An Open Letter to the signers of the "Pro-Life" Open Letter to Lawmakers

An alarm goes off.   I wake up.  I put my feet on the floor.  I go into the bathroom and take a shower.  I get dressed.  I go downstairs, make coffee, prepare my lunch for the day, then make my breakfast.  I eat my breakfast.  I read my Bible or watch a video or simply sit quietly contemplating various matters or praying.

I finish my breakfast, take care of my dishes, brush my teeth, and leave my house.  This often involves me putting on my home alarm.  It definitely involves me locking my door as I leave.

Note what happened here: I engaged in approximately 16 volitional acts before walking out of my door.

Yes, the act of an abortion frequently contains its own significant psychological punishment.  I had a friend who confessed to me he and his then girlfriend had, at one time, procured an abortion, and he (not just her) was still feeling the overwhelming guilt the act had engendered in him. Feeling that guilt, shame, and emotional trauma does not mean, however, a woman who procures the death of her baby has no culpability.  She has to take numerous steps before she gets the abortion clinic (or obtains an abortion pill prescription) and, even upon arrival, remains in control of the decision until right before it happens (or until she takes the pill).  To argue “women are victims of abortion” as the “Open Letter to Lawmakers” signed by numerous pro-life agencies does, is not correct. 

I am not in favor of significant criminalization for a woman who has an abortion.  The emotional impact is often enormous and gut wrenching.  But if I happen to have a certain blood alcohol level, even though it isn’t truly impacting my driving, and I’m involved in a traffic accident where I inadvertently strike a pedestrian and kill them, I can be held accountable and may be found guilty of the felony of involuntary manslaughter.  This is true no matter what my motives, or my lack of intent, or even if I’ve never been intoxicated before in my life.  In addition, I will feel the guilt of that death the rest of my life.  No one would reasonably refer to me as a victim.

There is an irony that because my BAC in the prior example is 0.081 instead of 0.079 I am suddenly deemed a potential felon, despite having no intent to harm whatsoever, whereas some within the current evangelical intelligentsia seem to think a woman who has taken active steps to intentionally procure someone else’s death has no culpability.  Just because someone feels guilty and badly about doing something awful doesn’t turn them into a victim.  Just because someone has listened to bad advice or had their conscience seared by popular culture doesn’t absolve them of responsibility for their actions.  A woman who procures an abortion has to take numerous volitional steps to get there and should have some consequences for killing her child.  Laws can be written to take the circumstances of the abortion into account in order to make the punishment fit the crime, should a woman procure an illegal abortion.

Treating a woman who has had an abortion as merely a victim (regardless of the legality of the abortion) is, oddly and ironically, stripping her of dignity, rather than helping her – much like the person who acts as an enabler to someone else’s addiction or other bad actions.  The open letter to lawmakers proclaims abortion is evil.  A willing participant in an evil should repent of it.  Forcing the woman to account for what she’s done beyond simply acknowledging her pain is not merely appropriate but necessary for her to recognize the moral indecency of her actions and repent of them.  If she’s just another victim, then she has no moral obligations and therefore no repentance to make.  Failing to permit her to repent by telling her she is just as much a victim and has no accounting for it whatsoever fails her in a most egregious way.  Frankly, this is as equally despicable as simply labeling her a murderer and acting as if she deserves no sympathy or concern.

The ”victim” position is out of touch with Scripture, as well.  Jesus told the invalid at the pool of Bethesda and the woman caught in adultery to “sin no more.” (John Ch. 5 and John Ch. 8).  Should not the woman who has procured an abortion, which the letter labels as an evil, be told to “sin no more?”  Isn’t the whole point of repentance the relief of placing that burden at the cross where it can be properly and permanently dealt with?  The letter’s position is taking this joy away from a woman who has had an abortion.  Does God not know what’s best for her?  The letter claims to be a Christian response – frankly, I’m not sure the signers have fully considered the good it often does for someone to face outside consequences of their sinful behavior. 

Perhaps there is another possibility?  First, if a woman procures an illegal abortion, both she and the other participants in the abortion (including the man who got her pregnant) should face legal consequences.  This does two things.  First, it provides a disincentive since it’s illegal.  While not everyone responds to legal restraints, many do.  That’s why our country is not completely lawless.  Most people obey the law out of fear, out of respect, or out of self-preservation.  But they obey.  So while it’s true laws don’t stop people from doing what they want (it’s illegal in every state in the United States to commit murder, but murders still happen), for many people the cost/benefit analysis of committing the crime typically weighs against the crime.

Second, it creates an incentive for people to exercise some restraint and forethought.  If I know I’m prone to letting my temper get out of control but I don’t want to ever kill anyone, I may well decide to avoid carrying around a weapon that will make it easier for me to kill someone.  The same would be true for abortion.  There are women who will decide not to engage in risky sexual ventures because the idea of becoming pregnant and possibly needing an illegal abortion outweighs the value of the sexual encounter.  There are men who will decide it’s not worth it to take the gamble, as well.

Third, if the punishment for the abortionist is significantly higher than that for the woman and other abortion procurers (husbands, boyfriends, parents, etc.) that will create significant disincentives for health care providers to offer such services.  I would urge voluntary manslaughter (a very serious felony) or higher for the abortionist and some non-felony offense for the woman and others involved in procuring the abortion (heavy on fines, modest or no jail time, lengthy probation, and significant community service). 

I know this scheme will infuriate many.  Offer other solutions.  I’m just trying to get a reasoned conversation started.  Clearly, the “pro-life” movement isn’t willing to have the conversation at all.  Denny Burk Appealing to Southern Baptists.

 

 

What the SBC Can Learn from Frank Herbert - Author of the Dune Books

“I mean to disturb you!” The Preacher shouted.  “it is my intention.  I come here to combat the fraud and illusion of your conventional, institutionalized religion.  As with all such religion, your institution moves toward cowardice, it moves toward mediocrity, inertia, and self-satisfaction.”  Quote from Frank Herbert’s The Children of Dune.

These words were written in 1976.  Perhaps Southern Baptists ought to take (have taken?) notice.

The convention is in trouble. 

The ERLC signed on to a brief before the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals written by the Thomas More Society that egregiously mangled the SBC’s polity.  Russell Moore, then ERLC president, shortly before the 2021 convention had two of his letters released (presumably at his request or at least with his sanction) having the intended effect of insuring Mike Stone would not be elected as SBC president.  In the meantime, Moore resigned from his post and never faced folks at the convention itself.  I don’t want to hear the word courage from Russell Moore’s pen or mouth ever again . . .

Ed Litton, our current president was caught in a plagiarism scandal of epic proportion.  It was so bad he or his church took down approximately 140 sermons that had been available for public consumption.  At least a couple of our seminary presidents actually condemned plagiarism but the ensuing and rather bizarre arguments from Litton supporters was, if not downright disturbing, certainly cause for concern.  Regardless of what kind of “guy” Ed Litton is, a secular head of any significant organization caught in this kind of scandal would have been pilloried by all concerned and forced to resign.  Instead, Ed Litton continues on, claiming he’s been forgiven.  As I’ve been taught repeatedly during my life: forgiven doesn’t mean no consequences.  The term tone-deaf  comes to mind when considering his unwillingness to resign.

The recent attorney client privilege waiver issue highlights another difficulty.  Although I think the motion to investigate the EC’s handling of sex abuse claims was poorly drafted and the concerns regarding waiver should have been more carefully vetted, that’s not the worst part of this matter.  The worst part is the smug, self-righteous, and sanctimonious demands from theologians who know nothing about legal matters with sloganeering like “what do you have to hide.”  The tenor of the comments from the holier-than-thou crowd sounded like a series of David French tweets.  One can actually be FOR helping sexual abuse victims while at the same time being FOR careful consideration of legal actions that could have unintended consequences.

This doesn’t even get into the many and myriad other matters facing the SBC.  There is, without question, a vein of wokeness infiltrating throughout.  Various leaders frequently take positions regarding race, poverty, and other social issues that sound more like garden-variety social justice talking points than biblical commands to be followed.  We’ve learned the Bible actually only “whispers” about sexual sin (despite passages like Romans 1:24 – 27).  We’re back to debating whether women can serve as pastors, despite the 2000 BFM and we’ve got high profile SBC personalities Beth Moore and Russell Moore (not related) making “noisy” exits from their SBC churches.  Even the estimable Dr. R. Albert Mohler is finding himself trying to navigate through perilous waters as his running for SBC president in 2021 compromised his ability (and willingness?) to discuss Ed Litton’s travails.  He did finally discuss this matter with words indicating he was quite troubled by it.  Add to this concerns about how NAMB is operating as it appears to allow church plants with women pastors, has encouraged at least one new plant to operate with SBC funding but without specifically identifying as SBC (I won’t name the church for reasons I may describe at another time), and it used funds to have Ed Litton essentially do campaign stops, as well as making sure NAMB personnel got to the Convention to attempt to get Litton elected as SBC president.  NAMB’s curious use of funding has been documented elsewhere, so I won’t say more now.

Here’s the fundamental problem.  Frank Herbert’s preacher is preaching to us.  Right now. Our institutions have become governed by money.  As a result, they’ve been corrupted.  Yes, I am aware things cost money and agree we should steward our resources wisely.  But we’ve lost our way.  Institutions have a way of becoming bureaucratic and bureaucracies have a way of creating turf and turf has to be protected and protection of turf often becomes paramount over any other virtue.

All around Southern Seminary’s campus are signs that say it’s about the truth.  I have to believe that means biblical truth first and foremost.  I’m aware of the mantra “all truth is God’s truth” but do we not hold that the Bible is primary truth?  In other words, to paraphrase Yoda from Star Wars fame, all truth flows from the Bible.  Yes, 1+1=2.  Yes, New Hampshire is closer to the North Pole than Florida.  But Genesis 1:1 says that God put all this together and John Chapter 1 and Colossians tell us that Jesus holds it together.  (I have a theory that Jesus IS gravity, but I’ll write another post sometime to talk about that one).

So, what now for the SBC?  Well we’ve become so thoroughly institutional in our handling of things that we’ve moved towards cowardice, mediocrity, inertia, and self-satisfaction.  We’ve become a corporate religion, filled with CEO’s who manage churches, and presidents and boards that manage our institutions. Don’t get me wrong, organizations require leadership. But 70+ people on the Executive Committee? Dozens on the boards of trustees for the seminaries?  When you have that many people you don’t get good decision making, you get inertia.  You avoid risk.  Group-think becomes the most likely result.  You become pragmatic and get dogmatic about being pragmatic.

Why did the EC attorney/client waiver caused such a dust up?  Because some on the EC had the actual nerve to push back and suggest this needed more of a look before rushing in.  Ironically, those who believe the need to investigate the EC handling of sex abuse is priority one in the SBC are actually those who have faith in the institutions.  Why do we trust some outside, secular organization to investigate a Christian group?  Because we have come to run the SBC the way the world runs things.  To venture outside of this programmatic methodology is to commit the sin of . . .  well the sin of not trusting . . . who?  The SBC President?  The EC president? Seminary presidents?  A theme starts recurring and it’s an extra-biblical one. 

The SBC is simply corporate America.  Oh, we’re not Facebook or Google but we care an awful lot about rules and about the watching world and about making sure the precious money train keeps a rollin’.  We care more about so-called “gospel issues” than we do about the gospel itself.  We pillory efforts like going door to door to talk with others as not practical or workable or meaningful.  What, as if NAMB spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on de facto parsonages is a meaningful means of spreading the gospel?  As the cartoon Pogo lamented many years ago: we have found the enemy and it is us.

The gospel appears to be something of a casualty in all this.  We have, I think, become a fully institutionalized religion.  It’s sad that Frank Herbert had a clearer understanding of reality than our SBC leaders.

 

Gruden and the Carnage to Come

 

Jon Gruden has resigned as the coach of the Las Vegas Raiders, a professional football team.  Why? Because over the past several years he wrote some emails that contained allegedly racist language and language denigrating the NFL commissioner and then Vice President Biden.  He used what have been labeled misogynistic and homophobic words as well.  Per the NFL, no other significant instances of such language were found among the 650,000 emails which it has scoured.

I don’t condone the language Gruden used.  But . . . yes, there is a but . . .

As an example of the . . .  but . . . some guy named William Rhodden, writing at the Undefeated (here: Gruden is Gone ) exemplifies the kind of exaggerated and predictable response to these sorts of events.  Rhodden suggests there has been an “avalanche” of emails showing how racist, homophobic, bigoted, and misogynistic Gruden is and that his “enablers” in the NFL all need to be outed and publicly flogged, too.  More importantly, per Rhodden, this handful of emails exemplifies the entire culture within the NFL (“trust me” he says).

I have a suggestion for Mr. Rhodden: release all of your emails for the past ten years, including all private emails you thought were between you and friends.  All of them.  I wonder if you ever said anything in one of those emails that might be construed as less than cordial.  Then I’ll “trust” you. Mr. Rhodden won’t because there is a religious fervor to this nonsense – and he is one of the priestly class of holier-than-thou commentators to whom obeisance is required.  Proof is not part of his calling – ironically, the demand here is one of faith and blind acceptance, not reason and thoughtful analysis.

The so-called avalanche Rhodden relies on to claim Gruden deserved what he got is apparently a handful of emails. It turns out this was it.  The sum total.  Monday morning quarterbacking by talking heads from ESPN (where were they all these years when Gruden was supposedly being such a monster?) and other venues is not only questionable, it’s downright hypocritical. This is standard cancel-culture stuff: write a handful of bad tweets or emails that become public and you’re a goner, case closed, no matter what you or anyone else says and no matter that some of it was ten years ago, and no matter anything else you’ve ever done in your life. 

How about the following possibility: Jon Gruden is a foul mouthed and arrogant jerk who uses that kind of language because he’s a foul mouthed arrogant jerk.  We refuse to ever believe there is any viable, alternative explanation to people’s use of language – if someone utters a racist statement it’s because that person has always been and inevitably always will be a racist and racism is so pervasive in our society it’s shocking the entire world hasn’t crashed into a pit of unrelenting despair.

I don’t know Jon Gruden (and 99.9999% of you don’t either).  My sense from limited observation and some very limited insider information is that he is a standard football coach who cares about one thing and one thing only: winning football games.  If you can help Jon Gruden win football games, I seriously doubt he cares about your ethnic background, your skin color, your sexual preferences, what you call yourself, what religion you practice or any other feature you may actually have or claim you have.  If you’re a 6 foot 7, 330 behemoth who can move like a ballerina and you claim you’re actually a woman in a man’s body, but you can pancake defensive linemen at the snap of a finger, I suspect Jon Gruden won’t care and you will be his starting left tackle.

Don’t misunderstand me – I’m NOT in agreement with the things Jon Gruden said, nor do I think they were appropriate, wise, or decent.  I’m NOT defending his words.  Where I am not on board is with the idea that one can glean from a handful of emails (or one), written about a very specific topic under very specific circumstances, the nature of a person’s heart and character for all time. 

The faux outrage is absurd. It’s very likely that anyone who’s written more than a handful of emails, texts, tweets, Facebook or other social media posts, or actual written letters hasn’t at some point used wording they’d like to take back.  Moreover, the idea that mean things said by Jon Gruden in the past point to the overwhelming existence of systemic and unremitting racism in the NFL is not merely stupid, it’s demeaning to everyone in the NFL, regardless of skin color, who has worked for years to remove racism as much as possible.  It says to those folks: nothing you’ve done was of any value and it hasn’t mattered at all.  Might as well have never bothered you pathetic losers.

There was a time in the NFL when a black quarterback was simply not possible.  There was a time in the NFL when a black head coach was unthinkable.  There was a time in the NFL when a black general manager was a pipe dream.  All those things have come to pass and the NFL has not only remained the most popular sport in America but has actually grown during that time.

Does that mean the NFL is perfect?  Of course not.  Does that mean the NFL can’t continue to work on race relations?  Of course not. 

But a few emails from a potty mouth, arrogant jerk like Jon Gruden doesn’t mean the NFL is a cesspool of unmitigated racist horrors, either.  Claiming this to be the case and demanding the “outing” of Gruden’s “enablers” as if Gruden was sitting at his keyboard grinding this stuff out minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day is nonsense.  The scary part of all this is that the people making these demands, like Mr. Rhodden, have had their victory and will now move on to the next victim, indifferent to the carnage they leave behind.  They will never be satiated, they will never stop, and they don’t care who they hurt in the process.