Natalie Burris

Pro-life evangelicals and prior inconsistent statements

The Gospel Coalition blog recently rounded up some evangelical leaders' calls for civil disobedience. Requiring religious employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception (regardless of who actually pays for it), is effectively forcing pro-life Christians to violate their conscience. These evangelicals claim that some of the drugs to be covered are abortifacients.

Such violation of religious liberty will not stand.  These men, along with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are so concerned about human life that they will not tolerate even the most remote connection to birth control that results in the ending of even the most basic forms of human life.  Innocent, defenseless lives are at stake here.

Chuck Colson says he loves his country, "but I love my God more . . . I've made up my mind---sober as that decision would have to be---that I will stand for the Lord regardless of what my state tells me."  

Rick Warren so bravely proclaimed, "I'd go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that violates what God commands us to do."  

Richard Land and Barrett Duke wrote an impassioned call to Christians to oppose this measure, which is an "affront to all people who are pro-life" (emphasis added).

I'm in my last semester of law school, and have been trained to impeach witnesses up on the stand because of a little something called a "prior inconsistent statement."  Our justice system is so concerned with the credibility of witnesses that we have carved out an exception to hearsay rules, which normally prohibit out-of-court statements, so that those words can be used against witnesses if they make previous inconsistent statements.  Once the witness is confronted with the inconsistency, she is impeached and her word is no longer credible.  

To me, Colson, Warren, and Land have lost credibility based on their prior inconsistent statements about their support of innocent, defenseless human lives and whether they would put the state before their faith in God.

In 2003, when the Bush administration was preparing to pre-emptively invade another country, many evangelical leaders offered their support, or at least helped justify, this military action, which resulted in over 100,000 documented Iraqi civilian deaths.  When allegations later surfaced that the U.S. military was using an especially heinous form of torture on prisoners of war, some evangelical leaders again stepped up to help justify torture.

Chuck Colson reasoned that "if a competent authority honestly believed that [torture] was the only way to get information that might save the lives of thousands, I believe he would be justified."  Yes, this is the same Chuck Colson that you just read about above, who proclaimed that while he does love his country, he wouldn't let his state get in the way of his stand for the Lord.  

Rick Warren, in 2008, performed some post-hoc rationalization for the Iraq invasion, despite the Bush administration's later-disproved reasons for invading in the first place: "whether or not they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is beside the point."  Yes, this is the same Rick Warren who valiantly rails against a government who makes us violate God's commands.

Richard Land stated in 2006 that the Iraq war "was just; I think it was one of the more noble things we've done."  Yes, the same Richard Land who, as we saw above, so passionately protested against government action that is an affront to people who are pro-life.

None of these men offered such an unequivocal statement in support of innocent, defenseless human lives when the U.S. decided to invade Iraq and later sanction torture.  No one called for civil disobedience when reports started pouring in of civilian deaths, or of the U.S.'s best and brightest being blown up by roadside bombs, or of those same best and brightest being driven to suicide once they're home, or of the estimated 900,000 Iraqi women who are now widows.

Such duplicity disgusts me.  I know no one is perfect and that stances change, and I'm certainly not claiming to be perfect.  But such pompous calls for civil disobedience simply make my stomach turn.  I can't help but think of the death and destruction in Iraq that was abetted by some U.S. evangelicals.  The juxtaposition doesn't sit well with me, and I have a feeling it doesn't sit well with many other people in my generation.  

If you want to make valiant, impassioned, public calls to put your faith in God before your obedience to the government, at least be consistent.  Because if not, even an inexperienced law student would have you impeached on the stand in a heartbeat.

Health care v. defense spending

The health care bill (the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act) will cost $1 trillion over 10 years.  However, as the below video illustrates, the proposed defense budget for 2011 is $1.6 trillion - for one year.  The video also shows how 53% of the U.S.'s budget finances the military.  Let's remember this during the presidential debates this year.

 

 

 

And James McGrath shared this great cartoon last week:

Guest post on UnDocumented.tv

What does the usually conservative push for "family values" have to do with immigration?

Would a more compassionate immigration policy support families and family values?

How is the current immigration debate relevant to marriage, children, abortion, and morality?

Check out my guest post over at UnDocumented.tv to find out why!

Warden Burl Cain and evangelicalism's decision for Christ as Master-Signifier

James Minton of the Baton Rouge Advocate kindly let me know of a correction.  Contrary to the Baptist Press report, Thomas Ward sentenced to death for murdering his father-in-law, not his mother-in-law.  Minton's most recent articles on Angola can be found here.

I'm branching off from reviewing David Fitch's The End of Evangelicalism to share a great example of the disconnect that the decision for Christ can cause for evangelicals.  A few weeks ago, Mother Jones published an in-depth report on an 18,000-acre prison in Louisiana, called Angola, and its Southern Baptist warden, Burl Cain: "Among born-again Christians, Cain is revered for delivering hundreds of incarcerated sinners to the Lord—running the nation's largest maximum-security prison, as [the Baptist Press] put it 'with an iron fist and an even stronger love for Jesus.'" 

The vast land of Angola prison previously consisted of five slave plantations.  Although Warden Cain's turnaround of the prison is much-praised by evangelicals (he told his story twice at Wheaton's chapel service while I was there), much like the history of Angola, Cain's prison has an ugly side.  Three-quarters of the prisoners are black and still work the land at Angola.  An exonerated former inmate describes Cain as a warden with "'a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other.' And when the chips are down, Thompson said, 'he drops the Bible.'"  Angola also has three inmates who have been in solitary confinement longer than any other prisoner in the U.S--over 36 years.

Warden Cain tells Baptist Press about his first execution, which spurred him to start his "moral rehabilitation" campaign at Angola:

Thomas Ward had been sentenced to die for murdering his mother-in-law. Cain viewed him as little more than a criminal whom society had ruled should die for his crime. "I didn't worry about what he must have been experiencing in the hours before his death. I didn't go to his last meal, and I didn't share Jesus with him."

When it was time for the court's order to be carried out, Ward's face was a mask of fear as the deadly fluids began flowing his veins. "There was a psshpssh from the machine, and then he was gone," Cain recalls. "I felt him go to hell as I held his hand."

"Then the thought came over me: I just killed that man. I said nothing to him about his soul. I didn't give him a chance to get right with God. What does God think of me? I decided that night I would never again put someone to death without telling him about his soul and about Jesus."

Now, there are five chapels in the prison, the largest with 800 seats, and the inmates themselves are the preachers.  Mother Jones reports that 2,000 inmates have made a decision for Christ since Cain's arrival. Angola has seen a decline in violent crime, rape, drug use, and assaults on prison staff, although many have pointed out that these rates began dropping prior to Cain's tenure.

Angola is a great illustration of the narrowness of the decision for Christ.  Warden Cain, at his first execution, was disturbed that he had not shared his version of the Gospel to which the death-row prisoner could mentally assent.  Cain was less disturbed (or not bothered at all) by the fact that our society kills killers to somehow show that killing is wrong.  

The focus is on individual conversions, without addressing how the whole Gospel can rehabilitate not only prisoners, but the system that incarcerates so many people, mostly poor and African-American.  One out of every 55 Louisiana residents is in prison, the highest incarceration rate in the U.S, and if you count those on probation and parole, the number jumps to 1 out of 26.  The death penalty and harsh treatment of prisoners continue, without any regard for the dignity of human life.  

But never mind the injustices that remain, because individually, many prisoners have made a decision for Christ.  The brokenness of the system that brings these prisoners to Angola in the first place and that perpetuates the cruel treatment once they're at Angola reveals the emptiness of the "decision for Christ" as a Master-Signifer, but nonetheless, evangelicals will continue to praise Cain, produce documentaries, and invite him to speak at conferences and chapels...

Photo credit

Morality and the margins

A recent controversy that erupted in the Chicago area involved a proposal to subject Chicago Housing Authority residents to mandatory drug testing.  The testing would be required for all residents over the age of 18, including the elderly.  The idea is that if residents live in publicly-subsidized housing, the government then has the right to subject those residents to drug testing in efforts to rid these communities of drug use and the violence that often accompanies it.

Opponents of the mandatory drug testing called this proposal humiliating, a slap in the face, and a complete lack of regard for the dignity of these residents.  I agree.  This issue is very nuanced, but I view the desire to subject bodies to the will of a more powerful majority for moral reasons as a complicated, multi-faceted problem in our country.  And I see parallels with anti-abortion efforts and the U.S. military.

The impetus behind the anti-drug, anti-abortion, and military (nation-building?) movements may be noble. No one wants a neighborhood to be ravaged with the problems of drug use and drug trade, and if we can find a home for a child as opposed to terminating a pregnancy, we all win.  As a pacifist, I see no justification for military efforts, but the way I see low-income and minority soldiers used for a "moral" reason reminds me of the drug-testing and abortion controversies.

photo © 2010 ChicagoGeek | more info (via: Wylio)

These are just some unfinished, scattered thoughts I've had lately so please bear with me:  the way that a powerful majority goes about eliminating what they view to be certain wrongs can render a form of violence and dignity-stripping on others.  To subject a group of people to drug testing--including the elderly--simply because they don't have the means to live in non-government-subsidized housing just rubs me the wrong way.  Low-income housing residents are not statistics that must bend to the will of policy-makers.  Fighting for an issue because it will improve our society is great, but that doesn't mean we can deny the humanity and dignity of others in the process.  Imposing your moral will on the bodies of others, without their consent, doesn't seem to accomplish much.

In the same way, these thoughts reflect the struggle that I have with abortion.  Wealthy white males, who are members of the most powerful group in our country, telling women what they can and cannot do with our bodies just doesn't sit very well with me.  That's the feminist me talking.  The Jesus-follower side of me (not exactly opposed to the feminist side, mind you) recognizes that our bodies are new-creation-bringing temples, and are meant to reflect the redemption that was/is/will be wrought in our world.  Part of this new creation is a rejection of the centuries of fallenness that have allowed the powerful to control women's bodies.  Again, while keeping the fetus in mind is a noble goal, it comes across too many times as a denial of (often low-income and minority) women's own humanity and dignity.  The imposition is underlined when rape or incest are involved.

As for the military (again, bear with me here - there's a connection...somehow), Jim Wallis shared an excellent post at Red Letter Christians a few weeks ago.  He wrote that the economic promises that accompany military recruitment come at a high price, especially for low-income young people with few other options:

So far, 1,552 Americans have died in the war in Afghanistan; 11,200 have been wounded. In one study of the 300,000 returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who sought help from Veterans Affairs health centers, nearly 37 percent of those treated for the first time were suffering from mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or alcohol problems. These problems too often result in suicide. During the first half of 2009, more American soldiers committed suicide than were killed in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. In June 2010, an average of one soldier a day committed suicide.  Furthermore, 11 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are unemployed.

Of course, there are very few children of members of Congress, or of finance and business executives, in the military.  Those who run the country are not sending their children to fight the wars they continue to prolong.  Frankly, war is good business for those who run the military-industrial complex that former President Eisenhower warned us about.  Generals always recommend more war because it’s their business.  It gets them promotions and advances their careers.  And they often distort the facts to stay in business — claiming progress in order to justify continued war — when there really is no significant progress at all. Meanwhile, more young people get killed or damaged for the rest of their lives, and the cost for so many innocents is even higher. 

Wallis' last paragraph, although referring to business goals as opposed to moral goals, helps illustrate my point.  There are no wealthy people in government-subsidized housing, in danger of being subject to the latest round of invasive policies.  And there are probably few white people or other members of powerful, majority segments of our society.  Similarly, the Guttmacher Institute recently reported that "the proportion of abortion patients who were poor increased by almost 60%—from 27% in 2000 to 42% in 2008."  In addition, "[g]aps in unintended pregnancy and abortion between poor and more affluent women have been increasing since the mid-1990s."  The lack of family-planning access and education affects low-income communities disproportionately.

Framing these issues in terms of the hegemony imposing its will on a marginalized community makes them appear less like cut-and-dried moral--or even Christian--issues.  What would happen if those in power recognized the humanity in "the least of these" and worked together with them?  Simply forcing what appears to be the most moral solution on the bodies of those who lack political and economic power may hurt more than help.

Thoughts?  Agree?  Disagree?

When sex takes over politics

If you missed Frank Schaeffer's Huffington Post article about the latest in a string of political scandals, I highly recommend you check it out here: Anthony Weiner: Metaphor for How Sexual Selfishness Destroyed the Left's Agenda.

photo © 2011 mario | more info (via: Wylio)

While I don't agree with everything that Schaeffer wrote, he does make a very valid point for those who disagree with the Right.  The Right has established the political talking points and have set the agenda. The Right's obsession with sex, or rather, ridding our country of gay people and outlawing abortion, has forced the Left to address these issues over and over again.  I've often criticized the Right (and the Religious Right) for focusing on homosexuality and abortion at the expense of other issues such as poverty, but I never quite realized that the same phenomenon was happening on the Left as well.  

I don't mean to diminish the importance of reproductive and LGBTQ rights.  In fact, I recently wrote about the importance of taking a stand on these deeply personal issues.  But surely we can find a way to keep two issues from dominating our political discussions.  We are dealing with two--or three?--wars, high unemployment, and an immigration crisis, among other things.  It would be great if those who truly care about working on these issues could, to use a certain political party's pet phrase, "stay the course." Instead, with each election cycle or call to prove political loyalties, the sexual issues take up the most space in the discussion.   

Any other thoughts on Schaeffer's provocative post?

Kindergartners shouldn't have to go through this...

 

Yesterday I heard about this kindergarten teacher who was honored by the government of Nuevo Leon, a northern Mexican state, for her bravery and composure when her classroom was caught in the crossfire of the ever-present drug-related violence in Monterrey.  If you skip to minute 1:12, the actual video begins.  I'm going to assume that even if you can't understand Spanish, this scene will break your heart.  This teacher's heroism transcends any language, as do the blasts of gunshots... I'm amazed that she managed to video this.

Here is a link to the transcript of NPR's (English) report.  Maybe if we see more actual human faces, especially terrified kindergarten-aged ones, the "war on drugs" that is ripping Mexico apart will become a more urgent issue here in the U.S., especially since Americans are the ones fueling this drug trade.

Incompatible

I came across a couple of posts this weekend that highlighted how incompatible and incongruous it is to be an American and a Christian at the same time.  Learning about the contradictory and completely self-serving nature of American foreign policy--American exceptionalism--has been a major factor in my journey to pacifism.

John Harris at Red Letter Christians shares A Humble Obituary for Osama bin Laden.  He does an excellent job of pointing out that American foreign policy is mired in hypocrisy and relativism.  Harris notes that bin Laden, with his Saudi wealth, "became a leader and an organizer in the rebellion against the Soviet invasion.  He would later work with the US government, receiving economic and military assistance to defend the Afghan people against the Soviets."

Bin Laden began to articulate a worldview and formed a network: "In a similar fashion to the conjecture of the Western nations, Al-Qaeda believed in the use of force to conquer its objectives."  

It amazes me that Americans feel justified in the use of force because we are convinced we are right. Guess what - everyone else is convinced they are right too.

Harris points out that, not only has the U.S. provided aid to bin Laden, but we provide $2 billion a year to the Israeli government, mostly in weapons.  We are exporters of billions of dollars in aid and weapons, and we continue with our drones and other military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq (and who knows - some top secret SEALS-only efforts elsewhere?)  But it's okay, because "these people" need freedom and democracy.  Gosh, we might kill a lot of them in the process...but it's justified.  

When all sides are convinced that they have the only correct worldview, and it's perfectly acceptable to use force to ensure this worldview is implemented, we all lose.  Or, as the old saying goes, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.  So, living in a country that has absolutely no problem with directing billions of dollars, thousands of soldiers' and civilians' lives, and a lot of energy toward using force to spread its view of the world is a challenge to a Christian.  

(I say Christian without any qualifiers because, as Michael L. Westmoreland-White points out, “Christian” should automatically mean “pacifist,” but it hasn’t since Constantine’s shotgun marriage of church and empire.)

photo © 2009 Deborah Austin | more info (via: Wylio)

Of course a nation is going to have a self-serving foreign policy, and of course everyone is going to consider their views the most correct.  And every nation will feel they have the right to defend themselves (however, recent U.S. military actions have been much more offensive than defensive).

It would be ridiculous to expect a nation to think otherwise, so the challenge for me comes to a head when I claim to follow Jesus.  His words are damning to U.S. policy:

How am I supposed to truly pray the Lord's Prayer and forgive those who trespass against us, when I live in a country that dropped two atomic bombs, which killed around 200,000 civilians (no one knows the exact death toll because the bombs caused sheer annihilation)?

How am I supposed to truly love my neighbor, when I live in a country that has a military budget this year of $708 billion, while at the same time, 16,000 children die each day from hunger-related causes?

How am I supposed to truly turn the other cheek when my government finds it completely acceptable to kill its enemy rather than bring him to trial -- and 86% of my fellow Americans approve of this decision?

I wish I could live in blissful ignorance and wave my American flag every time the news breaks about the latest victory in the war on terror.  I wish I could simply interpret Jesus' words to apply only on an individual level (they are just as hard to follow on an individual level, unfortunately).  But I can't - I've already taken that red pill.  So I struggle to reconcile this incompatibility...somehow.

Not alone...eight years later

In the spring of 2003, when President Bush authorized the U.S. military invasion of Iraq based on the (later disproved) existence of weapons of mass destruction and a vague connection to the "war on terror," I was a freshman in college and was just scratching the surface of a peace-seeking, more global faith.

Also that spring, I took a class I like to call my "gateway drug" into the "dirty liberalism" I now espouse, called Perspectives.  Sponsored by the U.S Center for World Mission, the goal of the class is to broaden the church's horizons and introduce Christians to the global community. Learning that America and American Christianity are not the center of the world was very eye-opening. 

Thanks to Perspectives, I began to think about what it meant to be "pro-life."  Did it just refer to the sanctity of fetuses, or just Americans? Did it just include Christians? Or only white people?  I also began to explore the ramifications of being a wealthy American Christian, in a position of power and influence, and how this privilege affects the rest of the world, Christian or non-Christian.

photo © 2007 http://maps.bpl.org | more info (via: WylioI was involved with a Baptist group on campus--all very great people who have dedicated their lives to following Jesus--but I felt very alone when the U.S. invaded Iraq.  I felt sick to my stomach, and wasn't sure how Christlike it was to pray only for the troops and to support our President in bombing another country.

I didn't speak up, because I wasn't at the point where I could articulate a pacifist stance.  And I definitely wouldn't have labeled myself a pacifist at that point.  The only option I knew at that time was that God had blessed America and our leaders, and we should trust in them.  I thought that the only truth was "eye-for-an-eye," and that "just war" was the most logical, scriptural solution.  I wasn't aware of any other groups articulating an alternative.  Unfortunately, my disappointment with the American church's complicity in the war(s) eventually led me away from the church for awhile.

Contrasting the Iraq invasion with the reaction to Bin Laden's murder eight years later has been encouraging (as it can be, given the tragic circumstances).  Perhaps part of the reason is that in the spring of 2003, social media was barely existent.  But being connected and more aware that others feel the same way--that violence only produces more violence and the church should speak out against it--is a huge relief.  Jesus really meant it when he said bless those who curse you and love your enemies, and he didn't come as a violent conqueror like most expected, but as an unarmed, subversive lamb.

Many have lamented social media the past couple of days, because everyone has an opinion and can find a Bible verse to support said opinion.  But for me personally, I've seen something positive in this outlet that allows for a cacophony of (often proof-texting) voices: reassurance that fellow Christians are also genuinely trying to follow a consistent pro-life, peace-loving ethic.  And knowing that many Christians do not equate their United States citizenship with their participation in the Body of Christ is uplifting.

I don't feel so alone anymore...and hopefully those who are just starting down the path of a more global, enemy-loving, unarmed, subversive Christianity won't feel so alone when they see their fellow Americans and Christians cheering the murder of a human being.

Read this now!

photo © 2006 jpo | more info (via: Wylio)

 

We are covering the death penalty in my criminal law class, so I decided to read a lengthy article in the New Yorker about a man in Texas who was sentenced to death, but who maintained until the end that he was innocent.  The piece is pretty long, but worth a read: Trial by Fire.  It is also extremely sad.  I really hope we can see changes soon with this system...