Which Christian Values Do You Endorse?

Jack Hibbs, whom I have not known of until recently, is the founder and senior pastor of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills in Southern California and has a daily half-hour program on Bott Radio. This post was sparked by a Jan. 21 article by Hibbs on The Christian Post’s website.  

The “Christian Values” of Conservative White Evangelicals

In the just-mentioned piece, titled “What’s next for evangelicals post-Trump,” Hibbs (b. 1958) declares that “President Biden is clearly not interested in the concerns of evangelicals.”

“So,” Hibbs asks, “what are we to do, now that Trump is leaving office and we have a new president who goes against our values?”

The “we” he refers to, I assume, are most of the readers of The Christian Post and those who attend his church, said to be about five thousand adults each Sunday, not including teens and children.

Hibbs concludes that “we need to look to 2024 with an eye towards finding the next president whose policies will be in line with our values.”

What, though, are the values of this conservative evangelical pastor? Well, we have some clue in the last five of the 15 points in Hibbs’s church’s “statement of faith” (see here).

Those “Christian values” were succinctly expressed in a Facebook post of West Virginia singer David Ferrell (shared by one of my FB friends earlier this week): “No pastor can support same sex marriage, homosexuality, transgender, abortion and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

But, where in the Gospels do we find Jesus condemning same-sex marriage, homosexuality, transgender, or abortion? The values that Jesus emphasized seem to be quite different.

Jesus’ values are largely affirmed by progressive Christians, including many prominent Black pastors, most of whom were strongly opposed to President Trump—in spite of his being extensively supported by conservative White evangelicals because of his championing “Christian values.”

The Values of Progressive Christians

Last month I read The Fierce Urgency of Prophetic Hope (2017), a powerful book by Wendell Griffen, who is both a pastor and a circuit judge in Arkansas. He also wrote a provocative Jan. 21 article titled “The end of Trump’s presidency does not end America’s root problem.”

In stark contrast to Pastor Hibbs, Pastor Griffen asserts,

Trump will forever be remembered as the most vicious, politically incompetent and corrupt president in U.S. history. He left office dishonored, defeated and despised by most people who value justice, truth, integrity, peace and hope.

Griffen also extols the Christian values of MLK, Jr., including his condemnation of racism, materialism, and militarism.

The same emphasis on the Christian values articulated by Griffen—and ignored by Hibbs—is prominently seen in other noted Black pastors, such as William Barber, Jr., of North Carolina; Raphael Warnock, our new Senator from Georgia; and Episcopal Bishop Michael Curry, among many others.

What gall to suggest that these Black pastors—and the many progressive Christians, White and Black, who agree with them—all of whom spoke out in opposition to President Trump, are opposed to Christian values!

Which Christian Values Do You Endorse?

In his January 3 sermon, a prominent Southern Baptist pastor of a church near Dallas said that President-elect Biden would be a “cognitively dysfunctional president” and then asked: “what if something happens to him and Jezebel has to take over? Jezebel Harris, isn’t that her name?”

According to this 1/29 article, that pastor, Steve Swofford, also said that the Biden-Harris administration would not likely be “doing things our way,” so he urged his congregation to maintain their “convictions for Christ”—or, in other words, to stand firm for the “Christian values” of evangelicals.

On the other hand, in the Conclusion of his book Griffen challenges his hearers to “prophetic citizenship,” which, he says, focuses “on the needs of the people God cares most about.” That is, “people who are hungry, thirsty, homeless, frail, imprisoned, and unwelcomed.”

So, in reflecting on these different sets of values, which do you endorse as the more important and most in harmony with the teachings of Jesus?

Re-escalating the Abortion Wars

Today’s blog post was long planned to be an article about Junípero Serra, who was canonized five years ago on September 23. But then Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, and among other things, that has occasioned the re-escalation of the abortion wars. 

From De-escalation to Re-escalation

On September 5, I posted “De-escalating the Abortion Wars,” in which I contended that currently many Catholics and conservative evangelicals are talking about a wide range of important ethical social issues and not focusing primarily on abortion. I thought/think that was a good sign.

But then RBG died.

And DJT immediately announced plans to nominate her replacement—and in complete reversal to the stance most Republican Senators took after Justice Scalia died in February 2016, Sen. McConnell announced that the Senate would hold confirmation hearings before the November 3 election.

Consequently, there was quickly a re-escalation of the abortion wars.

Vilifying RBG’s Position on Abortion

In supporting DJT’s pledge to nominate a conservative, “pro-life” successor to Justice Ginsburg, some of his staunch supporters began attacking RBG’s position on abortion.

The most abhorrent Facebook post that I saw in that regard was on Sept. 24 by a woman who was one of my missionary colleagues in Japan—and a post that was “liked” by another colleague and longtime personal friend.

That post showed an image of Hitler, accompanied by the words, “Supported the murder of 11 million Jews.” Below that image was one of Ginsburg with the words, “Supported the murder of 60 million babies.” The woman who made that post commented with just two words: “Trump only!”

Sadly, the recently deceased Supreme Court Justice who was so highly praised by so many people across the country was vilified by conservative evangelicals, and others, in ways that were untruthful, unkind, and, yes, unchristian.

Verifying ACB’s Position on Abortion

Last Saturday (9/26), DJT publicly announced that he was nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett as RBG’s replacement on the SCOTUS.

The news media and social media have had a plethora of news articles and opinion pieces about Judge Barrett (ACB), so there is no need to duplicate information about her here.

But I want to focus on ACB’s position on abortion as that is partly what has re-escalated the abortion wars this month.

Democrats and many Independents, but perhaps only a few Republicans, are fearful that ACB’s confirmation to the high court will likely help overturn the Affordable Care Act. She might also help DJT win re-election, if the outcome of the Nov. 3 election is contested, as it may well be.

Further, since ACB is known for her “radical” proclivity to overturn laws rather than honoring them as precedents, her position on the Court could also endanger the right of same-sex couples to marry and the constitutional protections against discrimination based on gender that RBG championed.

But abortion is clearly the main reason many conservative Christians favor Judge Barrett’s confirmation to the high court now—even though a 9/24 poll indicates that a majority of U.S. voters think the winner of the Nov. 3 presidential election should nominate the next Supreme Court justice.

Barrett was a top contender for the empty seat on the SCOTUS in 2018, and of all those on DJT’s list as potential nominees, Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post called ACB (in this 7/4/18 opinion piece), “The Trump Supreme Court pick who’d pose the biggest danger to abortion rights.”

I was greatly saddened by the death of Justice Ginsburg for many reasons—and one of the main reasons was because of her death triggering the re-escalation of the abortion wars. What a shame!

De-escalating the Abortion Wars

Abortion is extremely contentious, and for more than 45 years now, there has been considerable “warfare” between “pro-choice” and “pro-life” people. Is there any way to de-escalate such negative polarization?  

The Abortion Wars

James Davison Hunter is a “Distinguished Professor” at the University of Virginia and author of the seminal book Culture Wars (1991).

“The Issue of Abortion” is a major subsection of the ninth chapter of my book Fed up with Fundamentalism, and as I mention there, Hunter (b. 1955) has suggested that abortion could well be the catalyst for America’s next civil war.

That kind of talk didn’t end in the 1990s, though. In May of last year, the conservative Christian Post featured an online article titled “The coming civil war over abortion.” That same month, The Guardian posted “Christian rightwingers warn abortion fight could spark US civil war.”

Among Christians, abortion was primarily only a Catholic issue until Francis Schaeffer convinced Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell in 1979 to use it to gain political power—and the abortion wars have now raged for four decades among Christians as well as in society at large.

In this election year, abortion is at the heart of the political “wars” between the Republicans and Democrats. Vice President Pence said in his acceptance speech last week,

President Trump has stood without apology for the sanctity of human life every day of this administration. Joe Biden, he supports taxpayer funding of abortion, right up to the moment of birth.

(It has often been said that truth is the first casualty in war, and Pence’s last statement is misleading and untrue.)

De-escalation Efforts

In spite of the rhetoric being used by the Trump administration and its staunch conservative evangelical followers, there are both Catholics and evangelical Christians who are seeking to de-escalate the abortion wars by broadening their ethical concerns.

In 1972 a group of Catholic sisters organized for social justice as the Network. They became widely known because of their first Nuns on the Bus tour in 2012. (In 2014 I wrote about them and their leader, Sister Simone Campbell, here.)

Long known as just NETWORK, their website is NetworkLobby.org and they are promoting PopeFrancisVoters.org in their campaign against the current President. Even though they are Catholics, they say little about abortion and much about a broad gamut of social justice issues.

Ron Sider, the founder of Evangelicals for Social Action, is an example of a Protestant evangelical who has through the years been strongly against abortion. But long ago he began to emphasize the importance of being “completely pro-life,” publishing a book by that name in 1987.

In de-escalating the abortion wars, Sider was the editor of a book published earlier this year under the title The Spiritual Danger of Donald Trump: 30 Evangelical Christians on Justice, Truth, and Moral Integrity.

A Spark of Light

Jodi Picoult is a superlative novelist, and I was greatly impressed with her 2018 novel A Spark of Light. In fact, I decided to write this blog article mainly because of reading it.

The novel is about just one day—a very fateful day when there was a shooting in an abortion clinic.

Picoult skillfully narrates the deep thoughts and convictions of all the people involved in that tragic day: the shooter, the policeman seeking to get the shooter’s hostages released, the protesters outside the clinic, the women inside the clinic, and the doctors and nurses providing the abortion services. 

Dr. Willie Parker (b. 1962)

The doctor performing the abortions that day is based on a real-life abortion doctor, Willie Parker, who tells his story in Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice (2017).  

Even though it will be quite perplexing to some, Parker believes that performing abortions and “speaking out on behalf of the women who want abortions” is his Christian calling and his “life’s work” (p. 16).

For all of you who wonder how a Christian can justify abortion, I highly recommend reading Picoult’s novel and/or Parker’s book. Doing so thoughtfully, I believe, would go far toward de-escalating the abortion wars.

Still Fed Up with Fundamentalism’s View of Three Other Issues

Abortion. Homosexuality. Capital punishment. These are the three highly controversial issues dealt with in the ninth chapter of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism, which is currently being (slightly) revised and updated. And, yes, I am fed up with the predominant conservative evangelical views on all three of these highly contentious issues. 

What about Abortion?

As I write in the ninth chapter of Fed Up . . ., back in 1986 I felt too intimidated to attend a political rally in Kansas City because of the protesters who had gathered outside the venue, yelling “Baby killer! Baby killer!” as the candidate who had come to speak was noted for her acceptance of abortion in some cases.

Obviously, these were anti-abortion (aka “pro-life”) people protesting the “pro-choice” (aka pro-abortion) position of Harriet Woods, the senatorial candidate and the sitting Lieutenant Governor—the first woman ever elected to statewide office in Missouri.

Following the long tradition of the Catholic Church, in recent decades most conservative evangelical Christians have adopted the view that human life begins at conception, so all abortions are the same as murder, for they kill human beings. That view was the basis for the raucous protests against Woods (1927~2007).

However, neither science nor the Bible unambiguously specifies when human life begins. Thus, most of us non-fundamentalist Christians hold that abortion, especially when done in the first trimester, should be legal, safe, and rare.

What about LBGTQ Equality?

The LGBTQ issue is the second explosive matter that partly explains the overwhelming support of DJT by conservative evangelicals from before his election in 2016 to the present. Although it is hard to know what DJT actually believes on any issue, it is clear that Clinton was/is not only “pro-choice” but also advocates LBGTQ equality.

Most conservative evangelical Christians “cherry-pick” Bible verses to strongly oppose equality for practicing homosexual persons or the right of gays/lesbians to marry.

Although the right to marry has been granted by the Supreme Court (in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision of 2015), many evangelicals continue to oppose same-sex marriage just as they still oppose abortion despite the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973.

I am fed up with the negative, judgmental, “holier-than-thou” attitude of most conservative evangelicals on this issue as well. Not only do they condemn even “monogamous” homosexual activity, they covertly support discrimination against and harassment of LGBTQ persons.

And now, legislation which seeks to protect gays/lesbians from mistreatment is seen by some evangelicals as curtailing their (the evangelicals’ own) religious freedom! Surely, though, religious freedom, which I continue to advocate strongly, can never be condoned if that “freedom” results in harming other people.

What about Capital Punishment?

It cannot be denied that the Old Testament not only condones capital punishment, it even commands it.

It is not surprising, therefore, that fundamentalists and most conservative evangelicals who view the Old and New Testaments as equally inspired and equally the inerrant Word of God, which is to be literally interpreted and followed, are also people who generally favor the use of capital punishment.

It seems disingenuous, though, to base the legitimacy, or the necessity, of capital punishment in contemporary society because of the teachings of the Bible but then completely disregard the many commands—such as for cursing parents (Ex. 21:17), profaning the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14), or committing adultery (Lev. 20:10)—for the use of capital punishment in the Old Testament.

Most of us Christians who are not, or no longer, fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals recognize the clear call for capital punishment for various crimes/”sins” in the Old Testament. However, based on the teachings of Jesus, we believe that Christians should oppose, rather than affirm, capital punishment.

Remembering Paul Simmons

When he died in March of this year, Paul Simmons was called an “outspoken Baptist ethicist” and “a lightning rod at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for advocating a woman’s right to abortion” (quotes from this article). I remember Paul as a Christian gentleman, a brilliant scholar, and a friend since 1955.

Introducing Paul

Paul D. Simmons was born in Tennessee on July 18, 1936, so this Thursday is the 83rd anniversary of his birth.

Paul matriculated at Southwest Baptist College (SWBC, now SBU) in the fall of 1954, and June and I met him a year later when we became students there. He was one of the “big men on campus,” and one of the upperclassmen at the junior college whom I admired the most.

After graduating from SWBC in 1956, Paul finished his college work at Union University in Tennessee, earned two degrees at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina, and then in 1969 completed his Ph.D. degree in Christian Ethics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) in Kentucky.

Paul was an instructor in Christian Ethics at SBTS while a graduate student and then joined the faculty there in 1970, receiving tenure in 1975 and promotion to full professor in 1982. Ten years later the trustees of SBTS began to work on ways to remove Simmons from the faculty.

In January 1993, Paul took “early retirement” (at the age of 56!) from SBTS. After a few years teaching in Louisville as an adjunct professor, he then taught 20 years as Clinical Professor of Family & Geriatric Medicine at the University of Louisville, retiring at the age of 80.

Introducing Paul’s Book

In addition to numerous scholarly articles for various publications, Paul was the author of three major books, the first of which was Birth and Death: Bioethical Decision Making (1983).

That book was published not long after the beginning of the “conservative resurgence” (a.k.a. “the fundamentalist takeover”) in the Southern Baptist Convention. In the early 1980s, the Religious Right began a strong anti-abortion campaign, and because of the position Paul propounded in his book he increasingly came under attack.

“Abortion: The Biblical and Human Issues” is the third of six cogently written chapters. In the initial chapter, “Bioethics: Science and Human Values,” Paul clearly states the two basic assumptions underlying his research and writing. “The first is that the Bible not only is relevant but is indispensable for Christian ethical understanding.”

Then, “A second major assumption is that there is no irreconcilable tension between the Bible and modern science” (p. 21).

The second chapter is “The Bible and Bioethical Decision-Making,” and Paul asserts at the end of that chapter, “The starting point for all Christian ethical action is in the person’s relationship to Christ” (p. 63).

I certainly agree with Paul’s two assumptions as well as his key emphases in the second chapter--and one would think that most contemporary Christians would also. Nevertheless, partly because of the sixth chapter in his book, Paul was, deplorably, driven away from his tenured faculty position by the ever-increasing conservatism of SBTS.

Reconnecting with Paul

In January 2011, June and I drove to New Orleans where I attended the annual meeting of the Society of Christian Ethics. One of the highlights of that conference was seeing Paul again and the three of us having a meal together.

He was the same sincere, sweet-spirited person we had known 55 years earlier at SWBC, and we deeply enjoyed having conversation with him again.

So, we were greatly saddened when in March we heard of Paul’s passing, and we remember him with abiding appreciation for the fine man and good scholar he was.  (Click here for his obituary.)  

There Really Are "Alternative Facts"

This article was prompted by the death of Peter Berger a year ago. Berger was not only a world-renowned sociologist but also a notable lay Lutheran theologian. He is best known for The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1966), which he co-authored with Thomas Luckmann.

A Bit about Berger

Born in Vienna, Austria, in 1929, Berger immigrated with his family to the U.S. when he was 17. Although he attended a Lutheran seminary, he ended up becoming a sociologist rather than a minister. 

In 1981 Berger began teaching at Boston University and was the founding director of BU’s Institute on Culture, Religion, and World Affairs from 1985 until his retirement in 2009.

An early and vocal opponent of the “God is dead” movement in the 1960s, Berger was much appreciated by evangelical Christians, as is attested to in this Christianity Today article posted two days after his death on June 27, 2017.

A Bit about Plausibility Structures

According to Berger (and Luckmann), knowledge—and people’s conceptions/beliefs of what reality is—is socially constructed.

There is an objective and a subjective aspect to reality, and the society in which one lives, one’s culture or subculture, by necessity interprets/constructs objective reality subjectively. That interpretation/construction forms one’s plausibility structure.

Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (1989)

“Plausible” is an adjective that means “seeming reasonable or probable.” Synonyms include such terms as “believable,” “credible,” “logical,” and “rational.” 

All interpretations of reality are not equally plausible, of course. There is, for example, pronounced differences between what is considered plausible by the dominant “white” culture in the U.S. and by the traditional culture of American Indians.

And more and more there seem to be pronounced differences in the plausibility structures of devoted Democrats and fervent Republicans in this country.

Because of the distinctly different plausibility structures, there really are “alternative facts,”—for “facts” are only what the society one belongs to agrees upon as being real or true.

Why Is This Important?

Consider a couple of examples.

Most Christians believe that God created the world and that at least some of the miracles as reported in the Bible, especially the Resurrection, are true. For those of us who grew up in the church and with belief in the message of the Bible, Creation and Resurrection are “facts” (although even among Christians now those facts are not interpreted in exactly the same way).

But for those with a completely “scientific worldview,” that is, with a belief system that only accepts that which can be proved by the scientific method, the creation of the universe by God and miracles cannot be factually true. Their plausibility structure rules out all “supranatural” causes.

Or, consider the matters of abortion and homosexual activity. If one’s plausibility structure holds it to be factually true that all abortion is murder of preborn humans and all homosexual activity as an abomination and a sin against God, then there must necessarily be ongoing opposition to abortion and such practices as same-sex marriage.

Consequently, those with that plausibility structure see Christians who are pro-choice (= pro-abortion in their understanding) and/or who affirm LGBT rights as having defective faith and perhaps as not being real Christians.

Moreover, with that worldview, there is no way one could vote for a political candidate who is pro-choice and/or who favors same-sex marriage. Such is just not plausible. (This matter is well described in this 7/21 Washington Post article.)

This article just scratches the surface of an extremely important topic, but perhaps it is becoming clear why it can truly be said that because of diversely different plausibility structures, there really are alternative facts.

The Problem with Being a Centrist

Does calling for a radiant center in politics mean that people of good will should be, or seek to be, centrists? Is being a centrist always a positive thing? Is there anything negative about being a centrist? These are some of the questions I began to think about after posting my Feb. 8 blog article and reading the thoughtful comments made about it.

WHY BEING A CENTRIST IS GOOD

Assuming that being in the “radiant center” as proposed in that blog article makes one a centrist, the positive things about such location must be considered.

Centrists are persons who don’t like extremism and want to live in peace and harmony with all people as much as possible. That’s good.

Centrists are persons who want to accept, and be accepted by, people who disagree with them and who promote inclusion over exclusion. That’s good.

Centrists are persons who appreciate and affirm truth, beauty, and goodness wherever it is found, no matter the label or the location. That’s good, too.

WHY BEING A CENTRIST CAN BE BAD

Sometimes being a centrist is not a good thing, however. That is particularly true when, or if, centrality means neutrality in the face of injustice.

In one of his oft-quoted statements, Desmond Tutu said, 

In the 1930s, what benefit was it to the Jews for many (most) Germans to be centrists rather than being on the left opposing Hitler and the Nazi fascists?

In the early 1960s, what benefit was it for many (most) white Americans to be centrists rather than being on the left opposing the Jim Crow laws supported by the segregationists on the right?  

In the 2010s, what benefit was it for many (most) “straight” people to be centrists rather than being on the left supporting the civil rights of LGBT people buffeted by prejudice and discrimination by those on the right?

And looking toward the future, if human habitation on this planet is in jeopardy because of effects of global warming, as it most probably is, what benefit is it for citizens of the world to be centrists rather than being on the left and in vocal opposition to the global warming deniers on the right?

If being a centrist means not taking a stand against injustice and against the mistreatment of people or the environment, then clearly that is not good.

ANOTHER WAY OF BEING A CENTRIST

Soon after posting the Feb. 8 article on the radiant center, I realized that I had mixed metaphors in talking about the center. That realization was partly due to reading Mennonite theologian Ted Grimsrud’s Feb. 7 blog article titled “The Left/Right Schema Must Go” (see here).

Grimsrud stressed the importance of holding to “core values.” This means that the center is the core, not the position between the right and the left on a linear spectrum. This is what Easel Roberts was suggesting, I came to realize, with the image of the merry-go-round—and what I had missed by staying with the right/left schema.

So, moving toward the center, which represents core values, is another way—and a good way—to be a centrist.

But, alas, that doesn’t seem to solve the problem of the division (“polarity”!) so prominent in contemporary society. Why? Because people disagree on core values. For example, conservatives (people on the right) see their opposition to abortion (“killing babies”) to be an immovable core value. But people on the left see women’s reproductive rights (“pro-choice”) as an important core value.

So, being this kind of centrist is also a problem.

Can There Be a Radiant Center in Politics?

“Republicans are moving further Right and Democrats are moving further Left. NEITHER situation makes for a unified country.” That comment on my Jan. 25 blog article was posted by Easel Roberts, a Thinking Friend (TF) with whom I used to attend the same Sunday School class here in Liberty but who now lives in South Carolina.

COMPELLING COMMENTS

Easel is a P.E. (Professional Engineer) who works at GE Renewable Energy, and I value his viewpoint, partly because few of my TFs have the educational background and occupational experience that he has.

In a follow-up email, Easel wrote,

“It is, as if, some cosmic force (media, Facebook, politics, social issues) has put us all on a kid’s merry-go-round. The only answer is ‘I’m right and you are wrong’ and vice versa. There is no meaningful dialogue or debate.

“The ‘forces’ are making the merry-go-round go faster and faster. We are fighting desperately to hold on for dear life to keep from being thrown off. IF we could only get to the center, we could relax because there would be no forces throwing us toward the edge. 

“While certainly not human nature, we need to lead people to the middle OR . . . we will destroy the country by trying to WIN. If Christians, and by extension the church, cannot figure this out, then we truly have no hope.” 

AN AFFIRMING RESPONSE

In my response to Easel’s thought-provoking comments, I said, “In my book The Limits of Liberalism I wrote about the need for a ‘radiant center’ regarding theological issues. Perhaps that is one of the biggest needs politically also.”

Finding such a radiant center, however, is probably more difficult, more elusive, and more unlikely in the political world than in the theological world. Yet perhaps that is a goal, an intention, an aspiration that needs to be given the highest priority.

Over the last couple of weeks I have heard mention of a possible civil war ensuing in the near future. Finding the center is not only essential for Christians (the church) as Easel emphasized, it is essential for the United States as a whole.

THE PERSISTING PROBLEM

The ongoing, persistent problem, though, is this: How could a radiant center ever be formed?

For example, what would a radiant center look like in a society where some people consider all abortion the same as murder and others see abortion as an essential part of “women’s reproductive rights”?

What would a radiant center look like in a society where some people consider same-sex marriage as an abomination contrary to the clear teachings of the Bible and others see it as a necessary part of some people’s civil rights?

What would a radiant center look like in a society where some people consider “illegal aliens,” visitors from Near Eastern countries, and refugees from Syria to be serious threats to the safety and wellbeing of U.S. citizens and others see the welcoming of strangers and suffering people to be an indispensable expression of Christian love or even of human decency?

Perhaps there is no center position on such issues. Perhaps it illusionary to think that there could be a center embracing both “pro-life” and “pro-choice”—although there are those now who are emphasizing that “pro-life” means far more than anti-abortion, and most on the left can agree with that emphasis.

Maybe, though, with a constant emphasis on such things as freedom with responsibility, full acceptance of those who are “different,” justice, compassion, etc., there can gradually be, even in politics, the growth and expansion of a much-needed radiant center.

Saint Teresa: The Good and the Questionable

Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu was given that name at the time of her birth on August 26, 1910. Most people around the world, however, have for decades known her as Mother Teresa.

On September 4, this coming Sunday, during a canonization Mass in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican, Pope Francis will declare Blessed Teresa of Calcutta to be a saint of the Roman Catholic Church.

By many people, though, Mother Teresa has been thought of as a saint for a long time. Back in 1975 the cover story of the December 29 issue of Time magazine was titled “Living Saints.” Mother Teresa’s picture was on the cover of that issue.

As a Protestant, it is not hard to understand the meaning of “saint” in the popular sense, such as that term was used in the Time article. But people being saints in the Catholic sense is a little more difficult—especially when it involves their veneration, which we Protestants sometimes incorrectly think is the worship of saints.

Recently, though, in commenting on the legacy of Saint Maximilian Kolbe, Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson wrote, “The canonization of Kolbe makes me think that the Church’s singling out of certain saints has real value in challenging the rest of us to live our faith.”

Or, as it is sometimes said, saints are special people who by their lives help us to understand God better. Accordingly, by looking at Saint Teresa’s loving service to the “poorest of the poor” in Calcutta we should be able to understand God’s love better.  

When she was 40 years old, Mother Teresa was given permission by the Pope to begin a congregation called Missionaries of Charity. From their small beginning in 1950, that group grew into a large worldwide organization.

Because of their meritorious work, starting in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and then expanding to many countries, Mother Teresa became known around the world. As one indication of how esteemed she became for what had done through the years, Mother Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.

There are some questionable aspects of Mother Teresa’s life and work, however. For example, I have serious misgivings about some things she has said—such as her extreme words opposing abortion. In her Nobel Lecture she declared that “the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion.”

In that speech Mother Teresa went on to assert that abortion “is a direct war, a direct killing—direct murder by the mother herself.”

Highly questionable statements!

Mother Teresa’s greatest strength was the loving service she provided for the sick and the dying who were living in poverty. Perhaps her greatest weakness was lack of action—or even talk—regarding the causes of poverty. She did a marvelous job of taking care of victims; she did little in seeking to reduce the number of victims.

To her credit, in her Nobel Lecture Mother Teresa reported that she and her co-workers were teaching “natural family planning” to “our beggars, our leprosy patients, our slum dwellers.” Elsewhere she claimed that such teaching given to three thousand families was “95 percent effective” (No Greater Love, pp. 127-8).

Still, how many more unwanted pregnancies might she have prevented if she had been willing to teach and provide the means for “artificial birth control”? She could not do that, of course, as a Catholic.

But no one, not even a saint, is perfect, and Mother Teresa did demonstrate great Christian love throughout her lifetime. So please rejoice with me this weekend as Mother Teresa is canonized, publically acknowledged as a saint.

Why Conservatives Christians Will Vote for Trump

The Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority 2016 gathering in Washington, D.C., was held last weekend. I attended that meeting on Friday, and among the speakers was a man you may have heard of: Donald Trump.

You may have even heard or read about that meeting and Trump’s speech there. Among other things, he was interrupted by some protesters, led by Medea Benjamin of Code Pink. (I mentioned her in a blog article back in Nov. 2012; see this link. Here is a link showing what happened on 6/10.) 

The Faith and Freedom (F&F) Coalition was founded by Ralph E. Reed, Jr., in 2009. Reed was also the founder executive director of the now defunct Christian Coalition of America in 1989.

This was the second F&F meeting I have attended, and I wrote about my 2011 visit here. This year’s seemed to be a smaller and less significant meeting than the one five years ago—and this one was co-sponsored by Concerned Women for America, the conservative Christian organization founded by Beverly LaHaye in 1979.

At the “gala dinner” on Saturday evening (which I did not attend for more reasons than one), Mrs. LaHaye, whom I imagine doesn’t want to be called Ms., was awarded the 2016 F&F’s Lifetime Achievement Award. Dr. Ben Carson delivered the after dinner keynote address.

The first principle F&F mentions on its website is “Respect for the sanctity and dignity of life, family, and marriage as the foundations of a free society.” The most common emphases at last week’s meeting was the need to oppose abortion and same-sex marriage—and the use of cross-gender bathrooms by transgender people.

(In his speech on Friday morning, Rep. Louis Gohmert of Texas spoke mostly about the transgender issue—repeatedly saying that transgenderism is a “mental disorder.”)

To his credit, near the beginning of his speech Reed said, “We are Christians first, Americans second, and members of a political party third.” But before he finished it was quite obvious that he thought for patriotic Americans being a Christian and being a Republican were pretty much the same thing.

Reed, who is an excellent speaker and a skillful executive, emphasized that this election is a fight between good and evil. Abortion was his first example of the latter. The second evil he railed against was gay marriage.

He urged support of Trump because of these two issues—and because of the upcoming SCOTUS justice appointment.  

Reed then praised “imperfect people who will work for God’s will to be done.” That idea is highlighted in an online article I recommend: “A Theological Case for Low Expectations.”

Another article, also worth reading, is “Conservative Christian Women Confront Their Doubts on Trump.”

The latter article explains why many conservative Christians are hesitant to vote for Trump. But I am quite confident in predicting that most of them, with perhaps the exception of those who are quite young, will end up voting for him.

Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that they will vote against Hillary and for Trump’s party. They may not like Trump or know if they can trust him, but they know they can trust Hillary—to do the wrong thing.

Hillary will clearly do the wrong thing in their eyes on abortion since she is clearly pro-choice. She will clearly do the wrong thing regarding same-sex marriage and LBGT rights. 

If those are two of the greatest evils in the country, as was repeatedly emphasized at the F&F meeting, how could conservative Christians not vote for Trump?

Is Gov. Huckabee Right?

To be fair, since earlier this summer I wished Sen. Lindsey Graham a Happy Birthday (here), I am now wishing ex-Governor Mike Huckabee a Happy Birthday.

Huckabee celebrated his 60th birthday yesterday, and as I said in the article about Graham, in some places (such as Japan and other Asian countries) one’s 60th birthday is considered especially momentous.

I am writing this, however, mainly to question one of Huckabee’s recent assertions. We all know that he is very much on the political right. But is he right (correct) in all he says about the highly controversial matter of abortion?

During the August 6 Republican presidential debate, Huckabee declared, “I think the next president ought to invoke the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution now that we clearly know that that baby inside the mother’s womb is a person at the moment of conception.”

And then in stringent criticism of Planned Parenthood, he stated, “It’s time that we . . . protect children instead of rip up their body parts and sell them like they’re parts to a Buick.”

The Constitution is quite clear in affirming personal rights: part of the Fifth Amendment states, “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

And Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment says, “No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It is by no means clear, however, when “personhood” begins. How does Huckabee “clearly” know that personhood begins at conception?

If he were a Catholic, he might claim to know that because it is the Church’s dogma. The Catechism of the RCC states, “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person” (2270).

But Huckabee is a lifelong Southern Baptist, and not long before his 16^th birthday the SBC adopted a resolution that expressed support for abortion in cases of “rape, incest, clear evidence severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

In a 1974 resolution, the SBC adopted an official position that “reflected a middle ground between the extreme of abortion on demand and the opposite extreme of all abortion is murder.”

And Foy Valentine, the executive director of the SBC’s Christian Life Commission at that time, was particularly vocal in his support of abortion rights.

I was a SB missionary in Japan in those years, so I was not at the 1971 and ’74 annual meetings of the SBC. But I would, no doubt, have voted for the resolutions had I been there.

What does Huckabee know about the beginning of personhood now that Baptists didn’t know then?

What new scientific, or other, discovery in the last 40 years clearly substantiates the claim that a human zygote or embryo is a person, qualifying for protection under the Constitution?

None that I know of.

Even though I disagree with many (most) of his political and some of his ethical views, I am serious in wishing Gov. Huckabee a Happy Birthday. I affirm the sanctity of his life—and of all persons who have been born, as he was 60 years ago yesterday.

But I still insist that he is not right in his beliefs about when personhood begins.