The Hard Work of Being Pro-Life

I have said before that pro-life Christians must move beyond the sandwich board, candidate-driven mentality and be willing to do the hard work that our faith demands. Peachtree Presbyterian in my hometown of Atlanta is a perfect example. Their pastor has announced that they will accept any unwanted babies that the community brings them. Working with Bethany Christian Services, the nation's largest adoption agency, Peacthree Pres will care for these newborns and find them loving homes. Want an example of what it means to be a pro-life Christian in the 21st Century? Here you go.

Weary of Obama's Lip Service

For some time, I have been promoting a common ground policy on abortion reduction. I first embraced abortion reduction because my progressive friends were prodding me to join with them to save unborn lives. When these individuals asked me to rally with them around such things as increased funding for adoption and comprehensive sexual education with an abstinence emphasis, I was happy to sign on. Other evangelicals like Joel Hunter, Sam Rodriguez, and David Gushee also signed onto this common ground agenda. 

I still support abortion reduction; that has not changed.

What has changed is the number of steps taken by the Obama administration to undermine the abortion reduction platform they have so boldly proclaimed. These steps are the subject of a new USA Today article by David Gushee entitled, "Mr. President, We Need More than Lip Service" and include: 

- Obama overturned the Mexico City Policy. Tragic, but expected. 

- Then, he revoked the "provider refusal" rule that protected healthcare workers' from violating their consciences. 

- Next, Obama nominated the radically pro-choice Kathleen Sebelius to head the Department of Health and Human Services. 

- Finally, the President boldly opened up the issue of stem cell research by repealing the bans that were in place. 

What happened to all the talk about "change?" It doesn't seem like much has changed to me.

"Mr. Obama, we need more than lip service on these crucial issues," Gushee said. I know others like myself stand with Dr. Gushee in expressing disappointment with these policies. We need a rapid change in direction from these policies, one that bridges the banks of the culture wars. The failure to make good on abortion reduction promises will breed animosity and division among those whom Obama has promised to unite. 

Redefining Pro-Life? The Abortion Reduction Debate

I have often spoken out on this blog about the need to forge common ground on abortion reduction. At the same time, I have been more than frustrated at the total absence of any tangible reduction policies being put forth by this administration. As I recently commented in a Washington Post article, many evangelicals have stuck our necks out to forge common ground in this effort and the administration will have done us a great disservice if they do not put their political money where their political mouths are. Filling the air in place of an actual political agenda, pundits and commentators are offering their advice.

A Newsweek piece commented, "The election of a pro-choice administration and a Democratic Congress has divided the pro-life movement, between those who are preparing for the fight of their lives and those who see the opportunity to redefine what it means to be pro-life." I disagree with Newsweek, a periodical which demonstrates again and again that they wouldn't recognize evangelicals if we all scrunched together for a cover story photo. The pro-life movement is not divided. We are as unified as ever to protecting the lives of the unborn. However, many people--including myself--have been accepting a broader definition of what it means to be pro-life.

For many evangelicals, the term pro-life extends beyond anti-abortionism, though it certainly includes it. It means we must fight against the global death occurring in massive numbers all across the globe. It is the ultimate hypocrisy to advocate for the protection of unborn babies, but turn a blind eye to the millions who die from water-related diseases, malaria, hunger and other preventable maladies.

Where Newsweek gets it right is that "to legions of pro-life activists, even the use of the word 'reduction' instead of elimination borders on heresy." That is perhaps the greatest potential division in the entire pro-life movement. This mindset is typified in the words of Russell Moore of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who, in this month's Christianity Today, said that joining with pro-choice groups on abortion reduction is "akin to civil rights activists joining hands with pro-lynching vigilantes in ... early 20th century America to 'reduce the number of lynchings' through better funding of segregated African-American school systems."

On one hand, Moore makes a solid point. On the other, I am not sure that inflammatory rhetoric goes a long way toward solving a very real policy problem. There is no significant division within the pro-life movement, yet many of us have decided to speak and advocate in what may be more constructive ways. I have worked with others to promote common ground policies that can reduce abortions in America and will continue to do so.

We are making progress. As Christianity Today notes, "More states are passing legislation that works to reduce abortion. Fewer Americans now support abortion on demand. America's youth are increasingly pro-life. Crisis pregnancy centers are full of volunteers. Planned Parenthood is under more scrutiny thea it has been in decades. And the abortion rate is really decreasing. It's now the lowest level since 1974." Now we simply need the Obama administration to begin making good on their promise to enact federal legislation to support this trend.

If you read this blog regularly, you know that I have been speaking about the shifting abortion debate for some time. I will continue to bring you developments on this important trend as they happen.

Your thoughts?

Washington Post on Obama and Abortion

Over the past few weeks, I have written a few posts about the new twist in the abortion debate. I am starting to feel like all the political peeps that I can't stand because they only talk about abortion and gay marriage and ignore everything else. Yet, I am still typing, so let's give it a run. 

As the pro-choice President takes the reigns of our fragile country, Barack Obama has attempted to navigate the shark-infested waters of the abortion issue with surgical precision. Obama is speaking about abortion in a way that is meaningful to pro-lifers and sensitive to the realities of the issue. 

Though he unashamedly supports the "right of women to choose" whether or not they will undergo and abortion, he claims to believe strongly that we should work to reduce the need for and occurrences of abortions in the United States. Furthermore, he openly supports sexual education with an abstinence emphasis. On this, we can agree. 

Obama's actions, however, don't seem so promising. First, there is his Pre-Presidential record on abortion, which is abysmal at best. Then, there is his transition-time appointments:

-Dawn Johnsen: Former Legal Director for NARAL will serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel

-Tom Daschle: Recently withdrawn nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services who led the fight against the partial-birth abortion ban in the Senate. 

-Melody Barnes: Former board member at Planned Parenthood who worked for the Center for American Progress will serve as White House Domestic Policy Director.

-Ellen Moran: Worked for Emily's List, a pro-choice political action group, will head up the White House communications team.

-Jackie Norris: Former board member at Planned Parenthood will serve as Chieft of Staff to the First Lady.

Finally, there is Obama's one actual move on the issue: a repeal of the Mexico City Policy, which will open up federal funding for international organizations who provide abortions and family planning. According to a recent Gallup Poll, the repeal ranks as the most unpopular of his actions as President, by far.

Today, the Washington Post ran a story entitled, "Obama tries to appease both sides of the abortion debate," which outlined the tensions involved here. I am one of those evangelicals who really believes in the sincerity and heart of this administration, but I remain skeptical about Obama's ability to build and cross the bridge. If he fails to do so, it may mean a break down of trust for those evangelicals who are trying their best to find common ground on which to join him.

"Many of us feel like we've stuck our necks out with our constituencies," I told the Washington Post. "He will have done us a great disservice if he does not come through."

Thoughts?

My Support for "Come Let Us Reason Together" Governing Agenda

Below is a transcript of the statement I gave at the "Come Let Us Reason Together" press conference at the Third Way headquarters in Washington, DC:

I support the "Come Let Us Reason Together" governing agenda put forth by Third Way because of my desire to see people of faith work across division of disagreement in the pursuit of common goals.

As a committed Southern Baptist, I know all too well the "culture war" mentality. It is a mentality that often speaks without listening, divides rather than unites and promotes destructive partisanship. At the same time, I am proud of the unwavering moral stances that conservative Christians, including Southern Baptists, have taken. We remain committed to important issues like traditional marriage and protecting life from conception. Yet, conservative Christians must also live out other tenets of our faith including compassion, charity, human dignity and the pursuit of peace. Therefore, I support this agenda because I am a Southern Baptist, not in spite of the fact.

We should maintain our convictions on those matters where conscience demands that we part ways. However, we must accept the promise that people of mutual goodwill can find shared values and goals. For far too long, we have allowed the common good to be sacrificed on the altar of our disagreements.

Two policies in the agenda have been at the center of some of the fiercest disagreements, but even here there is room to work together. First, while I support making abortion illegal, we must vigorously seek to reduce the number of abortions actually occurring. This includes supporting efforts to prevent unintended pregnancies, assisting pregnant women and new families, and supporting adoption. It is easy to call one's self "pro-life." The difficult thing is to put feet to our faith and begin working with real people in real communities to see that faith made tangible, and lives saved.

Second, I affirm the freedom of religious expression and the rights of religious institutions to have their values reflected in their hiring practices. But I can also support a policy that ensures that gays and lesbians receive equal treatment in the workplace. To me, scripture is clear that God's ideal is heterosexuality, but this policy gives conservative Christians an opportunity to affirm, rather than undermine, our claims to love our gay and lesbian neighbors.

I count myself a member of a group becoming known as "the younger evangelicals." We are a group who has turned away from self-serving partisanship, and we are a generation calling for a rapid infusion of civility and grace into a political culture where faith has often produced divisiveness. Today, Christ-followers spanning may generations hold hands in pursuit of the common good. May God bless our spirit of cooperation.

The Shifting Abortion Debate

Today, I wrote a guest column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution entitled "Reducing abortions: priority promise should not be broken." One of the most divisive and polarizing issues in the United States is abortion, but in the last year or so the debate has taken on a new angle with the inclusion of abortion reduction as a common ground platform. In my article, I basically state that while Obama has made promises to reduce the number of abortions actually occurring, his record doesn't seem promising to that end. In the end, I call on Obama to keep his word and "add another mark on the checklist under 'unprecedented and historical.'"

Running opposite my column is another guest column entitled, "Reducing abortions: The time is right to break old stalemate," written by the Executive Director of Catholics in Alliance, Alexia Kelly. Her article seems to be more optimistic about the possibility of Obama making good on his promise to champion abortion reduction. "President-elect Barack Obama is well positioned to help push this effort as a leader focused on pragmatic solutions and finding common ground," she writes. 

Whether you like it or not, the abortion debate will shift during the next four or more years, and abortion reduction is going to be the primary catalyst. While those of us who are pro-life must never sacrifice our commitment to the sanctity of human life and the belief that life begins at conception, we can still work with others to achieve a moral victory through reducing the number of abortions presently occurring. The ocean of partisanship must stop at the shore of the common good.

Check out both articles to gain an understanding of the nuances, and then let me know your thoughts.