Posted by Helen on: 11.15.2007 /
The other day I ran across Lying With Impunity by Mark Earley, President of Prison Fellowship Ministries (the ministry founded by Chuck Colson).
It’s about how Planned Parenthood intentionally filed for planning permission for a new clinic under a name other than Planned Parenthood so local anti-abortion activists wouldn’t realize what was going on. (Of course it became clear eventually and anti-abortion activists protested but the clinic did open)
Mark denounces Planned Parenthood for lying, points out this shows the power of the anti-abortion movement there is and praises the brave anti-abortionists who opposed the new clinic once they found out about it.
My own reaction is: how sad is this, that the behavior of some Christians is so unpleasant and annoying that it results in organizations like Planned Parenthood ‘lying’ to avoid having the hassle of dealing with them?
When Jesus talked about being salt and light I don’t think he meant “be the salt that makes people throw up and the light that hurts and blinds their eyes”.
In one account his last instructions were “Go into all the world and teach people how to be my followers” - not “Go into all the world and be as self-righteously annoying and interfering (into other peoples’ business) as possible”.
Comment by: Ryan Notton
1Thanks you for sharing this. Honestly, I’m sick and tired of walking around red-faced because of the stupidity of a few, yet very vocal, members of my “community” who fail to see (or ever mention) the good that Planned Parenthood does for young families every day. It’s as if abortions were the only thing they did. And, as far as changing their name, I wonder if this dope feels the same fury when other companies do the same thing to avoid their deserved stigma. Was he out there expressing rage when Value Jet was reborn as Air Tran?
Comment by: Helen
2Thanks Ryan - it’s reassuring to hear I’m not the only one!
Hey it was fun to see you and Sarah at Off The Map Live - I’m sorry we didn’t have the opportunity to chat. Jim said he enjoyed spending time with both of you last weekend.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
3How about churches that “replant” after having failed under one name they open under a new one
Comment by: Randy
4Helen,
You’re pretty good at summarizing the core issue here. Love the translation of the passage you quote, too. Very clear and correct interpretation. Somehow we got it all out of whack, didn’t we (evangelicals, I mean).
So we should probably drop the idea of changing our name from Off The Map to hide from the angry mob?
Comment by: Karen
5Seems hypocritical when I consider how much fudging and half-truth was involved in evangelism efforts that I used to participate in.
For instance, we were constantly encouraged to invite “unchurched” friends and neighbors to non-threatening-sounding events like “family festival” or “holiday concert,” when all the insiders knew the true focus of the evening was to be an evangelistic sermon followed by an altar call. Of course if those friends and neighbors knew what they were in for, they wouldn’t show up, hence the deliberately misleading label.
Comment by: David H
6The article begins:
My initial reaction was how sad that Planned Parenthood needs bulletproof glass (and probably unmentioned bomb security devices) to protect it from people who ostensibly worship someone who said: Love your enemies. Do good to those who harm you.
Even if the folks at PP are the demons folks like Mark Earley make them out to be, that makes little difference, according to Jesus, in how Christians should be treating them. How damning for supposed Christ-followers that they are labeled by society with the same term they so often use for abortion doctors. That term would be murderers.
The violence done by supposed Christians has had little affect on the practice of abortion in the United States. But it has had a tremendous impact on how many many people see Christians.
It is so easy to get a mindless mob together to scream hatred at the workers and clients of abortion clinics. They show up, exercise their vocal chords and go home happily hating those they have been told to love. That must be why so many people waste their time doing that rather than on providing worthwhile alternatives to the services provided by Planned Parenthood.
Comment by: Randy
7So Karen…are you saying that sometimes, for the greater good, it is necessary to fudge a little? Or were you saying the opposite?
Comment by: Lainie Petersen
8Helen:
Thank you for posting this. I used to volunteer at a Planned Parenthood clinic (which did not provide abortions, but did provide free and low cost medical care for women who couldn’t get it otherwise), and we had procedures for what to do in case of a bomb threat. There were red cards under each phone, which we had to hold up in case a threat was phoned in. We were instructed to keep the caller on the phone as long as possible so that the phone company could trace the call.
Surreal.
Comment by: Keith
9Helen … that you somehow blamed Planned Parenthood’s deception on the protestors seems to me to be at least a stretch. If one considers abortion to be murder … why wouldn’t they protest? And of course, if Planned Parenthood’s deception can be blamed on the protesters, then surely the protesters protesting can be blamed on the actions taking place within some of Planned Parenthood’s facilities. Is there an underlying assumption that has caused this thread to blame the evils of both “sides” on only one?
Does our country need peaceful dialogue and above-board conversations about abortion? Yes. Does blaming one group for everything (including the dishonest actions of another group) help us toward that dialogue? Probably not.
Karen, I’m glad you pointed out that deception and evangelism are often tried together with damaging consequences … you made a very good point.
Thanks, all.
Comment by: Karen
10Neither, actually. ;-)
I wasn’t commenting on the ethics of “fudging,” just pointing out that this strikes me as an instance of the pot calling the kettle black when I think about common practices of evangelism.
To make it more specific, Prison Fellowship operates many Christian-based programs in state and federal prisons that blatantly violate the separation of church and state and have been the target of several lawsuits. Yet they deny these violations and claim that their programs don’t give special benefits to inmates who convert to Christianity when investigations have shown that they do. In Mark’s essay, he also says a couple of things that seem to me to be misleading or at least inflammatory. One is that PP is opening a “super-sized abortion clinic” - when the Chicago Tribune quotes PP as saying less than 10% of its services to low income women will involve abortion services. The other is his assertion that support for abortion is “dropping like a rock.” I have not seen evidence of such a drop in support for abortion, and he provides nothing to back up that claim. In fact, legislative efforts to drastically reduce access to abortion were voted down decisively in 2004.
In terms of the larger issue, is it sometimes necessary to fudge or even outright lie if there’s a greater good at stake? Absolutely. The familiar example of lying to the Nazi storm troopers about the Jews hiding in your attic comes to mind.
In this instance however, I am troubled by the actions of PP. First, it’s very common in business to use subsidiary names and there’s nothing illegal about that. Apparently this clinic did not require special permits to operate and the city determined that PP did nothing illegal in their application or approvals process.
So they did abide by the terms of the laws of the local jurisdiction.
On the other hand, the public did not get full and accurate information about the development going on in their community because of the use of a subsidiary name on the application. Since we’re supposed to have a transparent public approval process in our communities, this strikes me as both unfortunate and short-sighted.
After all, the community was bound to find out what the building would be used for in the long run anyway. To short-circuit the public’s ability to give input on what operations can move into their community seems wrong. If a business was moving into my neighborhood that I was opposed to, I’d like the information up front so I could make my views known to my elected officials. I would feel cheated if a company “sneaked in” due to a subsidiary name on the application forms.
I would prefer it if PP could be upfront about their plans and make a fair case for allowing their building into the community. Unfortunately, the abortion debate in this country is so entrenched and so emotionally heated, I understand why PP felt they would not get a fair shot at being approved if the anti-abortion forces were rallied to city hall when their application came up for approval. So I also agree with Helen’s original point that it’s sad when a group like PP, which does so much good for so many needy women and actually prevents a lot of potential abortions by providing contraception, feels it must resort to this kind of tactic.
Comment by: Helen
11Thanks for your comments everyone.
Randy, after we’ve finished celebrating because we were noticed enough to generate an angry mob then we can decide the ethical way to respond :)
Jim and Karen, I quite agree that it’s hypocritical of Christians to call out other people for lying when they are engaging in misleading/deceitful practices themselves.
David and Lainie - yes, I find it hard to believe that Planned Parenthood has to worry about bomb threats from so-called ‘pro-LIFE advocates’. How horribly ironic.
Keith, just to clarify - I do think Planned Parenthood is responsible for its actions - I’m not saying they aren’t.
What I am saying is: I would have thought Christians would want to behave in a way that rewarded other people for behaving ethically rather than discouraging them. Christians are making the world a worse, not a better place, to the extent their actions make the payoff for being unethical better than the payoff for being ethical. Which is what (in my opinion) they did in this case.
Comment by: Helen
12Karen - of course we both saw the post over on ebay atheist blog with another example of careless inaccurate handling of information in PFM’s newsletter (the misquote of Dawkins).
I find myself often wondering: why are Christians often so careless and lazy about accurately quoting sources and stories? Don’t they realize that’s a form of dishonesty (which they’ve correctly noticed God is not impressed with, according to the Bible)?
Comment by: Randy
13Thanks, Karen, for the eloquent clarification. Points well made. I appreciate your objectivity a lot.
Helen…I am not sure that Christians as a whole are careless and lazy when it comes to quoting sources and stories. At least no more so than any other category of quoters (the local newspaper comes to mind as a reliable source of misquotes and out of context reporting).
Granted, those who claim the name of Christ should be more careful, but the sad reality is that Christians are no less human or susceptible to bias and passionate case building than those who do not agree with them. This is particularly true when we are attacking issues that we hold as non-negotiable (in the same category as Jesus being God in the flesh).
It seems to be even more true when we fail to see people as more important than issues, which is perhaps the most disturbing oversight of all for those who follow Jesus. The most casual reading of the Gospels would reveal that Jesus modeled and taught just the opposite behavior (ie, the Sabbath laws). This is a worse violation than dishonesty, in my view. It violates the very nature and priority of God.
And I have been guilty of it frequently, in less public ways.
Comment by: David H
14As a reporter, more than 10 years ago, I frequently ran into groups submitting plans that didn’t fully specify who was behind the development or the actual use of the site. More than once group homes for mentally disabled people, drug rehabilitation etc. were presented at local planning meetings in just such a way. In more than one instance the reasoning behind the “deception” (I put that in quotes because the developers met the requirements of the law, they just didn’t disclose everything) was because that would be the only way to get some needed public service built. So many of these things bounced from community to community meeting howls of protest everywhere they went. No one wanted groups homes, treatment facilities or the like in their back yard; not in their community. They might agree they were good or needed, just not here.
I wonder how much public protest to the Planned Parenthood clinic was because neighbors didn’t want to have to deal with the litter, noise, traffic problems and potential danger (from violent kooks) that would come with such a facility? How much was because of the NIMBY syndrome?
Just to be clear, I don’t like abortion. It doesn’t seem to be the best choice in most instances for any of those involved. Yet I seldom hear viable alternatives being proposed by those same groups are so vocally against abortion. In fact, many spend quite a bit of effort fighting contraceptives and sex education as well.
Comment by: Rachel
15I feel the same way, Ryan. If people are going to protest against Planned Parenthood, are they going to open another clinic themselves as an alternative? Are they going to open a clinic that doesn’t provide abortion, but DOES provide contraception, testing, exams, and other services to low income people?
I remember talking to one low income mother who told me that she gets free birth control from PP. She said that she wishes she could go someplace other than PP because she is opposed to abortion, but that she can’t afford the contraceptives and PP is the only clinic that will help. The anti-PP protesters need to put up or shut up, that’s what I say!
Comment by: Steve S.
16Interestingly enough, yes…
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
17yeah. we ran into this same difficutly ourselves. It’s wierd when you’re strongly pro-life (and I *don’t* mean anti-abortion) and you end up going to a clinci where abortions are performed for free birth control because it’s not available anywhere else. Looks to me like the planned parenthood people, in giving out free contraception, are doing a hell of a lot more to *prevent* abortions than any pro-life clinic that *isn’t* giving out free contraception.
my god I can’t believe I just said that. I used to be such an idealogical anti-abortionist. There *is* a big difference between pro-life and anti-abortion. I think in one sense planned parenthood is strongly the former even if they aren’t the latter.
Comment by: David H
18‘Are they going to open another clinic themselves as an alternative’
I spent some time at the carenet site Steve referenced and can’t figure out what they do. Do they help find homes for unwanted children? Do they help guide adoptions as opposed to abortions? Are they for or against the morning after pill? Do they offering anything other than advice anda hearty ‘you can do it’ to women who find themselves unexpectedly and unhappily wirh child? A realistic alternative must be more than ‘abortion: bad.’ Support must be more than a pat on the back and periodic pep talk.
Comment by: Helen
19Rachel wrote:
Rachel, I’m thinking the answer is ‘no’ because they probably think a lot of the people who go to PP shouldn’t be sexually active - that that’s immoral - and so they don’t want to give them contraception or help them in any way which could ‘condone’ or ‘encourage’ immoral behavior.
Randy, this is what I’ve observed among conservative Christians: their audience/readership tends to be other conservative Christians who simply accept the information shared (unless it’s a Bible verse in which case they might look it up). They don’t go home and look the rest of what was said up on Google. They don’t go check with an atheist “My pastor said this today about atheists - is this correct?”
In other words they don’t hold each other accountable so there is no incentive to be accurate.
Moreover they repeat what they hear, so inaccurate information gets spread far and wide throughout the conservative Christian community.
This fits what I have observed, plus, it’s the only explanation I can think of for why I continually hear Christians saying inaccurate things about topics I know something about.
What they seem not to realize is, if a person who isn’t a Christian hears them share what’s demonstrably wrong, why would that person trust them about what has to be ‘taken on faith’?
Yes, I do think conservative Christians are more lazy and careless about passing on accurate information, because their culture does nothing to reward accuracy and discourage inaccuracy. In the world in general, people who pass on inaccurate information repeatedly tend to get called on it and face negative consequences. In the Christian world this is unlikely because no-one seems to check what they hear.
Comment by: Helen
20Steve, I looked at the Mission and Vision page on the Care Net site, whose centers you said offer an alternative to PP.
Based on what it says I respectfully disagree that this is a viable alternative for many of the people who go to PP centers.
Quoting from that page
I would venture to say most people who go to PP are not looking for ‘evangelistic ministry’.
So basically, if a pregnant woman shows up they try to persuade her not to have an abortion. They do not unconditionally support whatever choice she wants to make.
I think most women with unplanned pregnancies would prefer a place which respects the choice they want to make over a place which pushes their own agenda.
Forget going there for free contraception then, unless you’re married.
Steve do you seriously believe most people will regard a center like this as a viable alternative to PP?
Not only that but - it seems ironic that PP is called out for lying when I would say this whole website is rather misleading. If it was being as honest as PFM wants PP to be it would say “Come to us - we have an agenda and we’d like to foist it on you. If you’re experiencing an unplanned pregnancy we’ll try to make you feel so guilty about having an abortion that you’ll decide against it. And if you’re sexually active and not married we’ll try to make you feel so guilty that you’ll stop having sex. (Yes, if we succeed in guilting you into abiding by our agenda then we’ll be supportive of you)”
I know Care Net is misleading because I’ve read testimonies of people angry because they went hoping for support and what they encountered was an agenda.
You might counter by saying PP has an agenda. As far as I’m concerned, if that agenda is to unconditionally support people who need help, respecting their choices, I’m all for it.
(Having this maybe I should add, at Off The Map Live I met a woman who runs a center which I think she said is part of Care Net’s network. She told me that very warily and then spent a while telling me how her particular center was ‘not like the others’ - how for example she threw out the photos taken after an abortion that many of them use to try to dissuade women from having abortins. She talked about what she does in a way that implied, if Care Net really knew how she runs her particular center they wouldn’t be happy. If even people who run some of these clinics are so uncomfortable with Care Net’s methods that they risk ‘not following the rules’ in order to be kinder, what does that say about Care Net?)
Comment by: Steve S.
21My apologies for not reading the site, I am not familiar at all with Care Net as a national organization, however, I am familiar with what they do on a local level in one particular community, my (former) hometown. I just didn’t find a website for their local services… and my point wasn’t to get everyone here to suddenly become ‘pro-life’ and start bashing on PP, simply to answer the question about whether ‘these people’ actually care enough about women to try and help them, or if they are, by implication, simply angry ideologues who want to spew invective at PP.
A very close friend is a member of their staff in some capacity (I can’t recall exactly what she does) but the facility there does provide an alternative to abortion that is very loving to women. And yes, David, there is much more that goes on there than simply convincing women not to get abortions. I am not intimately involved with their operations, but I believe that they are a part of the process all the way through the adoption process. They do provide some sort of medical care, including testing, exams, etc., the last I heard they were raising money for additional sonogram equipment… This information aparently is not on their National website (again my apologies for posting without researching…)
…as for their stance on contraception, I really don’t know. But again, we may not all agree on what is the most practical strategy for progress, but that is because we all have radically different definitions for what progress is (and this is a highly charged issue: pro-lifers don’t use the word ‘murder’ simply to be inflamatory, they genuinely believe that this is an accurate description, as do the pro-choicers when they use words like ’sexism,’ and ’slavery.’) If people believe something is evil, you would hardly expect to find them offering it to people, and that does not IMO make them dishonest or ideologically driven…
People can’t possibly be expected to unconditionally support everything other’s might choose… I can’t in good conscience support people who are making IMO wrong decisions; I think you would do the same? We can hold someone’s hand and tell them we love them while they are destroying their own life, but don’t we have an imperative not to help them destory it? Again, people differ on what constitutes good and evil in certain circumstances, but I don’t think it is anyone’s policy to give time, money, energy, and other resources to help people do something the donor believes is bad for the individual in question, bad for the people around them, and bad for the world as a whole.
Of course they have an agenda, if you want to find people without an agenda, check out the county morgue (and be sure to watch out for the coroner’s agenda!!!) I don’t think we should be looking for people without one. We should be fostering civil communication on this topic (as much as possible without inflammatory verbiage, looking to see the good motives behind the oppostion viewpoint), something neither side seems to be good at (but I will admit that this is the only political issue that I have a hard time looking at objectively so I understand the passion-leading-to-anger), not so that we can produce people without agendas, but so that we can try to come up with an agenda that includes as many people as possible in support of it…
(Once again, my apologies for stirring the nest with my laziness in citing!!!)
Comment by: Steve S.
22I tried to actually find an online source for the quote, but I wanted to share a story from Obama’s Audacity of Hope that I loved.
Obama had his aides change the aboriton position on his website after being contacted by a Doctor. The Dr. explained that Obama had had his support until he read on the website (paraphrase) that Obama was opposed to the forces working to take away women’s rights, setting back the clock to oppression etc., etc.
The Dr. told Obama that he was pro-life, but that he did not at all want to take away women’s rights or otherwise opress women, but that he was motivated by a desire to protect (what he saw as) a human being. Obama apologized for the demonization (written by someone other than himself), and subsequently changed the language on his site.
It is, it seems to me, this kind of an attitude that we need to approach opponents with…
(and something Obama seems to be trying to bring to the table)
…granting them the best possible motives (albeit completely foreign to us).
Comment by: Karen
23I think it relates to being raised to unquestioningly accept authority figures and what they say. I realize not all Christians are raised that way, but in the churches I attended, the pastor’s word was pretty much gold. You might disagree with minute theological points here and there, but you didn’t do things like stand up and say: “Hey, where did you get that story? What’s your source for that statistic you quoted?”
I heard so many things in church that I now realize were urban legends and totally unsubstantiated rumors. But who knew?
I would hope that with the ease of researching things online now, there might be some improvement in this area. I didn’t have the option to Google some “fact” given in a sermon back in the old days like I could do now.
Comment by: Karen
24I fully realize that people who hold these views are motivated by the idea of saving human lives. But there’s an inescapable tension there. In “saving a life” they are restricting women’s rights and turning back the clock to a time when there was more repression of women.
There’s no getting around that. What you call it is merely a matter of framing the issue from one side or the other.
Comment by: Randy
25Does anyone besides me find it interesting that Helen’s response to my post about Christians not being any more lazy about checking resources than anyone else was almost immediately demonstrated by SteveS…in this same string? Wow.
Not a bash on you, Steve. I totally get (and agree) with your points regarding the whole issue of abortion and Christian clinics (and agendas, etc.). I just thought it was interesting that the whole citation thing would immediately become an issue after discussing it. Way to own up to this, by the way. Our stock goes up when we are able to admit what we don’t know…and when we’ve goofed. Your points have more weight with me because of your humility. Way to go.
Thanks, Helen, for the wider view. Thanks to you, also, Karen, for helping me see the bigger picture.
Comment by: Helen
26Randy, I really appreciate you noticing that and saying something.
I noticed it but I didn’t say anything because I thought it might seem mean-spirited of me - plus Steve is a great guy and apologized right away. I love his heart even though there are various points on which we don’t agree.
Since you brought it up - here’s the issue: if Steve had said what he said at the churches I went to for two decades I think, as Karen pointed out, people would have simply accepted it. And probably said the same as Steve to their friends next time PP came up in conversation. And they would have said it to their friends…
…and so on
…and it wouldn’t have been until someone like David or Karen or me was listening, that anyone would have said “Wait a minute…”
It’s not just that Christians make mistakes. It’s that they go uncorrected and no-one even seems to realize, maybe it’s a good idea to check out these things they’re hearing more thoroughly. Not because anyone is deliberately lying (I hope) - but because a) people make mistakes b) how does anyone know if what is being shared is right if no-one is double-checking?
Comment by: Josh
27God help us! How have we let our Christian witness become so impotent that we are associated with murder (clinic bombings) and hate (raging protest)? Just as an encounter with Jesus transformed the lives of those He came in contact with (unless their agenda prevented it), so should our lives impact those around us. I pray for the transformation that we as Christians need in our own lives to be a true light to the world!
Helen wrote:
Where we might disagree is on how to practically provide that support. I would say that a Christian can meet someone’s physical needs and demonstrate respect for them as a person without affirming their sin. For example, our local pregnancy resource center provides things like groceries, formula, clothes, diapers and car seats to anyone in need of them. If those helped then choose to use the money they would have spent on those things to buy contraception (or other controversial things) then that is their choice.
However, our “agenda” as Christians should not allow us to stop after meeting physical needs and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Any able human being can meet the physical needs of another. As Christians (”Christ bearers”) we are called by Jesus Himself to do our good deeds in His name. This means that we are to desire to see others transformed by His love (demonstrated through us) just as we have been transformed. We are not to ignore or gloss over the sin but are to address it in a meaningful, loving manner. How did Jesus respond to the Samaritan woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery? Woe to us who are more apt to respond as the Pharisees did or as the world around us does!
Comment by: Karen
28Well, thank YOU Randy, for your gracious attitude. You’re a treat. :-)
Josh:
What poor women typically need is access to medical providers who can prescribe birth control for them, educate them on its importance, dispel myths surrounding its use and encourage them to use it 100% of the time. You may call that “affirming their sin,” or “controversial,” but I just think it’s realistic, bottom line.
My former church supported one of these Christian “crisis pregnancy centers” and it was basically aimed at preventing pregnant women from aborting rather than providing long-term help or medical services. If women called asking about abortion (they got the phone number from the yellow pages) the volunteers were supposed to say they could not refer them to abortion providers and encourage them to come in and have a sonogram. The thinking was if they saw the embryo or fetus they would be less willing to abort.
Every few months our church women’s group would gather baby clothes and diapers and money together to give “showers of blessings” to the clinic’s clients who had delivered their babies. These were nice, loving events and the mothers - typically young and unmarried - were very sweet and grateful, but I used to think that these gifts they were given wouldn’t go a whole long way to providing for 18 years of medical care, education, food, shelter and all the rest that goes along with parenting.
Comment by: Helen
29Josh, thanks for your comment. Thanks for caring about whether Christians act like Jesus or more like Pharisees towards people who have needs.
Karen wrote:
He certainly is! I love that Randy is so respectful to atheists and almost atheists. Randy thanks for listening to us as we shared our frustrations with you.
Comment by: Helen
30Steve, I appreciate your follow-up comments.
I feel uncomfortable with your approach because it seems like you evaluate the needs of other people based on your terms, not theirs.
While it may sometimes be true that what people want is not what they need, evaluating people based on your terms not theirs can easily become patronizing, demeaning, controlling and manipulative. I’m sure this is not your intent but as someone who has been on the receiving end and who has read a LOT of comments from people who aren’t Christians about how they’ve been treated by Christians, I am very aware that this is how well-intentioned Christian behavior often comes across.
When my own faith was changing I defended Christians to people who aren’t Christians a LOT online - I was still a Christian as best everyone knew so it seemed like an opportunity to help them understand Christians.
These days it seems to me that Christians are not the ones who need defending as much as those who aren’t Christians, who SOME Christians continually misunderstand and say wrong, patronizing and hurtful things about. I’m tired of the number of Christians who claim to embody Jesus’ love being clueless about what love is. I don’t feel like defending them anymore. I’m tired of giving Christians the benefit of the doubt only to see many of them (or at least many in certain traditions) continue to be mean (controlling, patronizing, manipulative, objectifying) and think they are ’showing love’ when they aren’t.
I guess what I’m saying is - I want to treat Christians the way you want to treat other people. I don’t want to condone their misbehavior any more.
And yet I also believe in grace and I don’t want to be unkind, even to those who sometimes drive me crazy by how unkind they are to others.
Comment by: Josh
31Karen:
I would not call that, in and of itself, “affirming their sin”, but I would call it “controversial” based upon the variety of beliefs held by Christians regarding contraception. I would also call it myopic rather than realistic. Yes there is an overwhelming need for affordable healthcare and quality education, but to simply treat the symptoms and not the whole person is to forget our mission.
Yes, the tendency is to concentrate on the immediate “crisis” since it provides the most measurable short term results. I earnestly desire to see us move from “rather than” to “also” providing long-term help.
I’m not sure what the best answer is for that situation, but I understand the desire to make sure each person is fully informed before making such a critical choice. Where we have been wrong is in valuing the baby’s life over that of the others involved rather than being equally concerned about all. While not excusable, I see it as being in response to a perception of the “choice” being all about the mother.
Yes, I’m sure most of those church women feel like they have “done their duty” by providing these showers. I’m not calling for more religion, but transformation: invest your life into these young mothers; help them through those 18+ years ahead. Also, don’t forget (or worse, write off) those who chose abortion (or adoption), but instead recognize that they need love and healing too.
Comment by: Helen
32Josh wrote:
I hope when you refer to ‘treating the whole person’ you don’t mean ‘pitching a particular belief system I happen to ascribe to, to them’.
That does seem to be what some Christians mean.
I also think Christians have been wrong to the extent they’ve used emotional manipulation to try to make the woman choose the way they want her to. I think that’s inappropriate.
Like I said to Steve, I think my biggest problem with the way some Christians help is, everything is defined in their terms. They don’t walk in the other person’ shoes - instead they demand that the other person walk in theirs. I see this as very much the way the Pharisees operated, rather than Jesus-like behavior.
This is an example of your terms vs. their terms. I’ve heard women say they don’t need healing from abortion. Maybe they really don’t. Maybe only people who believe it’s murder need healing from it. We need to listen to people and not assert they have needs they are convinced they don’t have.
Comment by: Steve S.
33It sure is interesting that this whole conversation has been pitched as ‘christians versus non-christians’ when we are talking about pro-life versus pro-choice. …there are such people as pro-life non-christians (quite a lot actually) and pro-choice Christians (even more). There is even a presidential candidate or two (on either side of the aisle) who happen to be both Christian and pro-choice, and at least one who is non-Christian and pro-life.
Helen, you make a great point
This is obviously not a great way to ‘help’ people, however, I don’t necessarily think this is what is always going on.
How would you handle a situation where someone was asking you to help them do something you considered evil? But you genuinely wanted to help them?
Here is what I am asking you to do, put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself how you would handle their situation…
Karen, I don’t understand what you are saying exactly in comment 24…
It sounded like you were saying that the verbiage you use to describe the situation is the correct one (restricting, repressing, and outdated), but then you say:
I think this is an issue that demands we think from the perspective of others in order to get anywhere. I don’t think calling someone restrictive and outdated, or saying they want to repress women, is ‘thinking from the other side.’ It is certainly not the perspective of a single person I have met in my entire life…
(although I am sure there are some out there who do think this way…)
Comment by: Steve S.
34oops, I think I double posted, I am having a connection problem, sorry…
Comment by: Helen
35Steve, I deleted the double-post, no problem…
*sigh*
Steve, I’ve been too hurt by people who basically take this approach to feel at all comfortable about it - i.e. the “I know better than you do what’s best for you” approach.
It seems like you haven’t been so…we’re in different places.
Comment by: Helen
36Steve wrote:
As best I know they don’t use the tactics I find especially objectionable that some anti-abortion Christians use. I’d be guessing they are more moderate than the Christian anti-abortion advocates. I might be wrong though; if you know otherwise please point me to some links.
Comment by: Karen
37Looking at the issue from the other perspective is exactly what I was trying to do, Steve, but apparently that wasn’t clear. I apologize.
The comment I was responding to talked about how anti-abortion people don’t want to take away women’s rights, they just want to protect the unborn. What I’m saying is that one cannot happen without the other. There are two competing interests in the abortion situation, right? The right of the potential life in the form of embryo or fetus to continue, and the right of the woman who has an unwanted pregnancy to choose whether to continue that pregnancy or safely and legally end it.
People who would like to make abortion illegal are aiming to take away a right that women in this country currently have under the law. That’s not their primary motivation, but that’s the inescapable consequence of their crusade.
Now, from the other side, the people who would like to keep abortion legal are not motivated because they are bloodthirsty and cruel and would like to see more embryos and fetuses legally terminated. They just want to protect women’s rights to control their own futures. Of course, an inescapable consequence of this goal is that more embryos and fetuses will be terminated.
So it’s a matter of framing. Each side tends to frame the other’s position in the most negative light possible, while putting their own position in the most positive light possible. The positive goals are to a)protect the unborn and b)protect women’s rights. The negative consequences that follow from those positive goals are to a)take away women’s rights and b)allow continued legal termination of embryos and fetuses.
Anti-abortion people who don’t acknowledge that what they are doing will - if successful - take away women’s rights and turn the clock back, are just being dishonest. Same goes for pro-choice people who don’t acknowledge that abortion terminates embryos and fetuses. These are just facts and if we want to reach some kind of consensus on the issue it seems to me that it would be helpful to get the facts on the table.
Comment by: Karen
38Your goals are great, Josh, and I think they’re admirable. But I’m not sure how realistic they are.
Most of the people in my former church are just middle-class families trying to make do for themselves and their kids, facing all the financial and emotional problems everyone does. And be assured that mine would probably be considered a “wealthy” church by national standards.
Sure, there are the super wealthy and the supremely well-adjusted (in church and out) but those people are a minority. Trying to provide financial, emotional, educational, medical and every other kind of support to a young, single mother who’s likely to be saddled with all kinds of problems herself, and provide for her child/ren for 18 years is a pretty tough prospect. As I said, it’s admirable but to be honest not many of us have it in us to do that for a year or two, let alone for life.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
39wanted to say thankyou to everyone who’s chimed in. the discussion is interesting.
I think I have a slightly different perspective on the whole thing. It seems to me that the U.S. is the only western, first world nation where people can’t just assume that they are going to be able to have medical care, including access to things like contraception. I think that’s very very sad. We’re spending $1.6 trillion (yeah, with a ‘tr’) to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, thus causing 80,000 + civilian deaths, 2 million refugees, at least 50,000 Iraqi refugees have had to turn to prostitution, which will doubtless lead to abortions, deaths, and unwanted children. And we can’t even nationally provide free contraception to women in our own nation.
I had a devastating sequitir (yes, the opposite of a non-sequitir) this week. The bipartisan congressional panel came out with their estimated final cost to the American taxpayers of the iraq and afghanistan wars, which was 1.6 trillion dollars, which worked out to more than $20,000 per family of four in this country (which, by the way, isn’t very much less than my family’s total annual earnings). Then later that day, I found out that our old friends Jen and Caleb are in the process of adopting an Ethiopian baby. And the total cost to them for the process of adoption? $20,000. That just made me feel super sad. Like we could have adopted 75,000,000 babies, INSTEAD OF causing 80,000 civilian deaths, 2 million refugees, and forcing at least 50,000 women into prostitution.
All of which I say to say this. The whole so called “Christian” take on contraception and abortion in this country, which leads to planned parenthood being terrified of revealing why they are actually building a clinic, and having to have red bomb-threat cards next to volunteers’ telephones, and so forth, is … bovine kaka. It’s *not* Christian. And yet that’s what christianity has come to be associated with to some extent. And that’s shockingly sad. If all the anti-abortion anti-contraception anti planned parenthood people who called themselves christians would open their eyes and their ears (having eyes they see not, and having ears they hear not) and close their mouths, then maybe they would be able to get in touch with some of the suffering and even perhaps take steps to address is, not as those who *don’t* suffer, nor as those who “know better than you what’s good for you”, but rather as those who have suffered and thus want to help other sufferers.
Sorry for ranting a bit.
Comment by: Steve S.
40Hey Helen, that is fair enough, but it still doesn’t help me understand what a better aproach would be…
I am not someone who is intimately involved with abortion or women’s health care on a personal level. In other areas, however, I have the same things going on…
Panhandlers approach me for money, I tell them “no” 90% of the time, precisely for the reasons you decry in the issue of abortion. I am very comfortable refusing to give someone money when I don’t know where the money is going, I don’t think it is problematic do you?
I genuinely want to help them so I offer them help in a form that I am comfortable with, food, car-ride, a place to sleep, a blanket, clothes, use of my cell-phone or computer, help finding resources, etc…
…but I still give them what I think they need (and they are willing to accept) not what they ask for…
…help me see what you are getting at here.
Comment by: David H
41I don’t know what Helen would like, but for me I would like to see so-called Christians first do two things:
1. Stop protesting abortion clinics.
2. Stop campaigning for laws that will change how abortion is handled in the United States.
I know the response I will hear from proponents of those two things — if we don’t stand up in this way then the world will go to hell in a hand-basket. Maybe so, but isn’t that what so many of these Christians not only insist is happening but equally insist is the inevitable working out of God’s plan for humans and this world?
However, the reason I want Christians to stop doing those things is because I would like to see them devote all of that time and money and effort into sitting down with people and saying: “I love you. How can I help you.” And without all of the stupid protesting and lobbying they might just have the quality time to do something like that.
What would that accomplish? I don’t know, but Jesus seemed to do it all of the time.
My problem with the supposed Christian position on abortion is that it begins from a moral perspective and then works out all sorts of things based on that. Perhaps first is to criminalize the process of abortion (or, short of that, to demonize it and all of its practioners, whether they are doctors, nurses, volunteers or pregnant women). But it often doesn’t end there. The moralizing stretches into contraception, the morning after pill, cervical cancer vaccines, etc. It is hard to look at it and not conclude that for those taking this position the morals are more important than the people.
Yes, unborn children are dying. That is a terrible thing. I’m not sure it is more terrible than growing up abused or unloved, but that just may be my biased perception. But the Christian perspective on this might be more accepted if it was more consistent. As it is, the same people who want to end abortion don’t seem to value all life in the same way. Benjamin pointed out one very awful example. But there are plenty of others, like the widely ignored AIDS pandeminc in Africa (of course that moral stance may directly influence how “Christians” tend to respond to such things).
But the bottom line is this. In 2001 around 900,000 abortions were performed in the US. At that same time about 50,000 US children were adopted in the United States — or about one-third of the children available in the system.
The question of the legality or morality of abortion in this country is not something on which Christians should be in the forefront. Jesus didn’t tell his followers to go into all the world and make sure people live properly. He told them to go into all the world and teach people how to love properly. The first way to teach is by example and would begin, IMHO, with Christians consistently showing love without condemnation or agendas. If Christians could at least make that their top priority (rather than electing leaders, stuffing the court system, or enacting laws), who knows what might happen.
And the real bottom line is that those who believe in a God outside of time, should stop focusing on the consequences (like more babies will die) or our need for justice now (I need to see sinners punished) and instead do what is right (try to love unconditionally). That is all we have been asked to do. God, if he is watching, will take care of the rest.
Comment by: Helen
42Benjamin and David have pointed out the inconsistency of some ‘pro-life’ advocates. I agree with them. This world is full of already-born children whose mothers want them who are going to die because of malnutrition, poverty and/or war. There’s no question about whether they are people or whether they are wanted. Add to those all the other already-born people who suffer in those ways who don’t fit the profile of ‘has a mother alive and who loves them’ - since there’s no question about whether they are already human beings entitled to full human rights.
Why not help them first - and once they’re all taken care of maybe there will be time and money left to argue with women in this country about when a ball of cells becomes a person and what rights they have over their own body.
Exactly.
Steve, I’m looking for ‘fellow travelers in the journey of life who know not to rub salt into my wounds because they have the same wounds and they know that hurts’ not ‘authority figures who have the answers and know what’s best for me (and so they happily rub the salt in, don’t pay attention to the results - since it’s all about doing what’s right no matter what the consequences are - and presumably leave feeling great about how they just ministered to me)’.
I’ve had bad experiences with pastors being more of the latter than the former and so I’m admittedly wary when I run into people in that role. I try to be open; I long for them to show me they’re different because they are leaders and role-models and I don’t want to see more people hurt the way I’ve been hurt.
When you seem to have all the answers it pushes my buttons - like when you seem sure about what the Bible means, and now you seem sure you know better what people want than they know themselves.
What do I want? I don’t want answers, explanations and advice. I want to see that you’re just like me. Not in ‘belief about God’ - I have no problem with you believing in God. Rather, just like me in that you’re not positioning yourself as anything but a fellow traveler.
You’ve already said that you don’t give people what they want unless you believe that’s best. So, I’m not necessarily expecting to get this…but you did ask and that’s my best attempt at answering.
I know you’re a kind person who cares a lot and does put time and energy into helping people. That’s not the issue - some of the people who hurt me were and did all those things also. I can’t say “wonderful!” or “congratulations” without talking to the people who you’re helping to find out how it is at their end. Because I know it can hurt A LOT to be at the receiving end of well-intentioned efforts to help by people who are sure they know ‘what is best for others’. It not only hurts because they’re wrong; it also hurts because it’s patronizing and demeaning - it sets them up as above me and better than me.
One reason I love Off The Map is that one of its core practices is really listening to others. People who really listen would hear those being ‘helped’ crying in pain. Once people start really listening it’s not that hard to hear such things. It must be hard to listen, though, because there is such a shortage of great listeners.
Comment by: Rachel
43Benjamin, this makes me want to tear my clothes, put ashes on my head, and wail and moan. Why don’t we do things like that in our culture?
Comment by: Rachel
44Well said, Karen.
This topic is so emotionally charged for me and I can think of so many things to say, but I don’t think I have the emotional energy right now to really engage on this. I will just say that I do not support the criminalization of abortion because I do not want to see more women die in back alleys like my great-grandmother did and I do believe that abortion is immoral because (bumper sticker cliche though it may be) it does stop a beating heart. I do not believe that personal choice is a supreme value and I do weep for the 30,000 already born children who die everyday of starvation and preventable disease. There is just so much sorrow and suffering in the world that sometimes I can hardly stand it.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
45In terms of abortion stopping a beating heart
… It seems to me that the Australians have a rather more sensible take on this. First of all, they provide health care for everybody. Period. I was so amazed and delighted when I was in Aus just before our wedding, and Megsie needed to see a doctor, so she called, made an appointment, and went down and talked to a doctor, and never had to think for a second about how she was going to pay for it. That’s fricking brilliant.
And secondly, they (for the most part–it’s state by state over there) mostly don’t allow abortions after 23 weeks. Which is just so freaking sensible–since babies can, with current medical technology, to some degree survive outside the womb after 23 weeks. I mean that just seems so sensible to me. Provide the medical care to everyone–so they have access to contraception and so forth. And then if you want the abortion–by golly get it early in the pregnancy.
Comment by: Steve S.
46Helen,
I guess we are talking about two different things here…
You are essentially (so it seems to me, correct me if I am wrong) saying, “people need to be listened to and valued as human beings first and foremost, and coercing others into your way of thinking is not at all a moral thing, even if you are coercing them into a moral way of thinking…”
I couldn’t agree more. I believe that the most important thing is love; valuing the other simply because they are a human being; placing their needs above my own; listening honestly, prayerfully, and actively to who they are and where they are coming from.
…but what I am trying to get at is where love gets practical (as it must or it ceases to be love — I think you would agree!) it necessarily requires people to love in ways that they consider to be compatible with love.
As to the panhandlers, I am sure that many would call me names behind my back, and consider me stingy because I won’t (generally) give money; there are some who alternate between calling me names to my face, and expressing gratitude to my face. This doesn’t change that I sincerely want to help them, but simply refuse to give them what they desire, only what (in my personal estimation) is helpful. I don’t know how else love could compell me to act.
I know that I am open to the charge of arrogance, ‘I know better than you what you need;’ but it is not so much that I claim to know better as it is that I cannot see beyond my own perspective (and should not be expected to, I don’t think), and even though I am willing to concede that I might be wrong in my perspective, until I am convinced otherwise, I must act according to my convictions, albeit with the tacit and humble admition of my imperfection.
I am reminded of a statement someone once made about pacifism:
(my paraphrase)
I think you and I would both firmly agree that my refusal to give money to panhandlers should come out of a sincere conviction that it is not in their best interest to do so (as opposed to my own greed) and that such a conviction should lead me to embrace much more self-sacrifice than merely parting with a few dollars.
Consequently, I would think it might also be possible for you and I to agree that a sincere convinction that abortion is never a good option for anyone at any time would lead those who hold such a conviction to a radical embrace of self-sacrifice and self-denial; moving beyond merely advocating for pro-life legislation, or even trying to educate young women into a pro-life conviction; moving into a place where people of such conviction would take upon themselves the burdens of those who no longer wish to be pregnant.
Not merely saying “no” to the panhandler, or to the woman desiring abortion, but rather taking the burden upon ourselves to find a way to help the individual out of the circumstances they are in, so that they no longer need the money, or the abortion.
Would such a position be one that you would be willing to endorse? Or does this, too, fail because of its arrogance?
Comment by: Steve S.
47I just re-read this, I hope you weren’t speaking to me specifically?!?
If so I must apologize, I don’t ever want to come across in such a way.
Of course I have my opinions, some more educated than others, but I am fully aware of my own limitations; I just don’t feel like I can use my finitude (is that a word?) as an excuse to refrain from taking a position on something so important…
When I make comments, I try to come across as positing my opinions, not brow-beating others into accepting ‘the truth.’ I hope that is how I come across, if it is not, please help me communicate better!!!
Comment by: Rachel
48I totally agree, Steve. We can offer unconditional acceptance and respect, but practical assistance has to be consistent with our values. The classic co-dependent relationship is one where one individual says to the other, “If you don’t give me what I want, then you don’t love me.”
Steve, I’m pretty sure this is what you meant anyhow, but I would just modify the statement to say “offering to take the burden upon ourselves to find a way to help, if the individual wants a way out of the circumstances they are in.”
I think that maybe part of what Helen is objecting to is individuals who say, “Here I will help you” while completely ignoring the fact that the other neither wants the help nor considers it to be help at all. Of course, that can be painfully disappointing for the would-be helper, who must nonetheless respect the free will of the other. And that can be one of the toughest things we ever do.
Comment by: Helen
49Steve, have you read Brian McLaren’s latest book?
I think the problem is the power distribution. When someone has needs and you have resources you have power over them. Your approach seems to be that you retain control and you decide what their options are.
In Brian’s book this approach is the Empire/Domination one, the one in which “I know what’s best for you so I’ll retain control over you and make decisions for you”.
Brian says that’s the way of the Roman Empire and it’s the way Jesus came to subvert. Which makes sense to me.
I understand that you wouldn’t ever facilitate people destroying themselves. But letting people choose isn’t doing that. It’s simply respecting their right to choose.
Comment by: Helen
50Steve wrote:
Well…yes, I was talking to you specifically, but I also realize I am touchy about certain things so maybe I’m unreasonably sensitive.
It’s not that you have opinions, it’s that you seem so sure of them and you’ve never explained to me why, that I can remember. I’ve asked you a number of times how you can be sure you’re right about the Bible and other people are wrong. Maybe you got busy and didn’t have time to answer.
On the abortion issue I feel like you’re sure it’s appropriate to tell people they can’t have one as long as you offer substantive alternatives. But to me that means you’re controlling them, plus abortion is legal in the US - that’s the reality. All Christians can do is try to persuade people that abortion is immoral (why would people agree if they don’t believe the Bible or believe in God?) or unsafe (pregnancy is riskier though, so I hear). To me this is inappropriately inflicting Christian morality on people who have no interest in it.
Comment by: Helen
51My mother e-mailed me this, regarding PP:
PP clinics do more than birth control.
At my last Mt Holyoke reunion, I learned that one of my classmates (’62) volunteers at a PP clinic, and her role is escorting people from the parking lot past the protesters. She told about two children who come to the clinic to be counseled and healed from the psychological trauma of sexual abuse. To get inside, they had to walk past protesters shouting “Don’t go in there. The people inside are bad people.” These children are already staggeringly confused about who is on their side. And who are the shouters protecting?
Comment by: Karen
52Not to get too off-topic here, but there was a fascinating column in the New York Times last week about a couple of elderly men who have been chronic, homeless alcoholics for years, and a new approach to helping them (emphasis mine):
I think this may get to the heart of the discussion: Can we/should we help people even if they don’t live up to our standards of behavior? If a woman really, really feels the best solution to her situation is an abortion, could you tell her you don’t agree but you respect her decision and then give her a ride to PP? Or would it be more moral (whatever that means) to tell her you don’t agree, don’t respect her decision and can’t drive her to the clinic?
What struck me as fascinating about the column I quoted, above, is that one of the two men profiled gave up drinking a few months after moving into the new residence. The booze just “didn’t taste good” to him anymore. Many others continue to drink, but since they are not homeless they have far fewer health and legal problems and are saving a lot of money on the system.
Comment by: Karen
53I agree. So, where do the two sides find common ground for compromise on this? I think if we could get away from the entrenched, black-and-white thinking on both sides we could do a whole lot more good than anybody is achieving now.
I liked President Clinton’s position that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
Comment by: Steve S.
54Yes I did, but I do think I made the beginnings of an answer in the other thread…
Perhaps we could find a way forward to a better answer to your question?
…I am sorry that I come across as arrogant. I believe what I believe, and I can’t help it! But I promise that I know I am wrong on some things, I just don’t know which ones!
Will you help me figure it out? ;-)
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
55This just makes me want to scream.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
56Karen
you so rock for bringing up the housing first project. I work as a volunteer at the lab at University of Washington that is running the data from that project, and it is *so* fascinating. The idea is that it the total cost to the state for these people, with medical care and everything like that, will actually be less when we house them for free, even if they are still drinking. Plus their quality of life will go way up. I mean that’s the big hope. I am super stoked to see the results when all the data is analyzed, as it could very well have huge public policy implications across the country, in a way that could be really beneficial to people with substance use disorders.
The lab is called the addictive behaviors research center, and Alan Marlatt and George Parks and Mary Larimer, who are some of the leaders over there, and the whole rest of the facutly and staff, are just some of the kewlest people you could hope to meet–they have been pioneering cutting edge stuff to help people with substance use disorders for decades. I feel super priveleged to be working there a little.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
57Steve,
this is really fascinating to me. It so reflects what I heard for years in the sect I grew up in. How can you know you’re wrong if you don’t know in what way? Isn’t it just then conjecture that you are wrong? I don’t undertand that. I mean are you somehow required to be wrong on some things, even if you don’t know which ones? Where does that requirement come from? What happens if you just throw it out? I’m not trying to be rude here. I’m genuinely curious. I’m hoping to get my head around what you *mean*. =)
Comment by: Helen
58Steve wrote:
Steve, you don’t come across as arrogant to me.
I’m looking for cues that you’ve been where life is terribly confusing and messy and difficult life can be. Or if not, that you want to understand what it’s like. So you can mourn with those who mourn as well as offering help.
Exactly - and I don’t have a problem with you having beliefs. Everyone does - well, some people don’t like to use the word ‘beliefs’ but everyone has opinions and core values.
I don’t want to simply switch roles :).
I have high expectations of leaders and I know you are a leader.
To me you come across as a leader who has a kind heart and wants to help and has some good ideas and is out there implementing some of them - to your credit.
But I’d rather you came across as a servant than a leader.
Does that make any sense to you?
What’s the point of this illustration that Jesus told (Luke 17:7-10)?
This is Jesus’ word to his disciples i.e. the ones who were going to be the leaders of his movement.
Why did he say this instead of “Thank you for taking on the leadership of my movement. With all your gifts and talents I’m sure you’ll do a great job”.
I wonder if he said it because people like to be leaders and think of themselves that way - and so there’s incredible temptation to let other people make an us and them and treat them like ‘leaders’. And so he says “never go there. Serve and expect NO gratitude or kindness in return. And think of yourself as worthless, useless. (I looked up the word unworthy one time and based on that I think ‘unworthy’ rather soft-pedals the strength of the Greek word).
(Maybe this is the first recorded admonition against co-dependent people-helping - which I’d define as follows: “I’m helping you because I need to think of myself as a people helper - and you’d better show me the gratitude due a people-helper once I’ve helped you”)
To me, the church seems full of leaders who don’t get what Jesus said in that passage. I don’t want you to be one of them. But I also don’t want you to pretend to have the attitude Jesus described. I want you to really have it. To ask him to make sure you understand what this means and how to get there.
Maybe another reason Jesus said this is because the world is full of people who feel useless and worthless - and leaders who don’t understand that feeling will never be able to truly come alongside them, instead of presiding over them (albeit beneficently).
Comment by: Helen
59Karen and Benjamin - that housing project sounds awesome. To me that’s the definition of grace: “I’ll help you without any strings attached”.
A couple of weeks ago I was listening to ‘the story’ on public radio and heard about a person who was homeless for over a decade until a housing project gave him a place. I don’t know if it’s the same project. Anyway it was heartbreaking to hear his story. At the age of seven his (single) mother, who was an alcoholic, left him and his twin 5 year old sisters with a local authority. He thought she would be back the next day to collect them but she didn’t return. They were placed in foster care with a family who mistreated them so much they had to be moved. The foster mother would beat his sisters and when he tried to protect them he of course got in trouble with her.
At sixteen his foster family told him to leave and he began living on the streets. He had a girlfriend for a while (he hid his living situation from her) but eventually her mother sent her to Florida to get her away from him.
He said it’s really hard to get a job when people know you’ve been homeless - there’s so much stigma about it.
Anyway someone urged him to apply for a new project giving chronically homeless people a place to live. To his surprise he got in. The condition is that a percentage of whatever he earns goes towards rent.
Ok, I found the program - here it is. The housing project is in Maine so I guess it’s not the one Karen wrote about. Well, it’s neat that there’s more than one…
Comment by: Helen
60Another thought about what Karen described: I see this as very much the way Jesus was with Zaccheus - Jesus didn’t demand “Believe in me” or “Change”. Instead he said to Zaccheus the outsider (implicitly through “I’m having dinner with you”) “I believe in you“.
Evidently that was so powerfully transforming that before they even got to Zaccheus’ house Zaccheus said he was going to stop stealing and more than make restitution for all he’d stolen already.
Comment by: Karen
61Wow, Benjamin, that is really cool! I had an inkling that you might be familiar with that project but I had no idea you were actually working on it.
I hope you’ll let us know when they start releasing some of the findings of the data that they are correlating. I love seeing “outside the box” solutions like this one, because I think we need to move beyond all the traditional things that just don’t work in the long term and find different ways to look at these problems.
For instance, up until quite recently, alcoholism and other addictions were seen as “moral failings” rather than as diseases. As we start taking the moral/immoral or “sin” language out of the equation and treating the disease, we may find many innovative solutions that work a lot better in the long run than just ostracizing people who are sick.
Comment by: Josh
62Helen, thank you for the Biblical admonition on servanthood. A servant’s heart is what I see lacking in most “Christians” (and too often in myself). I agree that an encounter with someone like this is incredibly transformational. You have no reason to question the motives behind their actions, yet if you do anyway, they are not the least bit offended. God, forgive me for giving place to an entitlement mentality.
Comment by: Helen
63Karen - I like the grace inherent in calling it a disease yet I don’t want to use any terms which might lessen the hope that it’s curable.
This housing project seems to have found a great way to provide grace which then helps motivate people to make the changes they need to make. As you say it’s very kewl that Benjamin is working on it!
You’re welcome, Josh.
Comment by: Helen
64I just saw that Christianity Today posted a news story on Friday about this particular PP clinic and prolife protests at it:
Prolife Protest Movement is Born Again
I didn’t realize Eric Schiedler, the Communications Director for the Pro-Life Action League lives in Aurora, the town where this clinic just opened.
Comment by: Josh
65Wow, is it just me or is that an awful choice of words for a story title?! I don’t see anything “born again” (ie Christian) in the attitudes of this protest spokesman.
Comment by: David H
66Steve, when I read your thoughts on this I can’t help but think of Jesus talking about the rich young ruler. He knew what the man needed. The story concludes with “the man went away sad” and then Jesus explains about how hard it is for the rich to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. Would the story be different if Jesus said: I won’t let you leave until you give away all of your money and follow me? Would it be different for us today if Jesus had said: In the Kingdom of Heaven I will enact laws that force you to redistribute your wealth? Heck, Jesus could have simply said: “The power of Christ compels you…” and walked away with all of the cash.
It is one thing to talk about what I believe is right. It is quite another thing to try and require others to live according to my standards — especially when they may not be starting from the place at which I formed my standards. Perhaps abortion is murder, but that is very often framed by a “Christian” morality and understanding of life. That is why secular things — like the government of this country — are such poor tools for dealing with this issue. They must criminalize abortion in order to solve the problem. But looking at it from the “legal” perspective would seem to be the opposite of what followers of Christ should do. The law may cover what is right and wrong, but it doesn’t have the one thing necessary to positively change those who are doing right or wrong. It doesn’t have love.
As you or others have pointed out, there are non-Christians taking on the issue of abortion. There are many people invested in answers there from a variety of perspectives. I just wish Christians would stick to saying I don’t think it is good for people (not a sin, but something that can be quite harmful to both mother and (obviously) child), but I won’t block the doors of a clinic, I won’t condone blowing one up, and I will not condemn those who go in or out of such places.
Comment by: Steve S.
67Once again, Helen, I can only apologize for coming across the way that I do. I am constantly confused!
My life was a mess, and is now a mess in a very different kind of way…
I have spent time in jail, and dealt with the issues of a criminal record (albeit in a very minor way). I have overcome physical addictions, burned bridges that I later needed to rebuild so I could cross them. At one point in my life, I couldn’t be in the same room with my father for very long without provoking an altercation. I have deeply hurt people who I deeply care about. I know, very personally, about moral failure.
I am now, a husband, a parent of three children age three and under, while I maintain a full-time job, and try to start a church from the ground up. I don’t have a clue how to do any of those things! Thank goodness I no longer have an alcohol problem, being a pastor/husband/father would really be accentuated by getting smashed every night!
I agree!
We just haven’t got to the place in our conversation where we have discussed that yet!
I guess we are back to this, the only way you (or anyone else who is reading my thoughts on this blog) will ever really know what I mean by the words I write, is by coming to Buffalo and living in my house for a couple of months…
I think people are misreading what I am saying…
I am saying that our decisions should come out of a desire to serve, first and foremost, but what constitutes ’service’ surely must be thought about in some detail. If I allow those being served to define service without any critical reflection, am I serving them?
“Give someone a fish and they’ll eat for a day, teach them how to fish and they’ll eat forever.”
What if the individual in question doesn’t want to learn how to fish, and in fact doesn’t want to eat fish, but is instead asking you to go out and painstakingly find poisonous tree-frogs for him to eat. Am I really being arrogant by saying “sorry, but I won’t waste my time and energy to feed you poisonous tree-frogs?” Or does love and service really demand that I poison them? That sounds like Shakespeare to me… ;-)
I don’t advocate this at all, quite the opposite! I am simply pointing out that when people ask me to help them, they are asking me to participate in their life and lifestyle. There is a difference between telling other people what they have to do, and helping people to do something. That is where I draw a line, ‘am I giving someone the ability to harm themselves and others by my actions, if so, then I am responsible for the harm.’ I don’t care, or comment when people use drugs in my presence, but those same people know well enough that I am not going to encourage or endorse it! I am not going to light it for you!
David you points to the story of Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler, how would Jesus have responded if the young man, instead of asking Jesus for an endorsement of his lifestyle (which by the way Jesus arrogantly withheld from the man, in spite of his many good deeds) had asked Jesus to come and participate in his lifestyle, and provide money, energy, and time towards it?
Would Jesus have helped him? If not, would you call that arrogance? Am I really bound to give anyone whatever they want, whenever they want? What if the pedophile next-door ‘really’ wants to interact with my kids? Am I arrogant to tell him no? (We let him in the house, but we don’t let him around the kids!) What if someone asks me to buy alcohol for them? At what point does this change from ‘helping them in the way that they want’ to ‘ignoring the reality of the situation and being used by someone’s dysfunction,’ don’t I have a responsibility to help people out of their dysfunctions?
…and David, sorry to be confusing, but I really have stopped talking about abortion a while back, and am addressing the general issue of helping people on their terms, our terms, or (what I would suggest) helping people on their terms within the scope of what we feel is moral.
Comment by: Helen
68Steve, thanks for sharing more about your life with me.
You’re right - thanks for pointing this out.
I hear what you’re saying about - what constitutes real help.
I care very much about that too.
I think we draw the line in different places regarding when it’s ok to use power over someone to control how their needs are met.
Because of my experiences being hurt by people with power over me, I would rather not use that over other adults except if it was absolutely necessary to save their life. I’m fine with offering help; I’m not fine with “I’m going to limit your options for your own good” unless they are in immediate danger.
Maybe this will show that I do understand where you’re coming from, at least to some extent: reading your thoughts and Karen’s a couple of days ago I found myself torn when Karen posted “would you give someone a ride to a clinic where they’re going to receive an abortion if you didn’t believe in abortion but they were adamant this was what they wanted?”
I don’t think I could fault a person who absolutely believes abortion is wrong for saying “No, I’m sorry, I can’t give you a ride there - I love you but but I can’t be part of this process”. - hopefully though even someone who felt that way could give the person a ride home and attend to their needs afterwards.
Steve I appreciate you staying in this conversation - I know you’re busy and it has been hard for me not to hear things which have bothered me in other people, in some of the things you say.
I think I’ve been somewhat unfair to you. But perhaps this will be of use to you since, if I have these sensitivities I expect others do too, fair or not, and perhaps encountering them here will help you understand what’s happening if you run into them elsewhere in ministry.
Comment by: David H
69Let me begin by apologizing for repeatedly returning to the abortion issue. It isn’t simply that it largely began this thread. I also feel that how “Christians” have handled that subject in the United States provides a microcosm on many failings in the supposed Christian position on serving others. Perhaps I am asking too much, but I will return to the subject of abortion once again to frame my thoughts.
Helen’s quote states my position pretty well. There is a difference between endorsing and accepting. I don’t expect someone who opposes abortion to say: “If that is what you want, then that is good.” That would be endorsing. But I would hope that I, who am opposed to abortion, would be able to support someone if they decided to go that route even if I couldn’t drive them to the clinic.
However, what happens at too many Christian clinics is they can’t allow the person to choose for themselves. Because of their moral position they use the horrible pictures and condemning talks to try and sway the person who has come to them for help. Beyond those clinics, anti-abortion advocates use mass movents — which I consider very different from a personal statement that I don’t support abortion. And they try to change laws because they won’t ACCEPT that any choice should be allowed other than what they consider to be right.
The problem with Christian involvement with protesting and law making is that it is based on the assumption that everyone should eat fish, to borrow that analogy. Many of the people who will be forcibly taught how to catch fish with these methods have not requested such “help” and aren’t necessarily convinced it will help them in any way. To convince them otherwise would require patient education into the value of fish and how their chosen diet consists of poisonous frogs. I can’t simply expect that they will accept my perspective on that.
If people ask for investment, involvement and/or help then that changes dramatically the nature of my relationship with them. Perhaps ti gives me more authority to dictate the terms under which they will receive my help. But it doesn’t necessarily alter the educational component. Desperation doesn’t always equate to acceptance of an alternative viewpoint. Such a request may signal that the other person see value in the position I have taken against abortion and, while they may not fully accept that, they would like to learn more. But it may simply indicate that they are out of options, as they see it, and have turned to me as a last resort. If I want them to believe the same things as myself, then I have to teach them why I believe those things. But as with my children, I have to sometimes separate the teacher aspect from the supportive aspect. My children will make mistakes, I should use those opportunities to try and teach them better ways, but also try and make sure that I don’t participate in hurting them. Perhaps they need to pay something to learn responsibility, but (as would be the case with abortion) should I expect their payment to affect the rest of their lives? What lesson is the best to be taught. Many Christians appear to believe that lesson should be primarily on making sure fornicators, at least the females, pay for their sin.
My problem with so many Christians is that they expect such penalties for others while avoiding them when it comes to their own lives. Perhaps that is a natural human response. But realizing saving grace should, it would seem, lead them down a different path.
Which brings me back to the key issue with Christian talk about servant hood. It would seem that many Christians believe that the service ends if it doesn’t appear to be leading the served in the proper direction. Christian pregnancy centers expect you to do what they want or you can take your needs elsewhere. And I have seen that happen in areas other than crisis pregnancies. The Christian concept of service seems often to begin with the end result. Those who don’t appear likely to change or act properly or become fellow believers will likely see a sharp decline in what they receive from such servants.
At the Justice and Compassion blog we recently discussed forgiveness vs. reconciliation. Reconciliation takes two. Forgiveness only requires one. They are not inextricably linked. I forgive a wrong-doer by letting go of my natural inclination to hate, to want revenge, etc. Forgiveness doesn’t necessarily change them, but it does change me.
It seems to me that Christian service should be something similar. Conversion requires acceptance by another. But service in the name of Jesus doesn’t require even the inkling or a response from the recipients. It isn’t about changing them, it is about changing me.
Steve, I don’t think I have called you arrogant. And I don’t know that you protest outside abortion clinics or advocate for laws that would make abortion illegal. I simply think that Christians should stop putting the expected outcome at the head of their agenda in whatever they are doing. Believers are seed planters, not harvesters. Jesus didn’t say do good to those who harm you because then they will become your friends. He simply said to love those who hate you. Whether that love changes them, it seems to me, should be irrelevant. Likewise, if they are dong something I find morally objectionable I still have to serve them with love even if that doesn’t make them accept my moral position.
I’m not sure I am being clear. I’m just trying to say that for me it isn’t about helping them the way they want. It is more about not insisting that I will only help them the way I want. I may know better than them, but they may never agree with me on that. And I still have to figure out how to love and serve them despite that.
Comment by: Helen
70Thanks David - I think we pretty much have the same perspective on what appropriate ‘help’ is.
Comment by: Steve S.
71HEY!!!
Is it just me, or do we all agree after all…
…thanks for this little cyber-place, I am being ‘built up’ by my interactions here…
Comment by: benjamin ady
72Megadittos
(OMG, now I have inadvertently revealed the truth about myself as a former (er, that is, recovering) listener to Rush Limbaugh. oh well. I suppose it was bound to come out at some point =).
Steve,
I have officially decided that you rock, you kick ass, you’re kewl. Welcome to the club =) (David and Helen, in case you didn’t know, you’ve both already been in a while)
(sorry if I said anything stupid, wierd, or offputting. I’ve been experiencing a shocking lack of sleep, and now my wife has left me.)
(ha, let’s see if anyone notices that)
(don’t worry, it’s not what you think)
Comment by: Helen
73If Steve is in Benjamin’s kewl club he’s in mine too :)
Benjamin, best wishes surviving single parenting and lack-of-spouse while Megs is away.
Comment by: Helen
74Steve, yes, sometimes we even agree! :) Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.
Comment by: Steve S.
75In the words of my one year old, “Happy Birthday, Gobble, Gobble!” (For the proper effect, be sure to somewhat slur them, and deliver them at the appropriate decibel level, all while wildly gyrating your head!)…
Ben, thanks for the thumbs up, I appreciate the interaction I am able to have here — I’m more of an NPR guy but, Limbaugh is hilarious, I haven’t found a station that carries him here in Buffalo, but when I was in CA I would listen to him. I don’t know why his playful arrogance is so endearing to me, but there it is…
So don’t feel out of the loop for listening to the ‘talent on loan from GAWD!’
PS where did the alternate spelling come from (kewl) I’ve seen it elsewhere, is that like ‘phat?’
Comment by: Steve S.
76PS David, I keep avoiding the abortion issue because I have a hard time ‘thinking’ about it, and usually resort to responding out of my emotions. If I had more time for the interaction, perhaps we could have the dialogue; but don’t feel bad for sticking with the issue, it in many ways ‘provides a microcosm on many failings in the supposed Christian position.’ Here in Buffalo it is actually a real sore spot, as this is a very liberal area, but has also been a center (in past years) for rabid (and even violent) anti-abortion activity. (I actually even have the ‘good fortune’ to share my last name with two brothers who were bigwigs in the movement…)
Perhaps here, however, an even better/worse ‘microcosm’ is homosexuality. If you want to talk about the Church blowing it, I could tell you some horror stories!
Comment by: David H
77I agree. But according to how I was raised, someone who got an abortion could be forgiven by God. Gays were just damned.
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
78wow, this is quite the thread….
I used to volunteer as an escort at Planned Parenthood. At that point in my life, I decided some things WERE worth dying for, and that was one. I have several female relatives who suffered the consequences of back-street abortions.
My views on the matter have changed dramatically over the past few years. I can no longer take sentiments such as “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one” just as I can still no longer take all the white middle class men who dominate discussions around this issue. Terms like “preborn” and “unborn children” make my blood boil, but I’ll defend the rights of anyone to say them that wants to.
I do believe “lying is lying” and it doesn’t make it right that many “we would never even let you consider have an abortion” facilities and groups operate under misleading names also.
I would like to see efforts to reduce unplanned pregnancies. I think that’s an effort both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” people can find common ground on, assuming “pro-life” people recognize the ineffectiveness of abstaintence only education.
Comment by: Helen
79Doreen, thanks for your comments.
Comment by: benjamin ady
80Steve,
the alternate spelling for “kewl” is from yours truly. Someday I’ll be famous for it. Famous but still broke =)
and re: “phat”. I have no idea. what’s “phat”? Does it mean “kewl”? =)