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?

True Love Works?

I still remember the drill. The music started, and the lights dimmed. I peered around the solemn room as I floated in a sea of bowed heads. The call went out from the minister who was running the event and like a mad scientist summoning his robot army to life, people around me shot up and headed for the stage. There they found a "True Love Waits" (TLW) card with a dotted line printed below a short pledge:

"Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, my friends, my future mate, and my future children to a lifetime of purity including sexual abstinence from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship."

At the time, the whole thing felt a bit coerced and contrived, and after some reflection, I still don't know if it was the best way to biblically teach sexual purity. Despite the card's wording, the program implicitly seemed to put too high of an emphasis on the V-card, rather than teach a sustained view of purity. Perhaps that is why all of my friends who signed the pledge that day broke their pledge later. Without fail, almost everyone one of them developed this attitude: "Well, I already lost my virginity, and I can't get it back. Might as well enjoy myself now."

Having played their one and only V-card and broken their pledge, they were remorsefully free to continue pursuing pleasure at will. Maybe their stories simply display human nature and our innate propensity for sin. Or perhaps, they illustrate a sweeping failure of the most pervasive Christian abstinence programs available. I don't think I can personally say for sure.

Last month, however, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health released a large study showing that teenagers who make abstinence promises like TLW are just as likely to have premarital sex and less likely to use protection. Unfortunately, as the Washington Post points out, this data has reignited the sexual education debate that has cooled in recent years. Barack Obama has promised to release millions in funding for sexual education with an abstinence emphasis, and it seems to me that many want to block that funding before the administration releases it.

The question remains whether or not these programs are effective. Many, including a very reputable public health organization, say no. Others, including LifeWay Christian Resources--the organization responsible for distributing TLW cards and selling TLW-emblazoned resources including rubber bracelets, watches, apparel, and a line of expensive silver jewelry--say yes.

My gut tells me that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. There are a whole list of things I don't like about programs like TLW. For example, they assume that teenagers won't see through the contrived program, they come across kitschy with their product lines, and they seem to miss the mark on instilling a holistic approach to sexual purity like the scriptures teach. At the very least, these things have collectively contributed the ineffectiveness of these programs.

Yet, the Church must never give up teaching that God wants sex to be reserved for two people who have been biblically married. This is our responsibility as parents, siblings, friends, citizens and Christ-followers. Rather then recoiling at the criticism, we should use this as an opportunity for reflecting on and retooling these programs. It is imperative that we find a better way to communicate moral truths to teenagers in the 21st century.

What do you think? Are the researchers at Johns Hopkins just out to get us? Do we need to wake up and retool these programs? Do you think TLW-style programs work?

**Update: A different opinion from the WSJ**

Update: Washington Post Article

**Here is the article: GOP Loyalty Not a Given for Young Evangelicals**

Leave comments and tell me what you think.

Tomorrow, Krissah Williams of the Washington Post will be publishing a story on me and my political views, especially as they pertain to the upcoming election. She is an outstanding and disarming journalist. I have no doubt she'll do a fine job on this piece.

I am convinced, however, that no matter what Krissah says there will be those who will flood me with angry emails. I expect no less from the ironclad partisan types. Those on the left will castigate me for being a close minded fundamentalist who can't let go of the sanctity of human life and traditional marriage. Those on the right will flog me over my more progressive opinions regarding poverty, the war, and the environment. These emails will no doubt provide me with moments of anger and minutes of laughter. As Will Rogers put it, "People who fly into a rage always make a bad landing."

Being attacked from both sides is a good sign you are a centrist. In fact, followers of Christ should expect such treatment. On the one hand, we are told that secularists will always harbor disdain for us (John 15:18-21). On the other hand, we know that the Pharisees...well, let's just say that they were not members of the "Jesus Christ Rocks" Facebook group. Somehow religious aristocrats are always angered by genuine, Gospel-centered living. If you live like Jesus, you will get it from all sides.

So being a hodgepodge, Bible-loving, Gospel-spreading, pro-life, pro-marriage, non-partisan environmentalist with a heart for the poor is fine with me. Jesus didn't fit nicely into any man-made boxes. If I truly try to mirror Him, I should expect no different.