Why Pro-Lifers Should Compromise on Abortion Policy

Posted on September 8, 2022 by Scott

Pro-life abortion justice — CONTEMPLATION OF JUSTICE – from the US Supreme Court building, sculpted by J E Fraser. (Manipulated photo used with permission: Matt H. Wade: CC-BY-SA-3.0 ).

I’m going to present to you a rationale for compromising on pro-life public policy from a biblical perspective. It’s a rationale I don’t recall hearing in my 40 something years as a conservative evangelical pro-life person. If you consider yourself to be pro-life, I’d like to hear what you think.

First, I should probably give you my pro-life creds. It was during my art college years, (1978 – 1982), that I first thought much about abortion as a social and human rights issue. I was smack in the middle of the religious right push to rally the church around the issue of abortion during the late 70s. The works of Dr. Frances Schaeffer, (now deceased), and his angry son Franky, (now an ex-evangelical), were highly influential for me.

For several years I regularly picketed my local Planned Parenthood clinic, as well as an occasional independent abortion clinic. During the “Summer of Mercy” (1991) organized by Operation Rescue, I was arrested along with a group of other pro-life activists at that same Planned Parenthood for a planned, peaceful act of civil disobedience. By design, we were dragged, one by one, to a paddy wagon and put in jail for locking arms and sitting quietly in front of the entrance of the clinic.

So I got to see the pro-life movement up close. I had a lot of invigorating conversations with pro-lifers of differing backgrounds from mine, as well as with the ever-present counter-protesters. I had a life-changing conversation that I still remember with a brilliant young woman from Feminists for Life. I still smile at the memory of two blonde, articulate, regular female protesters, who had a commanding presence and were always joined at the hip, and whom the counter- protesters nicknamed “the Barbie Dolls from Hell.”

I got to see first-hand that the oft repeated media accusations against pro-lifers are not true: accusations that pro-lifers don’t care about life once it is out of the womb. That pro-lifers don’t care about women. That the pro-life movement is driven by men, and so on. These were compassionate people who lived out their convictions.

I tell you all of this to show that I have been ardently pro-life for my entire adult life, and continue to be so. I believe that upholding a belief in the sanctity of human life for all people is good for all people. (No, I am not in favor of capitol punishment, btw.)

I know the pro-life arguments around the hard cases regarding abortion – life of the mother, rape and incest, and severe fetal deformity/disease.

The proposed exceptions

These exceptional cases bring us to the question of compromise. Since the overturning of Roe, mainstream pro-life organizations have been speaking of “an abortion free America” and “a total ban on abortion.” I understand where they’re coming from. If abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, which it demonstrably is, then there can’t be room for compromise.

But, what if God thinks otherwise?

Evangelicals believe in a God who is love (1 Jn 4:16), a God who “is light and in Whom there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1:5), a God who created male and female as equals in His image (Gn 1:26,27), Who “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they should repent” (Ez 18:23, 32; ch 33:11), who created the ideal of lifelong, faithful, monogamous, marriage (Gn 2:23-25; Mt. 19:3-6).

So, hypothetically, if such a God were to deliver a body of public policy to a nation of people, He wouldn’t compromise on what He knows to be right, would He?

Except that, if you think about it, that’s exactly what he did when he delivered the 10 commandments and the Torah to the Hebrew nation under Moses. The Torah contains several concessions. Jesus spells one out here: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” He’s explicitly allowing a concession around a right and good ideal because of mans’ brokenness.

I contend that the Torah is not an expression of God’s ideal. The ideal expression came with Jesus and the New Covenant – you have heard it said…but I say to you: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Hold on to that particular thought for a moment.

This idea is not widely understood. I get flak for this all the time in my conversations with atheists and “skeptics.” In the Torah they think they see God condoning male sexism, slavery, xenophobia, and genocide. If God is so good, they say, then why did He hand deliver such an inferior body of law to His people? The Freedom From Religion Foundation could do better than that. Supposedly.

Well…why would a compassionate, holy, and just God compromise His standards with fallen people?

I’m sure the answer is multi-faceted, but the obvious one to me is that the Hebrew nation couldn’t have handled a higher standard, so God gave them a low bar. If God were to remain just, demanding obedience to the highest bar would’ve wiped the Hebrews out. Can you imagine – “if you even look at a woman to lust after her you are liable to judgment”? Not committing adultery was at least possible for them. As it was, the nation failed miserably to obey God’s Torah for much of its history, even given a law containing concessions.

Before Moses and the Torah, the Hebrew nation was enslaved for 400 years to an idolatrous nation that served a pantheon of gods. This was all Moses’s generation had known apart from whatever slivers of oral tradition around YHWH may have survived within the enslaved population. The Hebrew people who received the Torah from God were unregenerate, were not born again, did not have the Spirit of God dwelling within them. That would all come later when Jesus would eventually establish a better covenant, a better salvation, and a better kingdom based on better promises, and a better torah. (“Torah” literally means “instruction.”)

This is my rationale for compromise today. Let’s apply it to abortion policy in America.

I believe the pro-life position to be correct and good. It’s certainly best for innocent life in the womb, but also arguably for women and society as a whole. But we are now charged with coming up with public policy that must apply to a diverse population of people, many of whom do not hold to a pro-life ethic. Furthermore, law demands compliance, and consequences for failure to comply. I’m arguing that we need to set the bar lower than “an abortion-free America.”

In my opinion, post Roe, abortion should be allowable in 3 exceptional cases. In each of these cases, the mother will have had no say in some aspect of her pregnancy. Therefore, compromise is justifiable. Let’s look at each case.

When the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother

This one is a no-brainer. Abortion has always been allowed to save the life of the mother, and pro-life groups argue that this is still the case today, post-Roe, in every state despite what some media claim. The pro-life position has never been that the life of a developing fetus takes precedence over the life of the mother, but that the rights of both should be considered.

In cases of pregnancy resulting from rape and/or incest

I understand the pro-life arguments against abortion in this case – that the resulting new life is not at fault; that two wrongs don’t make a right, and so on. I have a friend who describes himself as “the product of a rape.” He has a lovely family now and is happy to be here.

Nonetheless, the reality is that if a woman can be forcibly made pregnant, and then by law cannot terminate that pregnancy, then we truly are mandating forced pregnancy. I don’t see justice for the woman in that. For those women who choose to carry such pregnancies to term for the sake of the developing baby inside of them, they are remarkable human beings choosing extraordinary compassion and self- sacrifice. But I think it is too much to ask that women should have no choice in such a situation.

In cases of severe fetal deformity/life threatening disease

Again, I understand the arguments. But again, I think forcing compliance is asking too much of women who do not agree with those arguments. There are a number of fetal diseases that usually result in the death of a developing baby before, during, or shortly after birth.

I have supported and watched a mother who is very close to me carry a baby diagnosed with trisomy 18. We all hoped and prayed for a miracle. She carried the baby for 20 weeks, and then delivered a stillborn son. I watched her and her husband humanize and dignify this baby’s short life by naming him, holding him after birth, weeping over him, and eventually scattering his ashes in the mountains. I think what she did was amazing, right, and beautiful – tragic though it was.

This woman had a supportive husband and extended family in addition to her faith and pro-life convictions. But I think it is too much to ask to force all women, even those who may not believe in miracles or who may be in difficult circumstances, to comply with a total abortion ban in cases like this.

Conclusion

I am not advocating compromising one’s own pro-life position here. The question here is about setting a lower bar regarding public policy for the diverse, general population. Kinda like God did with the Hebrews. Allowing abortion in these difficult situations does not require abortion for those who hold to an uncompromising pro-life ethic. It does not militate against a culture of life. It does seek to balance the interests of girls and women with the interests of their developing offspring.

There is nothing else like pregnancy in terms of what it requires of an individual. An unplanned pregnancy in and of itself is a life-altering undertaking, even without abusive or life threatening circumstances surrounding it. Few woman would choose a life-threatening pregnancy, non-consensual sex, or a life-threatening diagnosis for her developing offspring. While it is indisputable that a new human life begins at conception, it is a justifiable compromise that women have the option to end a pregnancy in these situations.

I am very interested in hearing your comments below.

(Here is the link to my new rebuttal video to, “The History of Abortion,” in case you missed it):
https://youtu.be/JLvniDOrQgo

Going Forward, One Word Should Be Part of Any Discussion on Sex and Gender

Posted on July 13, 2021 by Scott

I won’t make you wait for it. The word is Transhumanism.

This is a revolution that no one is talking about. Where are the news media and where are the “experts” on this? We should be having a national discussion around whether we even want to be on board with the dubious idea of transhumanism, and, for those who do, how they should cautiously proceed. Instead we are barreling down the transhuman highway with the windshield painted fuchsia.

What is Transhumanism? (Abbreviated as H+)
Transhumanism is a philosophical movement opining that we can and should overcome the natural biological limitations of humanity by means of science and technology. Some transhumanists envision enhancing human longevity and cognitive abilities to the degree that humans become “posthuman” creatures.

H+ stems from an evolutionary worldview. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, if one believes in a mindlessly and accidentally evolved universe, that we should intelligently direct the course of our own evolution now that we have the means to do so.

Here’s an illustrative quote from one transhumanist:

We believe it is our basic human right to be able to upgrade ourselves, and to develop and leverage the fundamental technologies that enable the next phase of evolution. We believe the future of the human race will not only allow us to opt out of nature’s selective processes and choose our own evolutionary paths, but that our very survival as a species depends on it. These beliefs are the cornerstone of Transhumanism. (Amal DT Graffstra).

To clarify, H+ is not the use of science and technology to restore the body’s natural functions or to facilitate healing. That is the role of traditional medical science. Nor is H+ the use of technology to restore disfigurement, or even to enhance one’s physical attractiveness. That is the role plastic/cosmetic surgery. Rather H+ seeks to transcend our natural human limitations and engineer an improved humanity.

The issue here is not science vs anti-science. The issue at hand is around what should be the legitimate role of science and technology.

Transhumanism is already here
My guess is that most people don’t recognize the revolution for what it is because, if we’ve thought about it at all, we think of transhumanism as a futuristic, sci-fi fantasy. And it’s true that we aren’t yet capable of brain-machine interfaces, or mastering the aging process. But there is a sub-category of transhumanism that is not waiting for the future. That sub-category is called postgenderism.

Postgenderism seeks to use science and technology to create a world where human beings are free from the “harmful constraints” of the traditional binary concept of gender:

Postgenderism is an extrapolation of ways that technology is eroding the biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies… Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without “mothers” and “fathers,” and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction… Postgenderists do not call for the end of all gender traits, or universal androgyny, but rather that those traits become a matter of choice…
(Beyond the Gender Binary, Dvorsky and Hughes, 2008).

Notice that like H+, and as a sub-category of H+, postgenderism:
1) is a utopian endeavor,
2) seeks to override or transcend natural human limitations.
3) employs science and technology to carry out its aims

To be charitable, H+ and it offshoot, postgenderism, hope to improve the human condition and relieve human suffering, including “psychic suffering”. But the crucial question is, “Does it, can it, and will it deliver?” I think we have reason to be very concerned about the answer.

From the standpoint of a biblical worldview, the fundamental problems with the human condition are beyond that which science and technology can fix. It is indicative of human arrogance to assume we can improve upon our natural humanity through technological means.

Present day examples of H+/postgenderism
If it seems like a stretch to believe that H+/postgenderism is here, think about what is routinely happening today in the field of human sexuality. I should state that I am not a medical professional of any stripe, but as a layman, three current examples with which we are all now familiar come to mind:

1) Abortion-on-demand – Consider this through the lens of postgenderism. Abortion-on-demand is now non-negotiable for modern feminism because, to the feminist mind, human biology renders men and women “unequal.” The possibility of abortion access erases the inequity that nature imposes upon women, thus making gender at least somewhat less relevant. In the feminist mind, without abortion, natural female biology is seen as a form of slavery; a social injustice; a limit on female autonomy. If planning and/or contraception fail, abortion allows women to overcome their biological limitations – thus abortion qualifies as a crude H+ half measure until the development of the artificial womb.

Note that elective abortion falls outside the parameters of healing medicine: pregnancy is not a disease. A developing embryo is not an invasive parasite. A fetus is not a tumor. Elective abortion exists in America for ideological reasons. For the immediate future, the cutting edge of the abortion industry seeks a “safe” abortive chemical solution, making abortion access less dependent on invasive surgical procedures and more widely available.

2) Hormone therapy and puberty blocking drugs – Researchers have learned some of the mechanics of how hormones work, and why males and females develop the way they do. We can now appropriate technology to artificially delay puberty, and to alter the body’s natural processes to create secondary sexual features like facial hair and breasts. Transgender individuals are appropriating this technology to bring their bodies into alignment with their psychical identity.

Whether or not this is a good idea is another conversation. My point here is that it is undeniable that such chemical therapy is now commonplace, and it falls squarely under the agendas of H+/postgenderism – it is the use of science and technology to transcend one’s natural physiology for conceptual reasons.

3) Sex reassignment surgery – Surgically altering healthy, functioning sex organs is an extreme procedure from which there is no going back, practically speaking. Doing so for ideological reasons is a clear example of H+/postgenderist practice.

In my non-expert opinion, I would concede that there are a number of developmental sexual abnormalities for which such therapy and surgeries would arguably constitute a legit medical fix. But for purposes of this discussion it is the H+/postgender vision of a society where gender is considered to be a fluid, non-binary, matter of choice for everyone, including children, that I’m concerned with.

Why does this matter for you?
Progressive ideologues are imposing H+/postgenderism onto the culture under the guise of justice and equality. We are told that the changes around gender ideology are simply the next, inevitable stage of the civil rights movement. So compassionate people cannot disagree with what is happening. You want to be a compassionate person, don’t you? This is all about minimizing suffering.

Perhaps this all seems to have come from out of nowhere to you. Like an accidental explosion at the cotton candy factory, sending sticky wisps of rainbow-colored spun sugar down on us all. What I would like the reader to consider is that these societal changes have been inspired by “progressive” political ideology, and they have been in the making for decades. One can map the progress.

I am unequivocally on board with compassion, fairness, equality, and minimizing suffering, but the changes stemming from gender ideology are not some inevitable next stage in social progress based on scientifically informed reason. They are changes stemming from the opinions of ideologically driven activists. No one should feel pressure to get on board.

This is about authority
The point of this article is not so much to convince those with whom I disagree of the rightness of my position. My point is to amplify the logical consequences of two differing worldviews in the interest of enabling people to make informed choices.

This is ultimately about authority. Transhumanism and postgenderism stem from a specific set of beliefs about the universe. If one believes that we exist as a result of purposeless, accidental, evolutionary processes, then natural law and human biology carry little weight. They simply exist, for no authoritative reason. We are free to take control of the reigns and to direct our destiny as we see fit. On paper, at least, there is little to prevent us from creating our own reality.

But a lot of ideas sound good on paper. Car alarms and self-flushing toilets, for example. Nevertheless, whether we like it or not, human brokenness always gets in the way of utopia in this present age.

By contrast, followers of Jesus embrace a different set of beliefs about the universe. We believe that objective, divine authority actually exists; that it always has, and it always will. The gospel of Matthew quotes Jesus’s last statement to His disciples:

“All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me…”

That’s an extravagantly bold statement coming from a figure who is universally regarded as being a good teacher. Followers of Jesus are bound to believe it. Jesus and His disciples also made definitive statements about gender, marriage, family, the innate value of human life, and the unreliability of the human heart. These statements are simply not compatible with H+/postgenderism.

An “upgrade” for humanity is indeed coming, but according to Jesus and His disciples it will come from the Author of Life, not from our own H+ biohacking. In the meantime, in this age, it seems clear to me that we don’t have all the information, and that therefore, apart from revelation, we often don’t know what’s best for ourselves and for each other.

If you’re a liberal, you might object that your beliefs have nothing to do with an H+/postgenderist agenda. You might argue that you believe in an infinite spectrum of genders for reasons of fairness; that “gender is what’s between your ears” is the more compassionate position; that you believe that “what matters is two loving parents, more so than a biological mom and dad” for reasons of inclusivity; that you support abortion-on-demand in support of “reproductive freedom” for women, and so on.

However, those reasons notwithstanding, one is still embracing T+/postgenderist thinking if one is favorable to the use of technology to transcend our natural human limitations. One is establishing oneself (or humanity) as the ultimate authority in defining and determining enlightenment, morality, and salvation. A line from The Humanist Manifesto ll comes to mind, published in 1973, the year of the Roe v Wade decision:

“No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”

So how do we live together?
This is a fascinating time to be alive. The choices before us couldn’t be more consequential. The consequences of choosing wrongly couldn’t be more perilous, from the standpoint of both worldviews. And yet, it is essential that we all live together peaceably and respectfully. How can we do this, given this extreme disparity of belief?

I contend that as Americans, we can still unite around the practice of pluralism and freedom for all within the constraints of the US Constitution. That includes free speech, a free press, religious liberty, and respecting parents’ rights to raise their own children as they see fit. All sides must be on guard against totalitarian thinking. All sides must be on guard against magical thinking. Amongst those with whom we agree, it would make the world a better place if we would hold each other to a standard of honesty, compassion, and respect for the individual.

I welcome your thoughts in the comment section.

— Scott Freeman, July 2021

Thoughts for White Conservatives Who Never Owned Slaves

Posted on September 11, 2020 by Scott

A quick publishing note before the main post: I’m back at work on my next kids’ book, The Friendly City, and plan to have it ready this fall. Following is a piece I posted on my secular blog, which I hope you will find worthwhile…

I’m seeing a lot of defensiveness from conservatives regarding racism. This is understandable, as the Left continues pushing to redefine racism to include things such as breathing and having a job.

But being defensive isn’t helping anyone. Is it really too much to ask that we try to see the world from our Black neighbors’ perspective? To empathize with them? To face America’s racist past?

Here’s a clear example of what I’m seeing. Last week I read an article about Max Lucado publicly repenting at length for his ancestors’ sins of racism. The majority of comments following said things like this:

> My dad said his father was a horse thief…do I need to beg for forgiveness for his sin? If I do, do I get to hear honking cars afterwards?

> Lucado is trying to sell more books. No where in scripture does it suggest you repent of the sins of your ancestors… Slavery and racism has (sic) been present since the beginning of time.

> This is ridiculous. Licado (sic) needed attention and sell books (sic)…..that was 150 years ago…get over it.

Stuff I Didn’t Learn in School
I’ve spent the last few weeks re-learning the history of Black America. I was born in 1960 – ninety-nine years after the start of the Civil War. I thought I knew this stuff. What I’ve realized is that I mostly learned about the good parts – the civil rights victories, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and how America finally got it right. I never really learned about just how bad things were for Black Americans during the 100 years after the Civil War, before the “civil rights era.”

I recently listened to a talk by Bryan Stevenson, attorney and author of Just Mercy. Stevenson carries a lot of moral authority with me because of his tireless work on behalf of people on death row who have been wrongly convicted. He contends that America has never truly come to grips with its racist past, and that this is a necessary step in order for healing to actually occur as a nation. I agree with him.

I suppose most white folks, myself included, have assumed that because equal rights have been established on a policy level, then we’ve basically solved the problem. We live and work next to our Black fellow Americans and we all get along just fine now.

May I ask something of you? I am not suggesting that you need to repent of your ancestors’ sins. Repentance is not the point for you today if you do not hold racist beliefs or attitudes, imo. What I think is in order is that we grieve with, feel with, and empathize with, our Black brothers and sisters. I’ve compiled a brief timeline of post–slavery American history. I think you will find some surprises, as I did.

TIMELINE:
1863 – THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION is issued by Republican President Lincoln during America’s Civil War over slavery. The Proclamation declares that slaves residing in the warring Confederate states are “then, thenceforward, and forever free.” Southern whites insist that Lincoln’s executive order is illegal and refuse to comply.

1865 – THE 13TH AMENDMENT is ratified, formally codifying the Emancipation Proclamation, prohibiting slavery throughout the United States, “except as punishment for crime.”

1865 – THE CIVIL WAR ENDS. LINCOLN IS ASSASSINATED 6 DAYS LATER. Democrat Vice President Andrew Johnson assumes the presidency but proves to be soft in his commitment to implement Reconstruction efforts and to protect newly recognized Black citizens. Among other things, Johnson opposes Black voting rights.

1866 – WHITE MOB VIOLENCE in Memphis and New Orleans leaves nearly 100 Blacks citizens dead, and some 200 wounded, including at least 5 women raped. White police officers contribute to the violence and killing until federal troops arrive.

1866 – REPUBLICANS WIN A VETO-PROOF SUPER-MAJORITY IN CONGRESS as a result of public outrage over the Memphis and New Orleans attacks. Progressive Republicans embark on an aggressive civil rights program the likes of which wouldn’t happen again for 100 years.

1866 – THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT is passed, over President Johnson’s veto, declaring Black Americans full citizens entitled to equal rights.

1866 – THE 14^TH AMENDMENT IS PASSED by the super-majority, but will require ratification by 28 of the 37 states in order to become constitutional law. The proposed amendment establishes that all persons born in the US, regardless of race, are full citizens of the US and of the states in which they reside and are entitled to the “privileges and immunities” of citizenship, due process, and the equal protection under the law. 10 of 11 former Confederate states reject the proposed amendment overwhelmingly.

1867 – THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS OF 1867 are passed by the super-majority, over President Johnson’s veto, in response to the former Confederate states’ rejection of the 14^th amendment. The Acts require former Confederate states seeking readmission to the Union to fulfill the Acts’ conditions. Former states would be required to ratify the 14^th amendment, grant voting rights to Black men, accept federal military rule in the southern region, and draft new constitutions to be approved by congress.

1868 – THE 14^TH AMENDMENT IS OFFICIALLY ADOPTED. White backlash, violence, and efforts to maintain white supremacy continue in earnest.

1870 – THE 15^TH AMENDMENT IS PASSED – the third and last of the Reconstruction amendments. It states, “The rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Subsequently, Black voters turn out in droves and more than 600 African Americans are elected as state legislators. The US Congress adds 16 Black representatives, and Mississippi elects the nations first two Black senators. The new racially integrated Reconstruction governments set about repealing racially discriminatory laws. Instability grows as whites in the South refuse to accept what is happening.

1870-71 CONGRESS PASSES A SERIES OF ENFORCEMENT ACTS, including the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, authorizing, among other things, the federal government to prosecute civil rights violations as crimes. Republican President Grant supports progressive Reconstruction and provides federal troops to enforce it, as state governments are powerless to stop widespread violence and upheaval.

1872 – THE SUPREME COURT BEGINS ISSUING RULINGS THAT NEUTRALIZE RECONSTRUCTION. One of the worst is the 1876 United States vs Cruikshank decision. Incredibly, the Cruikshank ruling interprets 14^th amendment protections as only applying to state offenses, not against violence perpetrated by individuals, rendering the Enforcement Act useless. Cruikshank leaves Blacks in the South defenseless against white perpetrators so long as they act privately. As a result, anti-Black violence in the South openly increases as white perpetrators act with impunity, knowing that racist state judicial systems and law enforcement will not punish them. This marks the beginning of the end of a mere 10-year period of hope and positive development for Blacks in America, until the civil rights era of the 1960s.

1876 – THE END OF RECONSTRUCTION. The 1876 presidential election ends in a stalemate between Democrat Samuel J. Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. The Supreme Court and Congress develop a compromise whereby Hayes would become president if he would agree to end Reconstruction. The “unwritten” Compromise of 1877 resulted in all remaining federal troops being pulled out of southern states, and the agreement that the South would have the right to deal with Blacks without northern interference. This leaves southern Blacks with no legal recourse and virtually no protection, relegating them to an inferior status in a hostile society.

Here I will end the timeline, and summarize for purposes of brevity.

In the ensuing decades, especially in the South, a white supremacist society intentionally and often violently terrorized Blacks in order to “keep them in their place.” Despite the fact that equality between the races was encoded into federal law, the notion of white supremacy remained entrenched at every level of white society in the former slave states – in the general population, in the education establishment, in churches, in civil law, in law enforcement, in the legal system, and in state government.

Racial separation and inequality were enforced by many means including:

> rewriting state constitutions and Laws, including Jim Crow laws requiring racial segregation

> creating all-white juries to guarantee immunity for perpetrators of racial violence

> physical violence and legal barriers against would-be Black voters

> evicting and/or firing would-be Black voters working for racial equality

> police brutality from officers who were often Klansmen/members of white supremacist groups

> judges who held white supremacist and/or segregationist views

> shutting down public schools to prevent integration, and the widespread creation of all-white schools

> criminalizing peaceful civil rights protests

> sexual violence against Black girls and women

> rioting

> bombings

> lynching

If I may elaborate just a bit on lynching: I had been under the impression, I suppose mostly from movies, that lynching was a somewhat risky and rare phenomenon perpetrated mostly by the KKK under cover of darkness. However, the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) has documented 4084 lynchings between the years 1877 – 1950. These have been verified from news and other sources from the era. There were unquestionably an untold number of undocumented lynchings and assaults as well.

It seems clear that “terror lynchings” were perpetrated to send a message to Black citizens who had hopes of claiming their newly won rights as full citizens and equals. The message was that if you are Black, this can be done to you or your loved ones if you step out of “your place” as an inferior. The message was that a black person accused by a white person is not worth the time and expense of due process in a courtroom setting.

Many lynchings were public spectacles, with hundreds of white citizens and families in attendance. These were not viewed as fringe acts of extremism, but were mainstream events condoned by white society. Sometimes there would be food and drink, and the victim’s body parts would be handed out to the crowd as souvenirs. This was all openly documented by an often sympathetic press.

What is the point of saying these things now?
This is not the America we live in today. It is true that no one alive today owned slaves or perpetrated a racial terror lynching. No Black person living today was ever a slave. But the appropriate response to Black Americans is not, therefore, “so get over it.” For decades during the post-slavery era, Blacks were left utterly unprotected and what was done to them was horrific, to say nothing of the slavery itself that came before. White America must sorrowfully acknowledge this.

Millions of white supremacist Americans worked tirelessly, voted, and rioted to keep Blacks subjugated. The experience of Black Americans today has been shaped by this history. It should also be said that racial terror and discrimination was not just a “southern problem.” After Reconstruction ended, some 6 million Black Americans fled the South to the North, Midwest, and West, where violence and discrimination often followed – in cities such as East St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Tulsa, and Omaha.

Admitting the horror of America’s violent, racist past is a necessary part of national healing and understanding. Doing so is not an admission that America is innately horrible, or that rioting, or the solutions proposed by left wing groups like BLM or M4BL are correct.

But it might help us to understand the anger and frustration. It might help us to understand the eerie familiarity Blacks may feel when a white policeman unjustly kills a Black man and goes unpunished. It might help us to understand how confederate monuments may be seen as celebrations of white supremacy. It might help us to understand why America remains largely segregated, even though overt white supremacy has virtually disappeared from society and its institutions.

It is a basic act of respect toward Black Americans to not sweep their history under the rug. May God give us all grace and understanding to clean house without tearing the house down.

— Scott Freeman, September 2020

For further reading I recommend one or all of EJI’s 4 thin books: Slavery in America; Reconstruction; Segregation in America; & Lynching in America.

The Myth of White Evangelical Racism

Posted on October 23, 2019 by Scott

There can be no such thing as an evangelical Christian who is intentionally racist. This is true in the same way that there are no Muslim pig farmers, or Mormon brewpubs. Or vegan cannibals. Or feminist sex traffickers. You get the idea.

These things are not merely unlikely – they negate the very definition of the concept.

I recently read an opinion piece by a professor, Anthea Butler, suggesting that liberals should stop puzzling over why evangelical voters are (supposedly) so pro-Trump despite Trump’s flagrantly unchristian behavior. Her answer to this puzzle is simple:

We’re racists.

Professor Butler has a history of making ridiculous and extreme claims, but nonetheless, NBC news saw fit to give her false assertion a hearing. It’s a serious accusation, so just in case anyone is inclined to believe her, I’d like to explain why her assertion can’t be true.

It must be the case that Butler, and others riding the racist-labeling bandwagon, simply don’t know what an evangelical follower of Jesus is. Hopefully the following will be helpful.

Well Understood, Not Secret, Not Mysterious
By definition, evangelicals, white or otherwise, are followers of Jesus who consider the Bible to be authoritative. Look up “evangelical” in a dictionary if you doubt this. At the risk of sounding snarky, this means that they seek to follow what Jesus and His apostles taught in the Bible. If they don’t, then they are not evangelicals. They are something else.

But does the Jesus of the Bible have anything to say about race and racial superiority?

Yes. Tons, actually.

It so happens that Jesus’s greatest commandment and His “great commission” utterly rule out intentional racism. In fact, the defining statements of Jesus and His apostles, and their descriptions of where human history is heading, simply do not allow followers of Jesus to be racists. A racist may attend church, but to the extent that he or she harbors beliefs of racial superiority, he or she is not following Jesus. He or she is following someone else.

The clearly stated aims of Jesus presuppose racial inclusivity and equality. Here are a few indisputable examples:

The Greatest Commandment:
“…Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And [Jesus] said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. ³⁹And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 22:36-40).

The Great Commission:
“And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt 28:18-20).

Jesus’s Final Prayer for His Followers, Past and Present:
“I do not ask for these [1^st c. disciples] only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me… I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me” (John 17:20-23).

Paul Affirming that Social & Biological Distinctions are Obliterated in Jesus:
^“…for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:26-28).

Paul’s Statement of God’s Ultimate Plan for Human History:
^“In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph 1:7-10).

John’s Revelation of the Future Age to Come:
“…After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’… For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Rev 7:9-17).

For the evangelical follower of Jesus, unequivocal biblical statements like these must settle the issue.

Angel, Evangel, Evangelical, Evangelism
Notice the Great Commission verse about making disciples of all the nations. This undertaking of making voluntary disciples is called “evangelism.” The word “evangelist” literally means “bringer of good news,” (from eu- “good” + angelos “messenger”).

Notice how the word “evangelism” is part of the word “Evangelical”? That’s because Evangelicals are supposed to be evangelizing – spreading the good news of how Jesus has invited all of humankind to be restored to relational unity with God.

Furthermore, biblical evangelism is not about making brown people Western and white. Jesus specifically commanded that His followers spread His invitation to people of different ethnicities. Here’s a statement the resurrected Jesus made before His ascension:

“…and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

Notice the progression: his disciples congregated in Jerusalem. The news then spread to the whole region of Jewish Judea. Then to the Samaritans, who were historically looked down upon as “half-Jewish.” Then to all the nations of the earth, including every “race.” There is simply no getting around the fact that God wants to include all people groups in His kingdom.

How Jesus Abolished the Notion of Racial/Ethnic Superiority
Perhaps the most stunning development among the first (Jewish) followers of Jesus is the fact that the (Jewish) apostles officially, as a matter of conscious policy, extended the invitation to salvation to non-Jews. This was a completely unexpected development coming from a group of Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah, and it was not without some controversy. You can read the whole debate in the book of Acts, chapter 15.

Clearly, everyone assumed that non-Jews who wished to become followers of the Jewish Messiah would have to first become Jewish, and follow the Torah of Moses. However, through a series of signs from God, and as a result of seeing the ancient Hebrew scriptures in light of the actions and words of Jesus, the apostles reached their revolutionary agreement: the gentile nations could enter into Jesus’s new covenant and kingdom, as uncircumcised gentiles!

This development was so unexpected that the apostles thereafter referred to it as a “mystery,” meaning that it was unforeseen, and not clearly explained previously in their Jewish Torah and prophetic writings. Here is one example of (Jewish) Paul speaking of this “mystery”:

“When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph 3:4-6).

Pretty clear.

The racially and ethnically inclusive nature of the message of Jesus is not optional. It is not a modern, liberal reading of the scriptures. It was there from the beginning. Any racism in the church of Jesus is a corruption of what Jesus taught. Even the Torah teaches that “all the families of the earth” descended from the same two parents (Gen 3:20; 9:18,19; 10:32). The gospel writer, Luke, affirms this in Acts 17:26.

Of course, one is free not to believe the Bible. My point here is not to prove that the Bible is true. My point is to prove that one cannot truthfully say that the Bible promotes racial superiority of any sort. In fact, the very concept of “race” is man-made, not biblical. There is no white supremacist version of evangelicalism.

History Cuts Both Ways
Historically, there certainly have been white church goers who have misused the Bible to justify slavery and racism. Those people have gone the way of the buffalo. Anthea Butler even acknowledges that the Southern Baptist denomination has repeatedly apologized for and repented of past evils. “But” she says, “statements are not enough.” Her proof that Baptists are insincere in their denunciations of past racial sins? They opened their 2019 Annual Convention with a gavel that was owned by the founder of their seminary, and who was also a slaveholder.

I would expect her to be more concerned with groups that were formerly openly racist, but that continue to exploit and decimate the black American population in the present. An example comes to mind:

For some reason white Darwinian “progressives” get a pass for misusing science to justify racism in much the same way that religious people misused the Bible to justify racism. During the early 1900s, there emerged a popular eugenics movement in America and Europe that was concerned with preserving (white) racial purity. It was a terrible and oppressive Orwellian episode of our history. Some 75,000 “unfit” Americans were forcibly sterilized in the name of racial hygiene and human betterment.

Margaret Sanger, founder of what is now Planned Parenthood, was on board with the eugenics movement. It’s difficult to prove whether or not Sanger was an overt racist, but in her autobiography she reports making a favorable impression at a speaking appearance to the wives of the KKK. She also welcomed Klansman and popular white supremacist author, Lothrop Stoddard, as a co-founder and board member of her American Birth Control League, (renamed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) in 1942).

Lothrop Stoddard, Margaret Sanger's racist colleague — Stoddard’s most popular book. He also published eugenic articles in Sanger’s magazine, *Birth Control Review.* A content analysis reveals that the magazine’s overriding concern was not women’s autonomy, but societal improvement.

Today, PPFA enjoys a solid “progressive” reputation as it renounces Sanger’s racist/eugenicist statements, just as evangelical denominations have renounced past racial sins. The difference is that PPFA continues to disproportionately terminate black lives, today.

Black women buy abortions at a rate 5 times that of white women, according the Guttmacher Institute. The reasons are unclear. Regardless, the American black population is significantly smaller than it would otherwise be if not for Sanger and PPFA, America’s largest abortion seller. Bishop Larry Jackson claims, “If we [blacks] had not aborted our children, we would be 30%, not 13%, of the population”.

I can’t prove that widespread black abortion also disintegrates belief in the sanctity of black human life in the black psyche, but I can’t imagine how it would help.

Having said this, I don’t believe that pro-legal-abortion ”progressives” are intentionally racist. But I would arguably be far more justified in leveling that accusation against them than those claiming that evangelicals are racist. Maybe both “progressives” and conservatives should focus on cleaning up their own houses when looking for racists to call out.

None of us lives out our compassion perfectly. All of us – white, black, or brown – harbor prejudice that we must work to overcome. We’ll all be more successful if we work together to overcome it.

What Revelation Does For Us

Posted on May 31, 2018 by Scott

I spend a fair amount of time online, perhaps more time than I should, dialoging with atheists and “skeptics” about worldview issues. It’s one of my favorite things in life. It helps me to see outside of my own frame of reference, and to understand my own beliefs better.

It causes me to empathize with those who see things differently than I do, and to take more care in how I present my beliefs. Sometimes it even moves me to change the way I think about an issue.

I’ve been doing this for several years now, and over time I’ve seen how rare it is for anyone on any side of any issue to be logically persuaded into changing his or her beliefs. This is true regardless of how ridiculous those beliefs might be, whether it be belief in a flat earth or a belief that life on our planet accidentally arose from non-living matter. I’ve come to suspect that we humans generally don’t believe things for logical reasons – instead we tend to use logic to justify what we want to believe, at least when it comes to the macro questions.

If one is clever enough, one can justify almost any belief.

To complicate matters, no one gets the luxury of 100% certainty that their worldview presuppositions are true. This is true of both theist and atheist, though atheists/materialists tend to strenuously disagree that their presuppositions rest on faith and dogma. But they do, and it is a simple matter to prove it.

Some recent conversations have set me to thinking about the role of biblical revelation in living a life where decisions proceed from belief. The question of whether or not the Bible actually is God’s revelation to us, and whether it is trustworthy, is another question. For the scope of this brief post let us assume that the answer to that question is “yes.”

Revelation describes the shape of reality
Revelation does many things for us. Perhaps most importantly, it gives us a linear, progressively unfolding story of God’s interaction with humanity throughout history – His “spiritual history” of humanity. As such it reveals and affirms very specific details about God that we could not otherwise know. It gives us an objective standard against which we can correct our misconceptions (2 Tim 3:16). That is immeasurably valuable.

But revelation gives us an even more basic picture. It authoritatively tells us the shape of the reality of our physical world, including our own inner makeup, and also gives us specific social structures that God designed for us. This enables us to have the confidence to pour our lives into the right things.

None of this is as obvious as it might seem. Especially today. For those without this transcendent authority, our already broken world is becoming even more confusing.

What once were considered the most basic facts of life are now being thrown into question. I see intelligent, well-intentioned people who are interested in fairness, justice, and compassion, bobbing like corks in an ocean of rhetoric, falling for unproven ideologies in the name of the fairness and compassion that they seek. Nowhere is this truer than in the issues of sex, gender, marriage, family, and parenting.

I contend that, apart from revelation, we can’t know true and compassionate answers around these questions.

As sex, gender, marriage, family, and parenting are redefined by secular culture, we are all going to have to independently choose what we believe is the compassionate course. Neutral ground is disappearing. Many in this culture will come to the end of their lives to find that they poured their lives into a course that they thought was compassionate, but which turned out to be harmful to children, and thus to the whole society.

Sex, Gender, & Revelation
Let’s see how this works using as an example what was, until very recently, arguably the most basic fact of human sexual reproduction – the concept of male and female. It’s difficult for me to believe that there is a serious movement to blow up this concept, and even more difficult to believe that so many young people are actually buying into it. But here we are.

The new claim is that “sex is what’s between your legs; gender is what’s between your ears.” The idea is that a person may have a perfectly functional male body, but if that person believes himself to be female, then he is in fact female and this is not to be questioned. This is a new idea.

To clarify, I do not dispute that gender dysphoria is a real thing, and I don’t believe it is something a person chooses. There is no question that “trans” people have existed throughout history around the world; sometimes thought of as a “third sex.” But the existence of trans people does not prove that a person can be biologically male, yet female in actuality because he thinks he is. There has been no new scientific discovery proving that such is the case. No one knows for sure what’s going on here. This belief is part of an ideological movement that seeks to establish the idea of gender as a fluid spectrum with an unlimited number of manifestations. (Google Postgenderism).

By contrast, the creation story in the Torah states that God made human beings male and female. Jesus affirmed this idea. Followers of Jesus can therefore have the confidence that this is the shape of reality as God created it. This renders the fact of gender dysphoria to be a manifestation of our broken world; a world which Jesus came to restore to unity in truth. A person whose mind tells them they are the opposite gender from that of their physical body is experiencing a profound separation. We should love such a person no less than we would love anyone with any other type of disability.

Revelation enables us to land on the side of compassionately affirming reality as God intended it. To seek reconciliation and community to every extent possible. To confidently teach and model to our children the truth about God and His creation.

Other matters that matter
There are other foundational truths which secular culture is attempting to obliterate. Revelation enables us to cut through the rhetoric and commit ourselves to a good course. This is critical for parents as we have small people in our care.

By revelation we can be sure that marriage is not merely an artificial cultural construct, but something ordained by God at creation and affirmed by Jesus. Lifelong, sexually exclusive, monogamous marriage between a biologically unrelated adult male and female is God’s design for human flourishing. That doesn’t mean it’s easy or “natural.” That doesn’t mean it always works. But I think it does mean that we’re not free to redefine something that God has clearly defined.

By revelation we can have a working “self-knowledge” regarding what is natural and what is supernatural. In a world that tends to equate what is natural with what is good, we can have clear direction as to what impulses to put down and what impulses to act on. Being born of and led by the Spirit gives us clarity for living life. Revelation affirms for us how that should look. In the brilliance of Gods plan, revelation shows us not a written code to follow, (that was Mosaic Covenant,) but instead offers us the good news of the possibility of internal change.

Finally, by revelation we can be sure that God created us for loving relationship, and that life is about relational unity – first with God, then with others. This helps us to make life decisions and daily choices about where to spend our time. To remember that people are more important than things. To invest in our children yet without making family into an idol. To bother to reconcile broken relationships. To not live in relational isolation from other human beings.

I’m grateful for God’s revelation to us because life can be confusing, and false voices can sound surprisingly convincing. Life will be hard whatever we choose. My hope for all of us is that we may find over time that we didn’t fight and struggle toward a goal for our entire lives only to find that we were fighting against the true shape of reality; that we missed the end for which we were created. May we pour our lives into pursuits that bear fruit for life. May God lead you into life!