Graceful Argument

Christian conservatives are often lambasted these days for fixating on abortion and homosexuality, as if we have sexual hang-ups. Tony Campolo has said for years that the Religious Right has “hijacked” the Christian faith over such issues. Yesterday at the National Cathedral, Rick Warren, who said the country needs liberals and conservatives, lamented that Christians still are viewed as only “right wing.” (I'm not quite sure how that is still possible, given that Pastor Warren is arguably the nation’s most prominent evangelical himself.) Such critics point out that the call to discipleship also involves addressing things like environmental stewardship, poverty, and racism. And in that they are right.

But with the persistent push in our culture toward both abortion and homosexual marriage, what would these critics have Christian conservatives do? Earlier this month, Al Gore came out in favor of gay marriage, stating, “Gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women — to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage, and I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage. . ..”

Are we not allowed to answer him? To abondon the argument is to lose the argument. And we have good reasons, beyond Scripture itself. But we must make these arguments as gently and lovingly as possible, never forgetting that how we make our case counts almost as much in today's culture as the substance of our case.

Pastor Warren is calling for a “second reformation” that includes reconciliation in the church. That’s great. Let’s all stop calling each other names and agree to do whatever work that God has called us to ... with grace and truth.

A Hole in Our Holism

Why evangelicals might be shy about sharing their faith.
By Stan Guthrie

Winning the Abortion Wars

Just days before the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we have a new report from the Guttmacher Institute that says the U.S. abortion rate has fallen to its lowest level since 1974. Despite fairly widespread access to the new abortion drug RU-486, the rate now stands at 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women age 15-44 in 2005, down from a high of 29.3 per thousand in 1981. The number of abortions is also down, from 1.6 million in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2005 (the last year for which data are available).

While pro-choice advocates point to a lack of access to abortion providers and the success of comprehensive sex-ed programs as factors in the decline, pro-lifers say state laws have made a difference.

Bill Beckman, director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee, said he sees the national decline in abortion numbers as a victory for anti-abortion efforts.

"A number of states over the last five or six years have enhanced their pro-life laws, such as requirements for informed consent and parental notice," said Beckman. "When those laws take effect, the rate of abortion drops. I think the data they're getting is reflecting that change."

While I'm looking forward to a thorough analysis of the numbers, the answer is probably both/and rather than either/or. I believe that cultural attitudes also are changing, thanks to the persistent efforts (such as the spread of ultrasound machines) of pro-lifers to keep before the American people the undeniable fact that every abortion ends a human life. And these efforts must be working, if even pro-choicer Hillary Clinton concedes that abortion is a "tragic choice."

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Guttmacher study comes on the heels of news that the birth rate is unexpectedly booming in the United States.

An Associated Press review of birth numbers dating to 1909 found the total number of U.S. births was the highest since 1961, near the end of the baby boom. An examination of global data also shows that the United States has a higher fertility rate than every country in continental Europe, as well as Australia, Canada and Japan. ...

Experts believe there is a mix of reasons: a decline in contraceptive use, a drop in access to abortion, poor education and poverty.

There are cultural reasons as well. Hispanics as a group have higher fertility rates — about 40 percent higher than the U.S. overall. And experts say Americans, especially those in middle America, view children more favorably than people in many other Westernized countries.

"Americans like children. We are the only people who respond to prosperity by saying, `Let's have another kid,'" said Nan Marie Astone, associate professor of population, family and reproductive health at Johns Hopkins University.

Fear Itself

We voters just can’t make up our minds. One day it’s Rudy. Then Huck. Hillary. Then Obama. Then Hillary again. Hey, here’s McCain, risen from the political dead!

Certainly one reason we can’t decide is because no one candidate fulfills all of our hopes and dreams. One has experience (sort of). Another has charisma. One speaks of conservative values but has other issues. Another champions those same values but is a . . . Mormon. Some say the only African-American candidate isn’t black enough, or the only woman candidate not womanly enough. They’re like the old commercial . . . everything you always wanted in a candidate—and less.

Another reason for voters’ fickleness is the economy. If you’re not covered at work, private health insurance is unaffordable for all but the wealthy. Gas and milk cost three bucks a gallon. Economic growth appears to be stagnating, and the growing mortgage crisis is hammering the real estate market and home values. Big-screen TVs and other luxury items aside, according to The Two-Income Trap, it generally takes two incomes to match the standard of living that one income provided a generation ago, and many people feel they are in danger of slipping from the ranks of the middle class.

Americans’ priorities are also in flux early into the primary season. The survey found voters to be in their darkest mood about the economy in 18 years, by some measures; 62 percent said they believed that the economy was getting worse, the highest percentage since the run-up to the recession in 1990. Seventy-five percent said they believed that the country had “seriously gotten off on the wrong track,” also similar to levels in the early 1990s, when such discontent fueled the presidential candidacy of Bill Clinton.

Worries about the economy now dominate the voters’ agenda, even more so than the war in Iraq, which framed the early part of this campaign. While change has emerged as an abstract rallying cry in the campaign debate, what the voters mean when they talk about change is clear — new approaches to the economy and the war, according to the poll.

Whatever their personal or policy differences, nearly all candidates are promising “change” in response to consumer angst. Now as the breadwinner in my family, I can understand those fears, and the understandable desire to latch onto someone who promises to fix my financial problems. Sometimes it does feel as if the big corporations have an unfair advantage over consumers, and it feels good for government to “level the playing field.”

However, despite our present economic uncertainty, is all this worry really justified? The statistics, though troubling, are not as bad as the election-year rhetoric: Joblessness, at around 5 percent (up from 4.4 percent a year ago), remains low by historic levels. Adjusted for inflation (up 4.3 percent last year), gas and milk don’t cost as much relative to our rising incomes as they seem to. Those struggling with “subprime” mortgages, though their pain is real, are a relatively minor percentage of the American people. Despite the considerable challenges we face, the American economy remains the envy of the world.

Every generation worries about the economy (remember the “stagflation” of the seventies?), and while no one knows the future with precision, I would guess that we have less to fear than most generations—even if recession comes. There are many other issues we also must consider, such as the war on terror, peace in the Middle East, abortion, the environment, and other priority issues.

Beyond all that, as Christians, we should look at the coming election through the lens of faith, not fear. We are to trust God to provide, not the promises of politicians. As a certain nonpolitical leader once said:

“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

"Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.”

Thus, whatever the economy brings, we are to be busy doing his work—including helping those who really are struggling—trusting him to provide our needs each day.

Christians Attacked in India

By Joseph D’souza

Gladys Staines, the widow of the martyred Australian missionary Graham Staines, wrote to India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with an urgent request on January 1, 2008. She expressed deep concern about terrible persecution of Dalit Christians which broke out on Christmas Eve in the Kandhamal district of Orissa (“Gladys Staines expresses concern over Orissa violence”, The Indian Express, Jan. 1, 2008, http://www.indianexpress.com/story/256457.html). The Prime Minister promised immediate action to restore peace in the area.

But the affected areas still report sporadic violence now, over two weeks since the attacks against Dalit Christians began. The apparition of the gruesome burning of Graham Staines and his two sons in 1999 is being revisited. Hindu fundamentalist groups led by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad have attacked Christians and their institutions at will in rural Orissa. Over 70 churches and Christian institutions have been burned and vandalized, over 500 Christian homes destroyed, and the number of pastors and Christians killed is yet to be known. One report says that eleven pastors have been killed and thousands of Dalit Christians are displaced. Report speaks of many people who are missing and have vanished in the nearby forests.

Time magazine was quick to state that Hindu caste discrimination is one major factor behind the present persecution of Dalit Christians in Orissa (“A Christian-Hindu Clash in India”, Dec. 27, 2007, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1698533,00.html?imw=Y). Large numbers of Dalits have turned to Christianity in the area and their transformed social, educational, and developmental conditions are plainly evident.

The caste ridden Hindu fundamentalist groups find this difficult to digest and made threats and false propaganda against Christian missionaries and humanitarian workers in recent years. Now they’ve resorted to violence to kill, destroy, and intimidate those who exercise free choice and live under the law. Their ideologues publicly raised the issue of conversions again saying that this is the main reason for the violence.

Human Rights Watch and others recognize that freedom of religion –especially in a democracy like India’s – must be respected and have decried the present carnage in Orissa (“India: Stop Hindu-Christian Violence in Orissa”, Dec. 29, 2007, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/12/28/india17668.htm).

Frankly, conversion is the way of revolt taught to the Dalits by their champion and liberator Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, a lawyer educated in the USA, who himself turned to Buddhism. His writings are well known all over India among the Dalits. He clearly called for the Dalits to convert in order to escape caste-based humiliation and discrimination.

The Christian, Buddhist, or any other faith community in India cannot shut the doors to the Dalits who want to turn to a new faith. Under India’s Constitution, Christians and any people of others faiths in India are free to practice and propagate that faith in India. The practice of the Christian faith demands that the Christian church receive all the Dalits that want to follow Christ.

In the Kandhamal area there are about 100,000 Dalit Christians and 500,000 non-Christians and media reports admit that the Dalit Christians have “done well after converting to Christianity” (“Caste, tribe, conversion make Orissa district volatile,” CNN-IBN, Dec. 30, 2007, http://www.ibnlive.com/news/caste-tribe-conversion-make-orissa-district-volatile/55272-3.html). Clearly, a transformation rooted in Christ is offending today’s attackers.

A transformed Christian community becomes a powerful motivator and attractor of all those who are still treated as sub-humans by the caste system in Orissa. Despite the excuses of Hindu fundamentalists, the problem is definitely not improper conversions. Christians are not conducting fraudulent or forced conversions. Instead the inhuman and fraudulent social structure of the caste system stands fully exposed.

Violence against Dalit Christians in Orissa and state-sponsored anti-conversion laws will not stop the conversions into other faiths. Nor will it take care of the decay within the caste-based social system.

Sadly, the state government is not implementing laws that call for severe punishment of those who commit crimes against Dalits. But even worse, it is in the state of Orissa that Dalits cannot go to the main temples because they are considered polluted and will supposedly pollute the temple. It is in Orissa where Dalit girls cannot ride a bicycle through an upper caste village. It is in Orissa where the Scheduled Castes and Tribes eat poisonous roots because of lack of food and imminent starvation. All this in an India which is claiming to be one of the biggest economies and democracies in the world!

The last few weeks of violence have produced a surprise to human rights veterans like myself. An unexpected and new dimension in the persecution of Dalit Christians in Orissa was the involvement of extremist left-wing groups called the Naxalites. These militant Maoists draw many of their members from the Dalit and tribal communities. The Naxalites are blamed for retaliatory attacks against the VHP fundamentalists and the Hindu community in the wake of the violence against Dalit Christians. Reports suggest that this has left about a hundred Hindu families homeless.

My colleagues and I have condemned all forms of extremism, whether Hindu or Christian. But India stands on a precipice of caste discrimination and impoverishment. I pray that we will back away from the ledge of caste-based violence and discrimination and limitations to religious freedom. Only then will India achieve its potential as a super power in the 21st century.

Joseph D'souza is director of the All-India Christian Council.

Those Iowan Evangelicals

Who voted for Huckabee and why.
By Ted Olsen