I was surprised but not surprised to hear of the closing of Exodus International the other day, if you're familiar with that mixed feeling of being surprised but not surprised. I was saddened but hopeful of what this might mean, yet left with many unresolved questions. I'll leave the working out of all that to Exodus, not being in the know, but I'll explain my own emotions for anyone who cares to listen or respond. It saddens me on the one hand, because I feel like I know the heart of people who run similar ministries, and it's not to hurt anyone. It's to reach out to people with the love of Christ, and it must be so painful for someone like Chambers, so many years of giving and not a word of thanks, just close the door. Much like the closing of residential schools, I grieve for the abuses and the clash of cultures, but also feel sad for the people who poured their lives into educating marginalized young people. It can't be easy to realize your life's work will always be stigmatized. People don't go into ministry (much like education) to get rich, nor do they go in for the recognition. They go in for the people, though it's not an easy job.
Yet, I have no trouble believing that people have been hurt in churches, that gay people have been hurt through Exodus or similar ministries. Speaking personally, I can remember walking away from a church at Christmastime when I was fifteen because I didn't fit there. So I know the feeling, if not for the same reasons. I think people are human in short, and I think the average person sees things the way they see them and spaces in history like are own are filled with shortsightedness. And I also think this is an extraordinarily complex subject that requires a tremendous amount of sensitivity and compassion. And fundamentally there is a worldview difference at the core of tensions between the gay community and religious minorities, and I don't see that going away anytime soon.
I've been thinking about this issue for a while now, and just putting my ideas out there in my own low-key way. In keeping with that ongoing process, what if rather than look at this issue as a freedom of something you're born (in line with race or ethnicity), that we begin to approach this issue as a matter of freedom of conscience? Rather than the current mainstream approach, that sees any difference of opinion as something to be eliminated like racism, that we simply accept that there are different views, and respect each other's boundaries, much like we have historically learned to do in the west with contrasting religious views. In other words, I don't go to a synagogue or a mosque for prayer, because I'm a Christian, but I don't go there looking for a job in ministry and later complaining of discrimination either, if you follow my meaning.
In much the same way, it disturbs me because Exodus is a ministry, a faith-based approach by and for people who are Christians and affiliated with churches. Much like Christian counsellors might see what they do as a form of spiritual outreach for those that are interested in a faith-based approach, it saddens and worries me, when our secular culture is so determined to put everything under the same umbrella, and stamp out increasingly marginalized faith-based views on this issue. I can only ask, when I hear some comments about the closing of Exodus, do we have the right to exist? Do religious organizations or professionals with faith-based insights or opinions have the right to offer services to those that want them? You might not agree with our/their worldview, but do ministries like Exodus International have the right to operate according to the dictates of their own belief systems? From the tone of the culture, I'm not sure we do, quite honestly. Which is why a lot of us (increasingly marginalized religious minorities) are at present more than a bit worried about the future of freedom of religion in the western world. When I hear the cheering and the jeering from the stands, I have to ask, will any ministry efforts directed toward the gay community ever be acceptable to people who seem to be fundamentally opposed to any such initiatives?
But to be very clear, if the closing of Exodus is a symbolic act, that we have made mistakes, that we are trying to do things differently, to use more sensitive language, to be sensitive to the needs of people, then hey I think that's great. And that gives me hope, that we are moving towards a new understanding, a new dialogue in the church and with people who feel marginalized by the church. In that sense I am hopeful of what that symbolic act represents. But if the expectation from the larger culture is that we need to change our core beliefs, then I think the larger culture is asking too much and is crossing a boundary. In a larger sense I think our very polarized culture must realize that there are worldview differences here, and true tolerance would be to accept that, rather than demanding a uniformity of mind.
You know, just a thought, but in the interview that I've linked below, Alan Chambers says late in the interview that he stays out of the politics regarding this issue, concerning the fight for same-sex marriage. Which leads me to the question, would this be as much about ideology, if the gay community knew that they had the support of religious minorities politically? I'll put that out there for anyone who cares to respond.
Personally, I've come a long way from where I started with this issue. I was opposed to gay marriage when it was being put through in Canada. In fact, I was about as opposed as one could be, when I went to a rally in support of the traditional definition of marriage. And you know, being told I was a hate-mongerer by the culture and being told I was a bigot, and reading in the paper that the good ol' Romans got it right and we should start throwing Christians to the lions again -none of that changed my mind. You know what changed my mind? I was listening to a lecture by Nicholas Wolterstorff and he was talking about the history of rights in the western world and how one might argue that it was core Judeo-Christian concepts, such that we are created in the image of God, that had formed the conceptual foundation for human rights in the western world. Also, that it had been historic fighting between Catholics and protestants in Europe and a later new America that didn't want to repeat that sectarian violence and so had enshrined separation of church and state as a guiding principle.
And the light went on. All the arguments, the rage that I felt in the pit of my gut, the torment at feeling that I was being personally attacked by an entire culture, that I was no longer welcome in my own country, and in a moment I connected my hurt to the hurt that I was also hearing expressed from my secular friends, and from the counter-protester challenging a traditional marriage advocate outside the gates of the Canadian parliament buildings as I was walking away in 2005. And in that moment I began to think about gay rights initiatives as a rights issue rather than being consumed with thinking of traditional marriage as a social need, when I connected the bloodshed between the Catholics and the Protestants to the vitriol I was hearing from the gays and from the Christians. But the difference is that the Catholics and the Protestants have agreed to disagree, and set up their own tents, while our culture is still demanding one big universal tent to the other side of a divided house, and what I am trying to say is that there will never be one tent on this issue, in the church or in the town.
Which leads me to another question, when a individual or community of people says "I'm gay," or "we're gay," is that a statement of personal conviction, or is that a whole worldview that all of society is then expected to conform to, no exceptions allowed? You see, I have no trouble with the first presupposition, that this is a personal conviction for some people and that I should respect that choice. I have a great deal of trouble with the second statement, because I cannot agree with the whole parcel for reasons of conscience. Furthermore, I don't expect that I will ever be able to agree with the whole parcel, because such a worldview would go against my personal beliefs, but I can respect people's right to disagree with me. I can respect people's right to equal treatment before the law. Is that enough?
I read an article the other day that seemed to be saying that current beliefs that homosexuality is genetic do not appear to have much support scientifically (through twin studies). That is my understanding from multiple sources at this point. Feel free to give me new information, but my common sense tells me that such a belief would be hard to prove unequivocally for all people at all times. And even if you could prove it, who's to say an individual could not choose a different path, surely we're not gene machines after all. And yet the tone in the culture seems to be that this belief is scientific and your religious beliefs are backward and you had better agree with progress -or else. It's the "or else" tone that worries me as a religious conservative. It's the,"we're just going to browbeat you until you submit" attitude that I find disturbing. Maybe I'm biased, in fact I know I am, so if you're coming at this from the other side and you're feeling the same way, my apologies. But I can't submit, for the record. I will never submit. No thanks, I have my own beliefs and values thank you very much, but again, feel free to disagree with me. Be my guest. I'm a religious conservative who's trying to meet the other side half-way. Again I ask, is it enough?
The argument that I have been making for some time, is suggesting that rather than approach this issue from the perspective of science and this is what I'm born, which again would be difficult to prove, would be to approach this issue as an matter of conscience for both sides, and give each other a bit of space. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm hoping that religious people would have an easier time accepting same-sex marriage and gay rights initiatives in general if it were framed as a difference in conviction, especially given that many if not all religious communities have been through the fight for rights of conscience ourselves. The historical precedents are there for reference and for dialoging with religious communities in terms of their specific cultural histories, and I'm inclined to think that religious minorities would identify with the acquisition of rights of conscience of another marginalized group for that reason. For example, if someone had said to me in 2005 when I was feeling marginalized and personally attacked, Marg, this is my conviction, this is how I self-identify, much like your personal conviction that you are a Christian. I think I would have had a much easier time understanding where they were coming from, rather than feeling like I was witnessing the desecration of everything I hold dear. And to religious conservatives, what I am suggesting is that we view gay rights alongside religious rights in this sense. "I'm gay, that is my conviction." I'm Jewish, that is my conviction, etc.
In wrapping up, I think the current understanding of religious diversity in western culture would be a much healthier approach to this divisive issue. What do I mean when I say this? I mean, that rather than dealing with this issue through social pressure to conform to a mainstream view, that we begin to accept that there are differences of conscience for both sides, and to work toward equal accommodation under the law. Isn't that what Catholics and protestants learned to do? Isn't that what the early Christians learned to do, in establishing churches rather than synagogues? Isn't that what protestants churches learned to do as they divided and subdivided and subdivided again? (lol). People may scoff at the number of protestant denominations out there, but it sure beats killing each other doesn't it?
In speaking to the gay community, it's a free market. Go to the church of your choice, or don't go to church if that's your choice. Vote with your attendance or non-attendance, but please allow me and faith based organizations the right to exist. Please allow ministries that desire to reach out to the gay community and gay people that wish to attend such ministries the right to a fair ideological competition. Please allow us the right to disagree, as we learn to accept your right to disagree with us. And to the religious minorities out there who are still wrestling with these huge social changes, it's an emotional issue. It's a very intensely personal emotional issue because we believe as religious conservatives that marriage is something that's designed by God and is therefore in the best interest of the larger society. There's a lot of truth to that, and there's a lot of people who would like to be part of that, and at present feel excluded from that community of commitment. Religious minorities know what it is to be persecuted for who we are and for our convictions. We've struggled for this historically and religious minorities around the world continue to struggle for it today, often with their lives. Surely we can understand what it means to another historically marginalized group of people, as they struggle for the same recognition, the same freedom, to be the persons that they sincerely believe that they are. I'm not asking anyone to agree, I'm asking people on both sides to support each other's right to disagree and to be seen as equals before the law, in a true spirit of equality and tolerance.
As for where I'm at with all this these days, as much as possible I'm trying to let it go. I was happy yesterday when I heard that equal benefits for same sex couples had been gained through the courts in the U.S. I also felt for the religious minorities who are struggling with these changes, because I know how they feel. It gets better, it does. The world doesn't end. I read an article the other day, again on the closing of Exodus, where one person's closing comment was that the church needs to wake up and realize that we're not in the driver's seat anymore. We're not, the culture has shifted; that's a news flash for anyone who's been in a coma for the last few years, pardon my sarcasm, lol. But to my fellow Christians, take heart. I was listening to a talk by John Piper a while ago where he said that when he has distraught Christians come to him, very fretful about societal changes, he says "welcome to the first century." The first century was an exciting time, a very very exciting time for a brand new joyful baby church. We didn't have any power, at least not of the political kind, but there were plenty of worldviews present in the ancient world, and a lot of very precious wonderful people to exchange views with. So not much has changed, in that most important sense. We may not be in the driver's seat, but we still know where we're going. Wake up sleepy church. A new day has dawned.
Take care and God bless,
M.A. Harvey
Interview with Alan Chambers on the closing of Exodus:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/interview-alan-chambers-on-closing-exodus-intl-and-starting-a-new-ministry-98563/
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Colouring the black and white
Have you ever listened to a recorded discussion between two people and wished you could have been there? That was my feeling when I watched this podcast on YouTube a while back and I wanted to jump in. Justin Brierley was interviewing Rob Bell and Andrew Wilson on his Unbelievable radio program. The subject that was being debated was homosexuality and the Bible.
I'm not altogether familiar with either speaker, but my sense of the conversation was that Wilson was questioning Bell on his reasons for taking a more liberal approach to a controversial issue and asking how his stance was grounded in scripture. Bell appeared to become agitated with being asked to explain his views from a Biblical perspective.
Just answer the question, is homosexual behavior sinful or not? The question would later ring in my ears from the comment section, directed at Rob Bell. Like the commenter, I would answer the question differently, more in line with Wilson theologically in some respects, and yet I get what Rob Bell is saying, that society has moved beyond these questions and a lot of people are being turned off by the church's insistence on continuing to ask questions that at present are deemed culturally inappropriate and offensive.
The Bible is offensive. The idea of telling people they are sinners and on their way to hell if they don't repent is rather confrontational isn't it? I've struggled with this. I'm a Canadian Christian. Do you know what you get when you cross a Canadian with a Christian? Yeah, that's right, a Christian who's afraid of offending somebody. I know it's not funny, it's pathetic really, but truth be told I've struggled with a gut-wrenching paranoia of offending people for years, while knowing that I'm commanded to go into all the world to preach a gospel that has offense built into it, the very corner stone. And yet I'm drawn to Jesus, precisely because he demands so much, constantly challenging me to be more than I am, while I'm constantly failing while reaching for something more. I haven't found anything quite like it, which is why I ask, what would be the significance of someone claiming to be God, if they weren't crazy or lying?
And I guess that's why I wonder about this cultural current that assumes that if we can get beyond the intolerance of exclusive belief systems, that it would be a better world. I look at western history, the hospitals and the educational institutions with saints' names and forgotten mission statements. Was that a secular tolerance that built that society, or was it people who believed in the commandments of a Judeo-Christian God, who were compelled to act lovingly in accordance with their beliefs? It's an interesting question isn't it?
But back to the subject at hand. I don't personally think the answer is in watering down Christianity, in short. Because I think there is a greater hope in an all-powerful personal God that goes beyond the limited thinking of our present culture. I hear so much talk these days, where conservative Christians are bashed for believing, dare they suggest that a relationship with a living God could change anyone. Well I believe it, because it transformed and is continuing to transform my life. That's not to say it's easy or that there aren't struggles, that for some people may continue to be life long.
Yet I think Rob Bell is right in the sense that we need to accept that the church isn't in control anymore. Not everyone is a Christian, and so I think discussions about what the Bible says or doesn't say about behavior should be left for within faith communities. And I think that boundary should be respected by people outside of faith communities as well. Pardon my bluntness, but don't tell me what to believe, and I won't tell you how to live. Respect is a two way street. In short, I think the answer to this very polarizing issue is in the separation of church and state, and in a verse that I don't tend to hear people emphasize enough in current discussions about homosexual rights. The Bible verse I rarely hear mentioned, that may be the foundation of western rights is easy to find. In fact, it's on the first page.
Chapter 1, verse 26: Then God said, "Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. Who on earth was he talking to by the way? There was nobody there. I feel another blog coming on folks but I digress. Verse 27: So God created people in his own image: God patterned them after himself; male and female he created them.
Here's my point, simply stated. I think that there is a place for having a frank discussion about what the Bible says or doesn't say on the topic of homosexuality, within the context of faith communities. But at the end of the day, that's for churches to sort out, what we believe according to our conscience and the dictates of our beliefs. And I think that needs to be stressed on the one hand (which is why I'm repeating it), as there seems to be a complete lack of regard for religious freedom in secular discussions of this issue. But it also needs to be said that we are not living in a theocracy, and Biblical standards of moral conduct have no bearing on the rights of individuals in a pluralistic society. But having acknowledged those two frameworks for separate discussion, public and private, as a Christian I cannot think of a better starting point in dialoging with people who may not share our beliefs, than to simply acknowledge the equal worth and dignity of all human beings and to support rights initiatives as a way of supporting the person firstly. Can I get an Amen! lol.
I remember a minister saying once in a sermon, that if the church is doing it's job, loving people, supporting people, that it will grow spontaneously. Actually, Jesus said something very similar, that if we remain in him we will bear much fruit. I think there's a reason why people come from all over the world to live in the west, because we have an ideological tradition that says that people have intrinsic worth regardless of their social status. I understand that this is an emotional issue for many people, as it was for me. But more and more I'm coming to the conclusion that the current culture war is doing more harm than good, and is counter-productive to the advance of the Gospel. We are called to reach out to people, and to love people unconditionally.
Again, I'm not talking about watering down the Gospel or lowering a bar. I'm simply suggesting that as Christians we support the rights of the individual as a way of building bridges and loving people. I would hope that in time the gay community will respect our right to make choices too, even as we disagree. Everyone should know that they are welcome in church, regardless of differences. As a thumbnail sketch of where things are going in the broader church though: I'm guessing more liberal churches are moving towards supporting monogamous same-sex relationships, while conservative churches will continue to support the individual in celibacy. We're not perfect, I know there's a lot of people who have been hurt in churches, myself included, but the options are there for the person who wants to walk with us, or talk with us.
I'll sum it up. We don't need to talk about Leviticus in the public square. We don't need to talk about Romans. The only verse we need to talk about in the public square is written on the first page of Genesis, that a relational God created human beings in His image, therefore endowing all human beings, all human beings with an intrinsic unending worth. This is the foundation of human rights in the western world, and there is no separation of people(s) in this verse. In other words, we can acknowledge each other's basic human rights without agreeing on everything else. I'm not saying there isn't a place to talk about ethics in general even, certainly it's a subject that can't be avoided, but to a world of hurting broken people who may or may not share our beliefs, I can't think of a better starting point as Christians than the assertion that God loves us and wants to have a relationship with us, while humbly knowing that western rights are grounded in our religious history.
In closing, I see a lot of black and white thinking going on with this issue. It's not simple. This is a very challenging complex issue. It's not one little bit simple. But rather than see the black or the white, the differences that divide, and beat each other constantly, can we just acknowledge that it is a difficult issue, with many people who see things differently, and allow individuals the right to find their comfy shade in a spectrum of contrasting colour?
thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
Here's the link for the podcast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF9uo_P0nNI
I'm not altogether familiar with either speaker, but my sense of the conversation was that Wilson was questioning Bell on his reasons for taking a more liberal approach to a controversial issue and asking how his stance was grounded in scripture. Bell appeared to become agitated with being asked to explain his views from a Biblical perspective.
Just answer the question, is homosexual behavior sinful or not? The question would later ring in my ears from the comment section, directed at Rob Bell. Like the commenter, I would answer the question differently, more in line with Wilson theologically in some respects, and yet I get what Rob Bell is saying, that society has moved beyond these questions and a lot of people are being turned off by the church's insistence on continuing to ask questions that at present are deemed culturally inappropriate and offensive.
The Bible is offensive. The idea of telling people they are sinners and on their way to hell if they don't repent is rather confrontational isn't it? I've struggled with this. I'm a Canadian Christian. Do you know what you get when you cross a Canadian with a Christian? Yeah, that's right, a Christian who's afraid of offending somebody. I know it's not funny, it's pathetic really, but truth be told I've struggled with a gut-wrenching paranoia of offending people for years, while knowing that I'm commanded to go into all the world to preach a gospel that has offense built into it, the very corner stone. And yet I'm drawn to Jesus, precisely because he demands so much, constantly challenging me to be more than I am, while I'm constantly failing while reaching for something more. I haven't found anything quite like it, which is why I ask, what would be the significance of someone claiming to be God, if they weren't crazy or lying?
And I guess that's why I wonder about this cultural current that assumes that if we can get beyond the intolerance of exclusive belief systems, that it would be a better world. I look at western history, the hospitals and the educational institutions with saints' names and forgotten mission statements. Was that a secular tolerance that built that society, or was it people who believed in the commandments of a Judeo-Christian God, who were compelled to act lovingly in accordance with their beliefs? It's an interesting question isn't it?
But back to the subject at hand. I don't personally think the answer is in watering down Christianity, in short. Because I think there is a greater hope in an all-powerful personal God that goes beyond the limited thinking of our present culture. I hear so much talk these days, where conservative Christians are bashed for believing, dare they suggest that a relationship with a living God could change anyone. Well I believe it, because it transformed and is continuing to transform my life. That's not to say it's easy or that there aren't struggles, that for some people may continue to be life long.
Yet I think Rob Bell is right in the sense that we need to accept that the church isn't in control anymore. Not everyone is a Christian, and so I think discussions about what the Bible says or doesn't say about behavior should be left for within faith communities. And I think that boundary should be respected by people outside of faith communities as well. Pardon my bluntness, but don't tell me what to believe, and I won't tell you how to live. Respect is a two way street. In short, I think the answer to this very polarizing issue is in the separation of church and state, and in a verse that I don't tend to hear people emphasize enough in current discussions about homosexual rights. The Bible verse I rarely hear mentioned, that may be the foundation of western rights is easy to find. In fact, it's on the first page.
Chapter 1, verse 26: Then God said, "Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. Who on earth was he talking to by the way? There was nobody there. I feel another blog coming on folks but I digress. Verse 27: So God created people in his own image: God patterned them after himself; male and female he created them.
Here's my point, simply stated. I think that there is a place for having a frank discussion about what the Bible says or doesn't say on the topic of homosexuality, within the context of faith communities. But at the end of the day, that's for churches to sort out, what we believe according to our conscience and the dictates of our beliefs. And I think that needs to be stressed on the one hand (which is why I'm repeating it), as there seems to be a complete lack of regard for religious freedom in secular discussions of this issue. But it also needs to be said that we are not living in a theocracy, and Biblical standards of moral conduct have no bearing on the rights of individuals in a pluralistic society. But having acknowledged those two frameworks for separate discussion, public and private, as a Christian I cannot think of a better starting point in dialoging with people who may not share our beliefs, than to simply acknowledge the equal worth and dignity of all human beings and to support rights initiatives as a way of supporting the person firstly. Can I get an Amen! lol.
I remember a minister saying once in a sermon, that if the church is doing it's job, loving people, supporting people, that it will grow spontaneously. Actually, Jesus said something very similar, that if we remain in him we will bear much fruit. I think there's a reason why people come from all over the world to live in the west, because we have an ideological tradition that says that people have intrinsic worth regardless of their social status. I understand that this is an emotional issue for many people, as it was for me. But more and more I'm coming to the conclusion that the current culture war is doing more harm than good, and is counter-productive to the advance of the Gospel. We are called to reach out to people, and to love people unconditionally.
Again, I'm not talking about watering down the Gospel or lowering a bar. I'm simply suggesting that as Christians we support the rights of the individual as a way of building bridges and loving people. I would hope that in time the gay community will respect our right to make choices too, even as we disagree. Everyone should know that they are welcome in church, regardless of differences. As a thumbnail sketch of where things are going in the broader church though: I'm guessing more liberal churches are moving towards supporting monogamous same-sex relationships, while conservative churches will continue to support the individual in celibacy. We're not perfect, I know there's a lot of people who have been hurt in churches, myself included, but the options are there for the person who wants to walk with us, or talk with us.
I'll sum it up. We don't need to talk about Leviticus in the public square. We don't need to talk about Romans. The only verse we need to talk about in the public square is written on the first page of Genesis, that a relational God created human beings in His image, therefore endowing all human beings, all human beings with an intrinsic unending worth. This is the foundation of human rights in the western world, and there is no separation of people(s) in this verse. In other words, we can acknowledge each other's basic human rights without agreeing on everything else. I'm not saying there isn't a place to talk about ethics in general even, certainly it's a subject that can't be avoided, but to a world of hurting broken people who may or may not share our beliefs, I can't think of a better starting point as Christians than the assertion that God loves us and wants to have a relationship with us, while humbly knowing that western rights are grounded in our religious history.
In closing, I see a lot of black and white thinking going on with this issue. It's not simple. This is a very challenging complex issue. It's not one little bit simple. But rather than see the black or the white, the differences that divide, and beat each other constantly, can we just acknowledge that it is a difficult issue, with many people who see things differently, and allow individuals the right to find their comfy shade in a spectrum of contrasting colour?
thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
Here's the link for the podcast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF9uo_P0nNI
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Circles
A number of years ago I was speaking with a seminary student and he was saying that one of his professors had explained Christianity by way of saying that there are all these circles where the church is concerned: the institutional church, denominational branches, conservative, liberal and so forth. He had continued to suggest that the students would need to find a place where they could fit individually amidst all those circles. I'm not sure if I was all that impressed by the analogy to be honest, because I guess...I know I'm a Christian and I figure as to whether other people are or not is ultimately between them and God. So, I guess I see circles as beside the point, regardless of knowing that the circles are there, if you know what I mean. But lately I've been thinking that circles might be a helpful way of visualizing other issues, and one issue in particular at the moment that is on my mind, namely the abortion debate, or lack thereof.
If we were to visualize the abortion issue, what would it look like? I expect that it would look something like penguins at one end and Santa Claus at the other, for lack of a diagram. You got your two poles. Oh let's see what I can do here. Something like this:
pro-choice, pro-life, and never the twain shall meet. A conformed silence, or at least the perceived ideal to the mainstream liberal culture would be silence and conformity. But then there's those pesky pro-life penguins (that would be me) that insist on popping up and waddling through what appears to be perma-freeze. But does it have to be like that? Or even, is it like that?
What I mean when I say that is to ask: is the abortion debate as polarized as is commonly assumed, or is it more that the poles are all we think of immediately before shutting down and tuning out, because those are the only voices that we hear? I understand and accept that there are always going to be people who feel strongly on both sides of this issue, but is that the average person? And what about the rest of us, do we get to play a role in shaping this issue? Stopping for a moment, but imagine if other debates were shut down because it was realized that nature v. nurture would never be decided. Are we born or are we made? Gosh I don't know, maybe it's both. But will we ever concur, was it the chicken or was it the egg, when I have yet to see either produced definitively as evidence at brunch. Maybe we should just stop asking altogether. We wouldn't want people running screaming naked to the hills. Chicken! It was the egg! No...chicken!
Now I know what you're thinking, but Marg, questions of chickens and eggs don't divide like the topic of abortion. No they do not, but typically when broaching difficult issues we tend to accept that most people are somewhere in the middle don't we? When we hear of terrorist plots or extremists of all kinds, the media reminds us that this is not the average Muslim or feminist or environmentalist, and we typically accept that conclusion. Why should the abortion debate be any different? Why can we not just accept that there are people who feel very strongly on both sides, but work to find common ground where we can? I live in Canada, and the thing that just kills me, no pun intended, is that we are apparently the sole western company of China, Vietnam and North Korea in having no law on abortion because nobody dares to touch it. Doesn't that just make you proud, to be in the company of human rights trail blazers such as the above, while disproportionately little girls are being aborted (including in this country) -and this is supposed to be about gender equality? Where is the average country, dare I ask? What is the average policy that other countries have managed to arrive at without splitting into separate life and choice kingdoms with walled exteriors? Something tells me that if we were to allow an intelligent discussion in this country, we would be able to set reasonable limits on abortion that are in line with other western nations. If the medical services claim to be doing that in place of a law, that tells me that there is some agreement in place already, so let's agree on some reasonable standards.
I came across a pro-choice website in doing some fact-checking, and may I say that I find it so discouraging as a pro-lifer who is trying to give an inch (sigh). I'm sure it's on both sides, a lack of ability to perceive that there is another side, but it's so disheartening when I read stuff that is so one sided, so much so that there isn't a thought for the potentiality of a human life, or that the pro-life side even has a case. Well, we do. I know enough to know that these are serious questions and serious people ought to take serious questions seriously, but institutionally you would never know that such ethical questions even exist. I'm not going to get into all that here, but can we just take a step back and ask if we can learn something from each other? Can we begin to admit that this is about as important of a discussion as we're going to have: the value of human life but also the need for human beings to be able to make personal choices? I would think that as a society we should be wary of losing the contribution of either side of this tremendously important discussion.
But having said that, my personal emphasis will always be pro-life, and I have been encouraged by others who have the fortitude to go against a tide of expectation in standing up for the value of human life. What do we have as a society if we don't see human beings as having intrinsic unending worth? If we don't see people as being ends in themselves, everything becomes a commodity, doesn't it? Should we be surprised then, when these pro-life voices are mocked and scorned to realize that slavery is on the rise, as well as organ harvesting and the price of clean water that people need to survive? And that's where I remain hopeful that there is common ground to be found here, because the left also cares about the quality of life of people. If you stop to think about it, every human rights issue that the left raises hinges on an assumed value of life, especially the intrinsic worth of human beings. When I hear reports coming out of other parts of the world, I am reminded that we have more in common than we like to admit sometimes. So let us remind each other that our human value may be at an all time low, and this undoubtedly affects a host of human rights issues. Do you know the price of a human being on the human trafficking market these days? $90. Yup, if you're lucky that price might get you a decent pair of shoes, but if you're a little short maybe you can get yourself a human being instead. Life-sucking isn't it? Makes you wonder where supply and demand get off.
I came across a pro-choice website in doing some fact-checking, and may I say that I find it so discouraging as a pro-lifer who is trying to give an inch (sigh). I'm sure it's on both sides, a lack of ability to perceive that there is another side, but it's so disheartening when I read stuff that is so one sided, so much so that there isn't a thought for the potentiality of a human life, or that the pro-life side even has a case. Well, we do. I know enough to know that these are serious questions and serious people ought to take serious questions seriously, but institutionally you would never know that such ethical questions even exist. I'm not going to get into all that here, but can we just take a step back and ask if we can learn something from each other? Can we begin to admit that this is about as important of a discussion as we're going to have: the value of human life but also the need for human beings to be able to make personal choices? I would think that as a society we should be wary of losing the contribution of either side of this tremendously important discussion.
But having said that, my personal emphasis will always be pro-life, and I have been encouraged by others who have the fortitude to go against a tide of expectation in standing up for the value of human life. What do we have as a society if we don't see human beings as having intrinsic unending worth? If we don't see people as being ends in themselves, everything becomes a commodity, doesn't it? Should we be surprised then, when these pro-life voices are mocked and scorned to realize that slavery is on the rise, as well as organ harvesting and the price of clean water that people need to survive? And that's where I remain hopeful that there is common ground to be found here, because the left also cares about the quality of life of people. If you stop to think about it, every human rights issue that the left raises hinges on an assumed value of life, especially the intrinsic worth of human beings. When I hear reports coming out of other parts of the world, I am reminded that we have more in common than we like to admit sometimes. So let us remind each other that our human value may be at an all time low, and this undoubtedly affects a host of human rights issues. Do you know the price of a human being on the human trafficking market these days? $90. Yup, if you're lucky that price might get you a decent pair of shoes, but if you're a little short maybe you can get yourself a human being instead. Life-sucking isn't it? Makes you wonder where supply and demand get off.
I'll give it a rest, but in closing may I just say that I've struggled with the reality of the difficulty of this issue for years. Lying in bed, hearing those conflicting voices rioting in my head in the middle of the night. Enough to finally accept that we're never going to win this. There's no winner here, just a very painful issue for a lot of people. But what if we stopped trying to shut each other down and admit that both sides have a point and begin to work together to better the lives of people? Back to the issue at hand, but how can we support women through a difficult decision? How can we offer women more information, counselling, supports and services, so that they know their options, so that they don't feel backed against a wall? How can we give women more choice within a reasonable time frame, while accepting that ultimately the decision has to be her own. Is that reasonable? For me those dark nights of the soul were also the beginning of asking, so where do we go from here? That's the question I want to explore, in asking where is the average person on this continuum? If we were to put those conflicting circles together, where might they overlap? What would that inner space look like? I'll leave you with that thought for now.
Oh I can't resist, it's not easy being green.
Thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
Here are a few related links:
http://blog.ansirh.org/2010/11/abortion-common-ground/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)