizens to use at their private discretion.

Imagine walking around a military base just randomly carrying loaded firepower whenever you felt like it! That would never happen. There are very good reasons for that: Accidents, mental illness, people with grudges, people with power issues, sociopaths, suicidal people who want to take out others, the list goes on and on. There is some firepower that is so large that vast amounts of damage can be done before anyone can react to stop it, so it’s better to stop it further upstream. The threat of losing their lives or life in prison does not seem to deter most terrorists.

Weapons of mass destruction should only be kept and used (if at all) by an organized body (such as the military) which is accountable to the government (the people) where there is a strict chain of command, training and precautions governing their use and storage. I think that's what the framers of the Bill of Rights meant by the term "well-regulated."

"A Good Guy With a Nuke"

Some things are not meant for private individuals to use at their own discretion. Nuclear weapons are a great example. A "good guy with a nuke" is not an effective deterrent against a "bad guy with a nuke." If both parties have a conscience and feel responsible for the lives in their respective nations, then a nuclear standoff might work. But all you need is one crackpot dictator with nothing to lose who doesn't care about the consequences, then suddenly we've got nuclear Armageddon. A good guy with a nuke will be ineffective in stopping the deaths of millions in that scenario. He might get the last word, but at what cost?

A school shooter is very similar to a crackpot dictator with nothing to lose. They all probably know they are going to eventually get caught and either killed or imprisoned. They don't care. They just want to cause as much devastation as possible before that happens.

Social Contract 

The best solution is that we as a whole society should come together and make a social contract with each other—making the free choice to give up the use of some weapons because the lives of our children are simply more important—and their freedom to live is more important than our freedom to own weapons of mass destruction.

Living in the large civilized society means that we have to continually make adjustments and compromises in order to figure out how to share this space together and accommodate each other in the best possible way. There is nothing new or unusual about having to make adult sacrifices in order to be in relationship with each other. We do it all the time, as we are a nation of laws and sensible regulations. Like a successful marriage, you give up some things so you have have even better things. We can choose to stomp our feet and complain that the "government is taking things from us," or we can maturely come together and take responsibility for these choices because we realize that are indeed the best options available.

The Most Overlooked Reason for Universal Healthcare

For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement,
"YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
Galations 5:14

In all the debates over whether or not to have universal healthcare in the U.S., there is one very simple, obvious reason for it that I almost never hear anyone mention.

It's so obvious. That's probably why it is so completely overlooked.

It's right under our noses.

We should have universal healthcare in the U.S. simply because . . .

. . . (wait for it) . . .

Simply because . . . we can!

Yes, it's that simple!

I'm sorry if you expected a more complex answer. But hear me out.

Why not? 

We are the richest, most productive nation on earth. Why shouldn't we enjoy that? Why shouldn't we make life better for both ourselves as well as fellow members of society? Health care is something everyone wants, and at some point or another everyone will need it. Let's do it! We have public parks, public schools and public roads. Why not have public access to health care?

This will, in turn make life better for each of us. Diseases would be better controlled and other conditions prevented. Why should our fellow citizens live in constant fear of health issues and painful decisions over whether to buy food or medicine? Let's be as healthy, productive and happy as possible. Why in the world would we not want that?

There is no reason to make it any more complicated than this.

Instead, we turn healthcare into some kind of game. It is seen as a reward for people who supposedly "work hard" and know how to be enterprising. We link access to health care to employment, even though there are many ways well-intentioned people can fall between those cracks. Through no fault of their own, children are dependent on whether their parents have secured health coverage. Later in life, health coverage could be at risk if you have a pre-existing condition or lose your job. For some people, losing health care coverage is akin to losing their lives. Being in-between jobs should not be a death sentence. Even people who do all the "right" things can find themselves without coverage.

Perhaps it's our Puritan roots coming back to haunt us. If something is too good to be true, then it must be bad, right?? It can't be that easy!

We already have the money. All we need to do is take the money we currently spend on health care and instead put it toward a nationalized system. We can pay doctors and hospitals through a Medicare-for-all system rather than going through private insurance companies. We'll end up covering more people, thus improving the quality of our system, and actually saving money. It's a win-win. It's practically a no-brainer. Otherwise, there is always the over-inflated military budget or tax cuts for the rich which could be pulled back to pay for healthcare. We spend more on the military than the next the 8 highest spending nations. But if we don't even have healthcare for our citizens, what exactly are we protecting with that military budget? We pay a lot in taxes, we should actually get what we want (and need).

Virtually every other developed nation on earth has comprehensive coverage for its citizens. Despite the fact that American "news" sources report that some of those nations are going "bankrupt," none of them are showing signs of changing. The horror stories you hear about coverage in other countries are largely false. People generally love the care they get. The bottom line is:  Most would never opt for a U.S.-style system.

The only obstacle is that it would put a lot of private insurance companies out of business. They are getting rich off of the system we currently have, so they are putting a lot of money into the pockets of politicians, lobby groups and anti-information campaigns to halt the progress toward universal health care. But their gains come at the expense of human lives and human well-being. After all, they make money by denying coverage to sick people. It's simple math: They make profits by getting as much as they can get in premiums and paying as little as they can get away with in actual health care costs. It is an evil system in that it rewards callousness in the face of human suffering. Morally speaking, some industries should never be tied to a profit motive, and health care is a perfect example of that.

Sadly, our current system is not that great. The World Health Organization rates the U.S. as #37th in the world. However, we spend the most by far! Why aren't we getting the best care for our money? This makes no financial sense.

Lack of Social Contract:  Could it be racism?

So many Americans live in fear that their neighbor might benefit from their tax money, they end up biting their own nose to spite their face. They would rather deny coverage to everyone (including themselves) rather than let something benefit their neighbor.

If your family were sick, you would probably want to provide for them. So why wouldn't we want to provide for our fellow citizens? I think the reasons is exactly that: We don't see ourselves as family. America's original sin is racism, as Jim Wallis points out. Here it comes to bite us again. We don't want universal health care because black people might benefit from it, or Hispanic people, or LGBT people, or some other groups that we don't like. We're so individualistic that we barely see ourselves as part of a shared society at all. European countries have a sense of shared culture and heritage so they have fewer problems insuring each other's health care, because they see each other as part of a l venture together—they are going forward as a whole society together, not as isolated individuals.

Wouldn't it be nice to go to any hospital or doctor at anytime and have access to all the care you could ever need without having to navigate a complex system of in-network and out-of-network providers, (assuming you have coverage at all)?

If you got rich in this nation, it's partly because we as a society made that possible through education, infrastructure as well as police, fire and military protection. You didn't earn it "by yourself." We all helped you. So this is one way to pay it back. But more importantly: We're all in this together. Let's act like it!

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.

Where Charity and Love Prevail: The Matthew 25 Solidarity Test

Our society is so divided over many hot-button issues. There are conservative and liberal viewpoints, with variations of all kinds in between. It can be confusing to know what to think when half of the population seems to have strong opinions one way and seemingly the other half of the population has just as strong views on the other side.

When people express opinions about a particular issue, I always look to see how charitable they are in this. Do they take the concerns of others seriously and try their best to get to the bottom of it? Or do they simply dismiss their concerns outright without getting involved? That is often a clue as to whether their opinions are in line with Christian discipleship.

Jesus promises that he is close to the poor and suffering of the world. He is so close that he can say whatever is done to the "least of these" is also done to him (see Matthew 25:31-46). In this passage, he compels us to do the same through the works of mercy. This is a great model for how Christians can move and act in this world.

If you are trying to figure out what position to take on a controversial issue, you can use what I call the Matthew 25 Solidarity Test: Do you know the people who are affected by this issue? Have you walked in their shoes? Have you heard their concerns in their own words rather than from a third party? Are you so close to them that whatever happens to them also happens to you?

I'll use two hot-button issues to illustrate this point:  Racism in the U.S. and the struggle of refugees and undocumented immigrants.

Reports have been mounting in recent years of unarmed black people in America being killed or otherwise brutalized by police officers. There are so many reports that it is hard to dismiss them all as simply isolated incidents. Yet, some people are quick to say, "There is no racism in the U.S.!" It is strange how that is their first thought. It comes across as defensiveness and frankly just flat out denial. 

Anyone who studies statistics can tell you that a string of incidents does not necessarily prove that there is something like societal racism in play. Such things are difficult to prove and it can take years for the proper data and studies to come in. However, anyone who is even remotely charitable should recognize that we have a big problem. All indicators point to it. Even if we were to find out later that this treatment of African Americans is somehow NOT systemic racism (which I sincerely doubt), we should still be acting as if it were racism until we know for sure. That is what a charitable person would do. Until we get to the bottom of it, we should be doing everything possible to solve this. We should be sensitive, compassionate and diligent until this problem is solved. The fact that so many resist any effort to work on this issue just about proves the legitimacy of the charge of racism.

For example, if someone falls out of a tree and thinks he has broken his arm, the best thing to do is take him to the hospital. It is possible that the arm is not broken, but doctors will treat that person as if the arm is broken until they can properly diagnose. It would be cruel and inhumane to say, "quit crying, your arm is not broken!" without actually doing the necessary evaluation to know for sure. Yet, that is exactly how many in our culture are treating African Americans who present strong evidence of racism and are met with resistance, dismissals of their concerns and overall lack of interest.

The people who say that racism is not a factor are rarely (if ever) close to the issue. They seem to pronounce their judgement from their comfortable living rooms in very white neighborhoods. They aren't the people who are consoling grieving family members or helping a wounded and angry community heal. Those who are involved seem to have no problem recognizing the footprint of racism at work.

I see the same pattern over how we treat refugees and undocumented immigrants. The people who are closest to migrants—who hold their hands when a loved one is missing or who simply listen to them with open minds and hearts—these people overwhelmingly support a merciful approach to welcoming immigrants and granting hospitality whenever possible. Those who want to shut out immigrants and refugees with strict rules are usually people who have had no meaningful contact with those migrants and have rarely taken the time to fully understand their concerns.

An important note: It takes more than physical proximity to truly be in Christian solidarity with others. For example, police and the people they arrest are very close. The police physically touch them and they share a ride in a police car. However, despite sharing that space, they are often very far apart in terms of their life experiences and perspectives. People in segregated communities can often think they are close to each other. They see each other from behind their car windows or in limited interactions in public. They can fool themselves into thinking they understand the concerns of the other group. Segregated or confrontational relationships are not relationships of solidarity, and solidarity is what Jesus is requiring in Matthew 25.

Being in close solidarity with the poor and suffering of the world is no guarantee that you will always form the best opinions. However, in our culture that seems almost evenly divided on so many important issues, we are actually not very divided when we factor in solidarity. Looking at the issues of racism and immigration, those who are in solidarity with the affected groups overwhelmingly have a supportive, sympathetic opinion of their struggles while those with differing opinions are almost always those who are not in solidarity. I'm sure there are exceptions, but quite frankly, I have never met one. Exceptions must be very rare, if they exist at all. This is a pretty clear indicator to me that opinions on both sides are not equal in validity.

I'm reminded of the lyrics to the old church hymn:

Where charity and love prevail,

there God is ever found;

Brought here together by Christ’s love,

by love are we thus bound.

Book Recommendation: Thinking Theologically about Mass Incarceration

Click here to buy

It's hard to imagine a more urgent and timely topic: How can Christian churches understand and address the problems of racism, especially in its most current manifestation, mass incarceration?

BOOK RECOMMENDATION: Thinking Theologically about Mass Incarceration, Biblical Foundations and Justice Imperatives.  Churches, seminaries, social action groups and other concerned Christians: This is a fantastic book for any Christian who wants to better understand—and take action on—racism in the U.S in its contemporary form: Mass incarceration.

26 writers—representing nearly as many Christian denominations—contributed brave essays, prophetic sermons and top-notch scholarly pieces on this very topic as part of the Faith & Order Commission of the National Council of Churches. It was the fruit of a multi-year process of vigorous discussion and discernment. The essays are powerful. 

Topics covered include racism, white supremacy/privilege, prison ministry and the main focus, mass incarceration.

Full disclosure: I am one of the authors who has a piece in this volume.

YOU CAN PURCHASE IT HERE.

This book is a great volume for prayer, study and action on this extremely important, contemporary issue! It's a "must have" for libraries, seminaries as well as personal and group reflection! It is academically robust, but it’s written in an accessible style so that non-experts can engage.  Thanks, Paulist Press!

What is mass incarceration?

If you talk about what racism was like before the Civil War, you couldn’t do that without talking about slavery—it’s most sinister manifestation. For 100 years after the Civil War, you couldn’t talk about racism without mentioning the way Jim Crow laws in the U.S. South institutionalized segregation and, along with it, racism. Today, you can’t really get a full grasp on the reality of racism without understanding how it manifests itself in the phenomenon of mass incarceration and the selective bias and privilege which fuel it.

Mass incarceration is the disproportionate treatment of people of color in all aspects of the criminal justice system—everything from shopkeepers being overly suspicious of black patrons to the statistics that say that people of color are more likely to be questioned by police (such as in a traffic stop), more likely to be searched, more likely to be arrested, and more likely to be convicted and, once convicted, more likely to have the harshest sentences. And the only factor that seems to correlate to these differences is skin color. I’m only restating what has been said so well in Michelle Alexanders seminal book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.

A young African American kid is shot and killed for sporting a water pistol in Cleveland, Ohio. A white man who was arrested after shooting 9 black people in Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, is taken to the drive-thru at Burger King immediately after the incident. Perhaps a single incident could be excused for any number of reasons, but there are hundreds and hundreds of comparable examples all across the nation.

The end result is that African Americans have a familiarity with the criminal justice system that most Caucasian Americans will never have. This leaves empty spots in the pews, a gap in father-child relationships, a permanent mark on one's work history and a lifetime ban from voting. While some individual African Americans may fare well, the overall result of this is a permanent 2nd class caste system for African Americans in general.

What can we do about this?  And more specifically, what can our churches do about it? I recommend Thinking Theologically about Mass Incarceration, Biblical Foundations and Justice Imperatives to help with that.

YOU CAN PURCHASE IT HERE.

2 Takeaways from Pope Francis Statement on Capital Punishment

Pope Francis recently made bold comments on capital punishment. He called it "contrary to the gospel" and flat out "inadmissible." In these words, we are seeing the culmination of what's been building over the course of several pontificates—John Paul II, especially, but other popes, as well.

There are, at least, two developments happening in Church teaching that I see:

1. Defense, Not Punishment. I assume that Catholic theology would still support some executions if they meet the conditions for the moral category of "necessary defense."  

What I think Pope Francis is saying is that if the death penalty is administered to defend human lives, then it is not actually the death "penalty" at all. It's not done as a punishment. Through double-effect reasoning, the intention would be to protect life rather than to punish wrongdoings. If somehow God's justice if done through this, that's frankly none of our business.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church comes very close to saying this. However, the language is muddy enough to allow confusion: "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor" [See Catechism, #2267, emphasis added by me.]

The clause that begins with "if" seems to be lost on supporters of the death penalty. The state is not charged with doling out God's punishment. Take away the necessary aspect of defense and the act of executing an aggressor loses any moral justification.

The classic example is a wagon train moving westward in the mid 1800s American frontier. If someone attacks the wagon train and puts the lives of others at risk, the pioneers may have no choice other than to execute the attacker, even if they successfully capture him. There are no prisons to speak of or even any law enforcement at all. They simply don't have the resources to render the attacker "harmless." They have every reason to believe that if they were to release him he's simply going to kill again. As unfortunate as it may be, execution may be the only option to protect the lives of the pioneering party. This is, however, not an act of carrying out God's justice by doling out punishment; rather, it's primarily an act of self-defense—doing what is necessary to protect the common good.

I'd still like to believe that Jesus has opened up a way that would not require any violence, even in the most tragic circumstances. It would also not surprise me in the least if Francis were completely nonviolent himself. However, traditional Catholic teaching has supported the use of some violence in limited circumstances to protect the common good, and I don't read Francis as contradicting that.

2. The State is Not the Arbiter of God Justice. Francis is distancing the Church from the unfortunate theology that sees the state as the administrator of the justice of God. Proponents of this theology like to cite Roman chapter 13 as a proof text.  However, they are forgetting the larger, more consistent biblical message that only God is the Lord over life and death (see 1 Samuel 2:6 and Deuteronomy 32:39).  

The notion that the political state is always* the administrator of God's justice is seriously problematic at best and absurd at worst *("always" added later due to comments below).

The church has always respected the role that governments play and acknowledges they have a legitimate realm of decision-making—true. Governments are charged with protecting the common good, and to the extent that they do that, they may indeed be a conduit for the goodness of God—absolutely. That is why Christians can and should prophetically challenge governments in our quest to make way for the Kingdom of God.  

But given the evil in the world perpetuated by governments, to say that governments are sanctioned by God to do what they do is to deny the obvious. Governments made legal the practice of human trafficking in the form of slavery. The government of Nazi Germany attempted the extermination of the Jewish people and ended up killing over 6 million people in death camps. The government of communist USSR killed millions and sent untold numbers of thinkers, artists and outcasts to die in Siberian work camps. The list could go on and on of heinous acts carried out under the mantle of "justice" by various state entities.

The human tendency to abuse power is bad enough without the underlying (false) belief that this power is sanctioned by God.

What is "sinful" and what is "illegal" are not always the same thing. For example, most governments no longer punish adultery outright through the courts, yet it still remains one of the most serious sins for a Christian. Yet, few people still believe it is the job of the government to settle the score on behalf of God. Adultery is a wound that needs considerable work to heal and atone for, but few see the government as having the authority to do that. In a likewise manner, a murderer does indeed have issues to account for with the victims and with God, but it is not necessarily the job of the state to settle every bit of that.

Christians apply Romans 13 very selectively. It seems to only pertain to the death penalty and a few other affairs but they fail to bring it up on any number of other issues. It makes no sense that we should just blindly submit to the state when it is conducting executions yet challenge the government on everything else it does. Besides, it surprises me that many of the same people who mistrust the government implicitly on just about everything seem to blindly trust the same government to make decisions of life and death in a very flawed criminal justice system.

Pope Francis is making it clear that governments cannot claim Catholic Church support for executions any longer. Francis is on solid ground to state that the Church revokes all support for the death penalty. The Church would not deny the state the right to punish criminals. But it is saying that punishing with an execution is not moral:  The right to life of the convinced criminals, coupled with the opportunity to repent and reform, should come before whatever punishment the state deems appropriate.

How Toxic Shame Turns Evangelization Into Abuse

"Compulsory conversion of Indians (sic) by Jesuit missionaries."
Artist unknown, c 1500.

Toxic shame is one of the most powerful forces in human culture.

It is commonly discussed in therapy and self-help circles. People also regularly talk about the "guilt and shame" of cultural Christianity, especially as it relates to sexuality.

But I have rarely heard anyone talk about how shame manifests in pastoral settings. How does shame impact how we function as pastors, activists and chaplains? In this post, I want to talk about the role shame plays in evangelization—how we share the good news of the faith.

It goes like this:

Another way of talking about shame is self-hatred and self-doubt. Shame is, after all, a feeling of disgust about some aspect of who you are and a desire to hide it.

Self-hatred is, by definition, a lack of self-love. Therefore it can be said that shame is a lack of interior self-validation. People with shame simply do not feel good about what they do or who they are on some subconscious level.

Going further, people who lack self-validation tend to seek out external validation to fill the emptiness and treat this wound.

And what is a powerful form of external validation?  To conquer someone else, dominate them or convert them. Since this post is about religious practices, I'll focus on the latter.

Imagine if someone else will give up something as personal and visceral as their own religion and culture in order to adopt your religion and culture. What a tremendous affirmation that must be! This external validation is a way of saying, "you must be okay, because someone else wants to be like you." It can be quite a rush. It feeds the ego. We think it'll treat our wounds, but sadly, it does not. The emptiness will not go away in any long-term way no matter how many you convert. The reason is because external validation can never overcome your own refusal to validate yourself. No form of bullying or abuse is ever truly satisfying.

Those who evangelize out of shame do it in an attempt to eradicate the other person and create a facsimile of themselves. They hate you because they actually hate themselves. They cannot appreciate the God-given dignity which everyone already has just as they are, because they cannot accept the same truth about themselves.

You would think it would be the opposite, right? Why would someone who displays self-hatred want to replicate themselves? Rather, doesn't this instead sound like pride? Don't prideful people feel so good about themselves that they arrogantly think everyone else should be just like them? But that's not what's really happening. Pride is always the mask that hides shame and self-hatred.

Prideful people spent enormous energy putting forth a positive image, but the only reason they are driven to do this is because they feel empty inside. True self-love is much more assured and calm. Someone who feels good about themselves will also find it easier to feel good about others just as they are—without any need to change them.

Someone struggling with toxic shame may look "together" on the surface. They may have what seems like the perfect look, perfect family and perfect job. In fact, shame-driven people work hard to control these appearances, because shame is linked to a need to be in control. But at their core they don't feel good about who they are. They may not even be aware of this feeling, but it gnaws away at them. They feel rotten inside.

This is not, I believe, the evangelization Jesus is asking of us in the gospels. Jesus speaks from the tradition of the psalmists, who remind us that "our cup overflows" (Psalm 23:5) with God's blessings. We can be so filled with God's goodness, so aware of the blessings in our lives, that we are naturally brimming over with joy and want to share that with others. It simply radiates out of us whether we intend to or not:

 For you shall go out in joy,

    and be led back in peace;

the mountains and the hills before you

    shall burst into song,

    and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.

Isaiah 55:12 (NRSV)

Evangelizing should not be about conquering other people as much as it is giving them a wonderful gift. God has given you such blessings that the only appropriate response becomes paying it forward to others.

The times I've evangelized the best were when I wasn't trying. My life and my joy simply witnessed to something so good that others wanted to know more about it.

That's the evangelization we're called to in Scripture. But that's not the evangelization that happens so often in the world.

Which kind of evangelization do your support? Do you want to turn everyone else into facsimiles of yourself as a way to treat your lack of self-worth? If so, just know that it can lead to abuse and is rarely satisfying in a long-term war.  Or are you so happy and joyous that it simply bubbles out of you naturally and you find you want to share this good thing you've found?

To be fair, not everyone with toxic shame lashes out in overtly abusive ways. The majority of the population—if not everyone—has some element of shame they are dealing with. That is why it is good to be on the lookout, as toxic shame, and the abuse which is often in its wake, can show up in surprising ways.

***

I highly recommend the book, Healing the Eight Stages of Life, by Fr. Matthew Linn, SJ, Dennis Linn and Sheila Fabricant Linn. It's the only book I found that approaches the eight stages of Erik Erikson in a pastoral way, rather than as an academic exercise. Shame features strongly in Erikson's theory of psychosocial development. This book is simple but shocking powerful.

Christian Unity: Warts and All

"I love you, warts and all," says this frog.
Picture from National Geographic Kids: http://tinyurl.com/ybvwz388

I've noticed a generational divide in the quest for Christian unity. People of different ages often articulate different priorities.

Many veterans of the work for Christian unity focus on what Christians have in common. Younger ecumenists often talk of finding peace in the midst of real differences.

This divide follows a natural pattern of healing and reconciliation. It reflects more than just two sides of the same coin.

When two groups first attempt to open a dialogue and mend a wound of division—a division that in some cases goes back hundreds of years, such as between Protestants and Catholics—it can be very delicate in the beginning. There is also a freshness as the relationship is pregnant with possibilities. It can be easy to be giddy with joy and see only positives.

It may be astonishing to discover that you are not as different as you were previously led to believe. You might even find kindred spirits in that "other" group.

The goal is to just start talking. Hundreds of years of separation between Catholics and Protestants have left a lot of hurt feelings and old triggers, and there is no sense stepping on any proverbial landmines in these first encounters. There is joy in just making the initial contact. You can dispel rumors and misconceptions but otherwise leave differences aside—they don't seem very important when members of the Body of Christ finally start talking after such a long, weary and costly separation.

When the prodigal son returned, his father embraced him. That moment was not the time to hash out who was to blame or identify which differences may remain. Their commonality as family was more important at that moment. [To be clear, I am not suggesting that the divide between Protestants and Catholics is like "father" and "son," I'm only using that story to illustrate an appropriate behavior when two separated parties finally reconnect for the first time.]

I'm sure this is what it felt like after Vatican II closed in 1965. Catholics in particular had the approval of their church leaders to interact, pray and engage with Protestants in ways that were previously strictly off-limits. Many Protestants were also committed to this (some have been working on unity for much longer) and the ecumenical movement was in full bloom.

As the relationship matures, however, it eventually becomes necessary to transition to a different phase. Focusing on similarities can run the risk of sweeping problems under the carpet if left unaddressed. This method which initially worked so well can devolve into a strained politeness. Ignoring differences also cloaks the full dignity and expression of each party, as people may feel pressure to downplay important parts of themselves for the sake of the relationship.

Ecumenical leaders have been working for decades trying to find out how to achieve the unity Christ himself prayed for (John 17:21). They do not attempt to water down or ignore our differences (as some critics wrongly claim), but often they hope that the differences may not be as severe as they initially seem—perhaps they can be boiled down to difference in perspective or the use of language but are not at their core church-dividing. Their success in this has been astounding.  However, after many documents of understanding, clarifying of ideas and mending of social and psychological wounds, sometimes what is left are still some very real differences. What, then, do we do with those?

Recent comments by Vatican officials from the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue give witness to the process:  "We are challenged then to go beyond the confines of tolerance by showing respect to all individuals and communities for everyone desires and deserves to be valued according to his or her innate dignity."

Respect for similarities is a great first step. The Vatican is right that the next, necessary step is to continue to respect each other even being full aware of each other's differences—not just tolerating differences but respecting people in those differences.

I'm reminded of a Billy Joel lyric from the song "This Is The Time":  You've given me the best of you, but now I need the rest of you.

If you want a person in your life, you want the whole person, not just the picture-perfect persona who shows up on the first date but the real nitty-gritty—"warts and all" as the saying goes.

At some point, the differences and messy disagreements are necessary to sit with. You don't always have to fix them or find a way around them—you have to first just let them be. By doing this, we may discern the next step in the relationship.

A relationship requires some things in common, but it is not stable if it depends entirely on having things in common. A mature relationship develops when people who are legitimately different can still come to the table in good faith and mutual respect. True respect means accepting the whole person, including all the attributes that don't neatly fit with yours. Those differences may eventually be reconciled, but we still have to learn to be in relationship until that happens.

This is not in any way to downplay the importance of identifying things in common. I work regularly with Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians who are still meeting each other for the first time. Those initial encounters are still happening in rural towns in the U.S. where my organization primarily ministers. Identifying commonalities is still very much the work that needs to be done in these areas. The first step, however, must eventually be followed by next steps. Respecting differences is key to this next phase and, once we live this out, I believe it will help us see the phase that comes after it.