An Abortion Proclamation

Today, I retweeted this post by Kevin DeYoung (@RevKevDeYoung):

Everyone celebrating Roe should look in the eye a woman who just miscarried and tell her "It was just a clump of cells."

It posted to my Facebook page and I received a private passionate reply, one that I think missed the point of the post, likely due to the guyser-esque emotions that this topic incites. The reply simultaneously defended fetuses as more than "clumps of cells" and sympathized with abortion as an often necessary outlet for abused and shunned women. It obviously affected this person very deeply, provoking a patchwork of dramatic statements that awkwardly quilted an argument both compassionate for women who chose (or were forced) to abort their child and sorrowful over the tiny souls who suffered death even before they could experience birth.

I myself get quickly enflamed by the subject, as I see it as a direct affront to my Christian faith, which sees children as a blessing from God and prohibits murder. An abortion swims about in a broader pool of complex social problems and failures of love, which I find all very frustrating. So as I read the response, my own emotions were jostled, knowing that the words were likely motivated by a knowledge of the subject more acute than theory, but also feeling the conviction of a holy God who weeps and broils over humankind's insistence on violence and death in multitudinous forms. I'm sad this is even a discussion. I'm angry I have cause to be angry. I also feel compelled to speak some of my thoughts and counterpoints, hopefully with some clarity, and to share a call to anyone within reach of my community that may be considering abortion.

It was rightly pointed out by this writer that there are many ills in society that put some women in the position where they feel that terminating a pregnancy is the only viable option. This may include rape, incest, and relationships tainted by abuse, drugs, etc. These cases are not the majority, though. Numbers of women (this was passed on to me by a friend at Life International who talked with many of the hundreds of women who sought an abortion at the clinic that is now their ministry's headquarters in Grand Rapids, MI), chose to abort a child simply for the sake of convenience, like the thirty-something professional woman and her husband who terminated the child in her womb thinking it would too greatly compromise the perfect two child household they had already achieved.  To say that the vast majority of abortions are emergency or abuse related is simply false. Nor can I fail to point out that an abortion, regardless of the reason behind it, is a moral decision, which a woman (and her partner) must take responsibility for. I state this humbly recognizing that there are situations which are very complex and difficult, but the way out is never through a contrary evil. I was recently counseling with someone who said, "Sometimes the only way out of a sin is through another sin." That is bankrupt thinking and one (especially from the mouth of Christian) which belies a tragic absence of faith in the power, sacrifice, and love of our Savior.

This fighting evil with evil ethic is what is behind the suggestion that abortion prevents the tragic lives and criminality of the many unwanted children who are born to women who didn't seek or were prevented from seeking a termination. These children suffer rejection and abuse and degrade society, the argument goes, which apparently is enough to remove the dignity of their existence. It would be better for everybody if they were never born. When I hear this, I wonder how many of these should-have-been-aborted people, no matter how criminal, would agree. The fact that Roe v. Wade actually caused a drop in the crime rate has been convincingly hypothesized by the Levitt and Dubner, authors of Freakonomics (2009). But I still see no ethical justification for murder unless you are a hardcore classical utilitarian, a position that is generally untenable to any person with some appreciation for equality and a respect for basic human rights.

But wherever abortion lies on the ethical spectrum, the fact remains that there is a lot of brokenness out there motivating abortion and creating just-as-bad alternatives for the babies that get a chance at life. This is where people argue against the church especially. I agree that Christians ought to do a better job, both reaching people before violence and/or irresponsibility make abortion an option and supporting mothers and fathers who choose to have the child. However, to fault Christians/society for abortions because they have failed prevent or fix the problem is a tenuous argument. It would be like me saying it's your fault I burned down your house because you didn't stop me from getting a hold of matches. If you know I'm an arson, it would behoove you to take precautions, but I must bear the responsibility for my actions. And frankly, I think Christians do more to serve and support the poor, broken, and orphaned than just about any other demographic. I know for a fact my church would go to great lengths to support and love anyone wrestling with the emotional, physical, and logistical trauma of an unwanted pregnancy.

And so rather than just stew about the world's moral decline and continue to be a part of the stereotypical problem, here is my public declaration and promise to any person, man or woman, within my community's reach who might be considering an abortion: in the name of Jesus Christ my Savior, who laid down his life for me and to whom I am eternally accountable, I will lay down my life for you. If you need help, my family and my friends will be there for you. We will listen. We will cry. We will share. We will work. We will celebrate. We will adopt. We will change diapers. We will make meals. We will love you and we will find a way to help you do the right thing. We will not be perfect, but we will try and maybe if you try, too, we can both find hope and life.

I can be reached at http://recastchurch.com.

The Gander Problem - Project Open Arms and OJM

Image courtesy of the Humboldt Arts Council in the
Morris Graves Museum of Art.

In the world of "wild or domesticated water birds of the family Anatidae" (thank you, American Heritage), the goose is the girl and the gander is the guy. From here we can easily surmise the meaning of the phrase, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander": if something falls into the category of ought or should for the woman, it's just as likely to be beneficial, highly suggested or mandatory for the male of the species. After some very in depth research, I discovered the phrase became popular in the propaganda materials of the fowl feminist movement of the mid-sixties, which brought about an equalizing of the roles of husbands and lady geese in the raising of goslings (true story). From there, the phrase has been borrowed and generalized by the American vernacular to bring attention to the case of the double-standard in any relationship, where one person is instructing another in what ought or should be done, without fairly including him or herself. It's in this more general sense that I've come to see a "Gander Problem" in the global church regarding the care of orphans.

To fully explain myself, let me talk about a commonly noted problem in the development sector at large for a few moments. In recent history, those who saw the paternalistic tendency of development partnerships (giving money to poor or undeveloped nations) offered stern warnings almost as soon as funding started to hit bombed-up Europe following the World Wars. Those with the economic, intellectual, and moral superiority to win wars supplied the resources and direction to the losers in a fatherly gesture of reconciliation and rebuilding. This was seen by some as egotistical, authoritarian, or "paternalistic" (if there were know-it-all fathers, then the recipients by default were children). And there was some legitimacy to these critics' observations, seen by the fact that many aid recipients were not heard or respected in terms of their needs and desires. The donors called the shots. This unfortunate reality, especially the relationship between the United States and Europe in the 1940's, was birthed from the same value womb that delivered institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, still the main drivers of global aid and economic restructuring today. Some would say the paternalistic model is still alive and well: those who know (the West) help those who don't (everybody else). This attitude has trickled down to even small players in the Western non-profit world, both globally and domestically, and into the general population.

This perspective is not totally off base, though. We the West are good at some things: we have technology, an entrepreneurial spirit and education. Our economic history and global influence lend some credibility to our super power status. Personally, I don't want to live anywhere else. I love America and we have some of the best-hearted, most generous people on the planet, but I'm also willing to admit that we're sometimes arrogant when we help others, thinking we know exactly what they need to do to "fix" themselves, while we seem fine to ignore or diminish our faults. I've had this very struggle myself working in Uganda. I've caught myself walking through fields or villages and thinking, sometimes out loud, "Man, if they'd only [BLANK], they would be so much better off," or "It's so simple, I can't believe they're not already [BLANK]..." and other lordly nonsense, which I'm sincerely trying to say less of. But am I really that great? Is my church perfect? Is my town a model of Christian citizenry in action? Is American culture without need of improvement?

If paternalism is the bad habit of development, hypocrisy is the debilitating addiction, and some of us are really strung out. It's a rush when I visit my friends in southern Uganda and teach and preach about God's "orphan justice mandate", working with all my energy to inspire and envision them to take seriously God's call to care for the least of these. It's a high to coordinate training and capacity-building that helps them flesh out this ethical obligation taking shape in their hearts. Seeing the churches in Ddwaniro, Kamengo and Kabakayla demonstrate both faith and deeds sends feelings of joy rushing through my veins like little else I've experienced. These are the benefits of this work and due to the real needs in the two-thirds world, we ought to continue to pursue such efforts with the extras of our wealth and feel good about doing it. However, my joy buzz has been killed by a nagging sense of hypocrisy, a "do what we say, not what we do" understanding of the reality back home. Many times, when I've slept in a pastor's house, where sometimes up to twelve orphans live with five or six biological children, I've asked, "Would anybody in the U.S. do this? Would I put myself out to this extent for the sake of providing needy children some semblance of a family?" In my experience, the answer is generally no to both questions. What's good for the Ugandan goose is a little extreme, and come on, mostly unrealistic for the U.S. gander, right?

Let's be fair to us ganders. The contexts are very different and developed nations have extensive welfare systems that generally meet the basic needs of the children in a way that is rarely available to even better off children in much of Africa and other two-thirds world nations. Clean water isn't so much of an issue, education is available even if not taken advantage of, and it's against the law for hospitals to not provide care in an emergency. Hunger may be more of an issue, but we have soup kitchens and meal plans. It's pretty rare to find street children in our cities these days. All of this is good. It's good that we have these systems in place (from a rescue perspective, at least). So aren't we better at caring for our vulnerable kids than anybody? Additionally, we have laws that make it difficult if not impossible to care for twelve orphans just because "God told me to." So what's the problem? As an United States citizen, aren't I way ahead of the game? Doesn't the fact that I pay taxes mean I already take care of the orphan? And sometimes I give a little to people who are willing to show the rest of the world how to be like us. Isn't that enough?

I would love to ask the more than 4,600 wards of the State of Michigan who have their proverbial fingers crisscrossed in knots that someone, some family, some where, might, just might think they're worth keeping around for more than a couple months. I just watched a video where a boy named Albert had to "sell" himself to prospective adoptive parents by saying things like "I like rollerblading" and "My favorite food is Chinese food" and "I just want a family to love me and adopt me and my sister and my brother so we can get out of the system". I wonder what his response would be. My personal answer is that if there are kids without homes, then no, it's not enough. The fact that the majority of the "Christians" in Michigan (nation?) aren't willing to take care of even one orphan reveals in us a frightening spiritual deficiency (there are 10,000 churches and 5,000 kids in MI). God help us if we exchange our obligation of personal obedience for a state run welfare system.




So here's the crux of our Gander Problem and what OJM, in support of Bethany Christian Services, is doing about it: as U.S. church representatives, we cannot in good conscious continue to challenge the international church to step-up and care for the orphans in their midst if we are unwilling to do the same. Orphan Justice Mission is based in Michigan, which has around 5,000 current waiting children in immediate need of families, which is the ultimate and primary need of any vulnerable child (not food and water). So, through an initiative called Project Open Arms, we are partnering with Bethany and various other agencies to inspire and inform people about the pressing need for adoptive and foster-care parents right here in our own state. We will promote Project Open Arms through our various media channels and through our speaking engagements as we have opportunity. And we are currently working on a volunteer-run awareness campaign, which we would love your help with.

The idea is to inform and challenge. Most Michigan residents are unaware that the cost to adopt one of these children in most cases is less than $200 out of pocket, since the State subsidizes the application process. There are also tax-write offs and other assistance options available, so the financial barrier is minimal (and yes, I'm aware of the ongoing parental provision in that statement). What is left to overcome is the "inconvenience" factor, to which my first thought goes something like, "the cross wasn't very convenient for Jesus, either, was it?", but then I tell myself not to be so sarcastic and self-righteous (I am currently a recovering gander). Yes, taking a child, especially an older one, is something that ought to be well thought out. It could go badly. It could cause heartache, and I have personal friends who could testify to that reality. It could also be the best thing you've ever done in your life. It could allow Jesus to grab you by the shoulders and look you straight in the eyes someday and say with a straight face, "well done" and "thank you". It could mean American-Dream-colored scales falling from your eyes so you can see clearly what makes life worth living: love. For me, it's going to mean loss of that sense of religious hypocrisy and an embracing of the example of my Ugandan friends. That's going to feel good. Goose and gander, in harmony again.

This has been a long introduction to our partnership with Bethany and Project Open Arms. Thanks for getting to the end, but I'll warn you: this is only the beginning. We're praying for you, for us and the whole State of Michigan and especially our orphans.

Stay tuned for more posts and updates in the future as we share ways that you can help. For now, please visit our Project Open Arms page, which links to several other Michigan adoption resource sites. And please pray about what God is asking you to do to make sure every one of our Michigan orphans has a home.

Good Siblings

Adelaide, Evie and Dad

My wife recently had a bout of mom-guilt due to what she thought was an overreaction to our eldest daughter's behavior, which had been quite trying one day recently. Adelaide is a sweet, compassionate little girl, but on this particular day, beginning shortly after her emergence from bed, her attitude went sour. She was repeatedly disobedient, especially in the way she was speaking to those around her. She had an episode with a neighbor girl where she said some hurtful things, a few cases of "talking back", and then, just as the day was ending, an outburst directed at her three year old sister, Evie. As the two were playing, Evie moved a book that Adelaide had directed one of her dolls to "read" and this unauthorized interruption of pretend education caused her to harshly blurt out, "Evie! You are such a pest!" My wife, hearing this from the neighboring bedroom, had enough.  She burst into the room, voice raised and finger wagging. Nothing cruel or diminutive was said to Adelaide, but Nikki made it abundantly clear that in the Douglass house, we love one another, we don't belittle with our words and comments like hers would not be tolerated. Adelaide got the message, as evidenced by tears, and obediently apologized to her sister.

Looking back on the situation, Nikki felt bad because she worried that her reaction was too strong. An older sister calling a younger sister a pest isn't that uncommon, and there are far worse interactions between siblings. But behind Nikki's anger was the awareness that words are powerful and can damage, resulting in empathy for a child whose feelings were hurt and disappointment in another for doing the hurting. In addition to frustration, there was a little meanness in the tone of Adelaide's statement, and Nikki rightly wanted to root even that small kernel of cruelty out for fear that it might take up more permanent residence in her heart. My counsel to my wife was that she had done nothing wrong and that strong reactions to sin are for our kids' benefit. This is in fact, the example we have from our heavenly Father, exemplified here in Jeremiah 5:23, 25-29 (HCSB, emphasis mine):

But these people have stubborn and rebellious hearts.
They have turned aside and have gone away...
Your sins have withheld My bounty from you,
for wicked men live among My people.
They watch like fowlers lying in wait.
They set a trap;
they catch men.
Like a cage full of birds,
so their houses are full of deceit.
Therefore they have grown powerful and rich.
They have become fat and sleek.
They have also excelled in evil matters.
They have not taken up cases,
such as the case of orphans, so they might prosper,
and they have not defended the rights of the needy.
Should I not punish them for these things?

God was tired of watching his own children treat each other cruelly, living selfishly and in disobedience and His tone is angry and exasperated. He is at His wit's end seeing those who are rich neglecting those who are poor, such as when an older sibling refuses to treat a younger, more vulnerable sibling with the care and respect of family. Through the prophet, He unleashes the chastisement of an indignant heavenly Father, warning that His wrath is not far behind if correction is not heeded.

Reading this passage, I can't help but reflect on my role as a "sibling" in the family of God. I know that I'm rich. I have a home, two cars and a motorcycle, a few investments, numerous modern conveniences and more techno toys than my time allows me to fully maximize. I have more food than is healthy for me on a daily basis and I'm highly educated with no fear of medical treatment, police protection or property rights being unaccessible. God calls that "fat and sleek" and though I honestly wouldn't count myself as a wicked man, "full of deceit and excelling in evil matters", I do wonder whether or not I've truly taken up the case of orphans, my little brothers and sisters in Christ, that they might prosper. My role as Executive Director of Orphan Justice Mission is no free pass; I must continually grow in my personal commitment to orphans in the family of God, not just in preventing myself from doing evil to them, but in learning to do good, so they might prosper (Isaiah 1:17-18).

Orphans in Africa can seem very far away from us here in America (and thus ignorable), but in today's world they aren't. It takes some effort, sure, but we are fully capable of assisting those in with dire need like never before, wherever they are found. If we don't, I worry that what God passed on through Jeremiah to Israel might be applied to us, that like my wife with our girls, His heart would be broken (and angered) to see His children behaving so poorly. I invite you, with me, to heed our Father's instruction, apologize for our negligence and start loving our little orphaned brothers and sisters as we ought. Supporting Orphan Justice Mission is a great place to start.