Being Pro (EVERY) Life
Image from Do Justice blog
However, love -the love Jesus manifested and preached- has an irregular impact on church members' voting these days.
Here's the thing about Jesus: He had super low standards for WHO He loved (a.k.a. Everyone, all the time, no matter what) and super high standards for HOW He loved (a.k.a. Unconditionally, all the time, no matter what). Nonetheless, Christ followers -from the early church until present day- seem bent on creating their own merit-based system of "worthy recipients." And there are like A LOT of rules about who gets love/extra chances.
For example:
1. a. Unborn Baby = Deserving of all potential and love
1. b. Overwhelmed, newly single and pregnant (see above) Mama of 3 children below 5, who now needs welfare (and possibly an abortion) to make ends meet = Squandered potential and a drain of resources
2. a. Male in early 20's working hard to support family = Encouraging example for our young people
2. b. Undocumented migrant worker (see above) hospitalized for heat exhaustion = Discouraging example of illegal manipulation of American jobs and healthcare
3. a. Foster parents who housed and eventually adopted children from the system = Beacon of hope and acceptance
3. b. A homosexual couple (see above) raising their family = A disgraceful mockery of traditional values
You see, NOTHING about the clarifying "b" statements offered above, would change Jesus' opinion about the persons represented. He loves each of us -our uniquely imperfect but distinct selves- completely and totally. But American Christianity has adapted that love into a strong patriotic cocktail, heavy on nationalism and light on compassion for ones who exist outside a set of fixed boundaries. (Read: Beyond America's borders, below a certain income level, above a certain level of skin melanin, outside specific faith expressions, and apart from an inherited European ancestry of privilege and power -an ancestry which both shaped the structuring of this country and the restructuring of its past (and present) atrocities.)
My heart is heavy even typing this. Because I realize how many CHRISTIAN people will be defensive or argumentative about these points. But the truth of the matter is: I wonder how my Wren would be perceived by many of these same people if she had remained in her birth family. An international ("foreign") family, most likely impoverished, definitely Hindu, with a spectrum of brown-toned skin. And what if they tried to immigrate to or find refuge in this country? Would Wren's value as a person change based on these circumstances? Does her worth increase based on her proximity to a white American middle-class family? Hells no, it doesn't. It shouldn't. But does it? Only you can answer that for yourself.
I wish there was enough access to healthcare, sex education, contraceptives, and will power to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But that is not the world we live in. However, I DO believe the value of the life inside the womb is equal to the life outside the womb. The stressed Mama carries the same amount of promise as her unborn child. But do Jesus followers equally support both lives and their possibility for potential? As Sister Joan Chittister so profoundly said, "I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-BIRTH. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." Amen. Pro-life needs to be a more Pro-active term: Allocating revenue and resources to meet needs and provide opportunities in advance instead of just trying to save unplanned pregnancies after the fact.
Next-Does a criminal record diminish one's worth in the eyes of God? I wonder what the Apostle Paul would have to say about that? Or Jesus who died by crucifixion, the Roman form of capital punishment. How do our opinions on human life differ based on their relationship to the law/authority in the land? A complicated question...for us. Jesus freely offered forgiveness and salvation to a fellow "criminal" dying on the cross next to him, a woman who broke Mosaic law by having an adulterous relationship, and a Samaritan woman whose tangled marriages and heritage made her an outcast. He had a pattern, as I said in the beginning, of offering love to everyone, always. Not that there isn't a place for judgement or a necessity for law, that isn't the argument. An outward illegal act bears (or SHOULD bear) its own consequences, while internal malfeasance -whether criminal or spiritual- is a secret decay that spreads unchecked. Jesus' blunt term for this, used in reference to the religious authorities of his day, was "whitewashed tombs"- Spotless and imposing externally, but rotting inside. Ones who dictate regulation without grace, legality without love, standards without mercy. On February 18 of this year, a 24 year old Honduran woman was apprehended by US Border patrol in Texas. While in custody of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, she went into premature labor and gave birth to her son. Her stillborn son. Regarding this, ICE spokesperson Danielle Bennett reported, “Although for investigative and reporting purposes, a stillbirth is not considered an in-custody death, ICE and CBP officials are proactively disclosing the details of this tragic event to be transparent..." Twenty-eight women “may have experienced a miscarriage just prior to, or while in ICE custody” between Oct. 1, 2016, and Aug. 31, 2018, she said. Oh the justification gymnastics Americans must engage in to not qualify a stillbirth (regardless of parentage) as death, but continue to tout abortion as murder. It's enough to make Jesus, Mary, and Joseph queasy.
My conservative Baptist college LOVED them some chapel. Hence services happened every weekday, with only a few skips allowed per semester. As a result, I've heard a lot of people say a lot of things behind a pulpit. During my freshman year, a visiting professor created mild controversy with a bizarre sermon illustration. He made an offhanded remark about "Euth Crewe 'killing' the competition." What slipped passed many of us students unaware was the darker subtext buried in that casual reference. The Euth Crewe (EC) was an early 2000's movement mostly comprised of recent college graduates. These so-called intellectuals posited -through biased data gathering and narrow studies- that humans had a quantifiable give-and-take ratio of civil contribution. According to EC, 82 was the average age where citizens tipped the scale from "meaningful societal input" into "diminishing societal returns." Their push was "elected euthanasia" for citizens beyond that age. EC speculated that, minus the demands of the 82+ crowd, previously unavailable medical assets and funding could be redirected to better serve the public. The resulting revenue would create a stepping stone for future medical research, help to advance surgical technology, and drastically reduce med-school costs. Obviously, even though presented as a joking aside by a visiting speaker, our conservative college wanted no hint of association with this appalling group and their ideals. Especially since former college president and presiding college chancellor, Dr. James Jeremiah, was approximately one million and five years old when I arrived at school there. Not to mention the ages of the collegiate network of alumni, donors, and board members. The moral and monetary motivation to douse this fire was great. So our college's PR team went to work immediately, taking each and every opportunity to sever any semblance of connection with the group. Because fighting hard and fast to protect what is most important -whether it be religious/moral principals, relationships, position of authority, or reputation- is never a wasted effort. It puts your values on display for all to see.
ACTUALLY, NONE OF THAT SCHOOL STUFF HAPPENED. (Excepting J. Jeremiah being supes old and the chapel requirement.) However, this did: In the most recent presidential debate, Donald Trump was given a chance to publicly condemn white supremacists and right-wing militia -specifically "The Proud Boys," a group he later denied knowing- and instead pivoted to rebuke "antifa and the left." Let me say that again: Given an opportunity to condemn white supremacists outright, Trump's immediate response was "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by." A LONG 48 HOURS LATER, after a political and media crapstorm, he THEN condemned white supremacy via a phone interview with Fox News.
Question: Did my made-up Euth Crewe and their radical ideas bother you more than Trump's passive, delayed scolding of white supremacists? Reflect on this honestly. Could your knee jerk response be indicative of where -or with whom- you place meaning?
Hear me: This isn't good enough. This. Is. Not. GOOD. ENOUGH. Asking a known extremist group to basically "hold their positions" during a presidential debate is unacceptable. Waiting for 2 ENTIRE DAYS to elapse before clarifying one's position against white supremacy is unacceptable. And if this doesn't disturb you to your core, WHY doesn't it? Make no mistake: Your fellow brown and black Americans are disturbed. Deeply. Maybe you don't have an Indian daughter -or any child of color, for that matter- on the way. Because if stillbirth only counts as death when parents are citizens -not convicts- of this country, then it doesn't count as death. Period. It's like declaring "all men are created equal," while half our population of men remained enslaved by the other.
Clearly, as a 30's something woman with a nose piercing, I don't hold the answers. But I do have an uncanny ability to see perspectives beyond my own. From one Jesus person to another, I beg you to reconsider what pro-life really means. Because if -in your heart of hearts- you believe some lives are intrinsically more valuable than others, that isn't pro-life. That is pro-certain lives. And it is NOT the same thing.
There's an election coming. You may be unimpressed with your choices. I'd encourage you to visit isidewith.com. This website offers relevant political questions that -based on your answers- align you with the candidate who best supports your particular views. If a specific topic is especially important to you, the quiz permits an option to answer more questions in that area to further refine your results. This will allow your conscience -not a political party- to dictate your decision. And in November, please consider voting like MY daughter's life -and her very future within our family- is on the line. Because it is.
Links to articles/information mentioned above:
Do Justice series: What being Pro-Life means to me
Transcript of Presidential Debate
What Christians should know about Proud Boys & Antifa
I Side With: 2020 Political Quiz
Comments
Post a Comment