Romal, thank you for this. I can relate to your frustration when trying to talk about political issues without getting "stuck" on the one or two wedge issues.

I have often said that I see two different ways of approaching the abortion issue. No, not one is either for it or against it, but one is either willing to acknowledge the difficulty of the issue and to try to understand the other side's point of view, or one is not. Unfortunately both sides have plenty of the latter.

Posted by: I and I | August 11, 2008 2:35 PM

Not a bad article. Thanks

When I think of these two issues, I think of the Didache - The Way of Life and the Way of Death. Maybe reframing the argument in those terms would be more appropriate.

Posted by: Gordon | August 11, 2008 4:26 PM

Gordon -

With all due respect, I don't see how framing the argument that way would be at all helpful.

I've said this before when the topic of abortion has come up, but it bears repeating. People on both sides of the abortion issue frequently fail to recognize the moral seriousness and integrity of those on the other side. In the case of those who are "pro-choice," this is largely because the "pro-life" movement has allowed itself to become inextricably connected with right-wing politics generally.

Those on the "pro-life" side, however, rarely recognize that their opponents have any moral integrity at all. So let me state unequivocally that my strongly "pro-choice" friends are among the most morally serious and decent people I know, and that they honestly believe they are fighting for what is right in a confused and immoral world.

Similarly, Christians who are openly gay tend to be among the most devout and morally serious people you will encounter, since, as Philip Yancey has pointed out, they would otherwise have left the church long ago, given the attitudes they encounter there.

So the challenge for those who disagree on these issues is most definitely not to frame the argument in terms of THE WAY OF LIFE and THE WAY OF DEATH. We've had enough of that. More than enough. Let's start by recognizing that our opponents are people taking principled stands because of moral principles in which they deeply believe. Then maybe we can move beyond wedge issues into genuine dialogue.

Posted by: Another nonymous | August 11, 2008 4:51 PM

I have to say that Rev. Tune's series has made for interesting reading -- and I'm not saying that facetiously.

Rev. Tune comes across as someone who is genuinely wrestling with these hard issues. I think he sees serious flaws in the conservative worldview, but I don't think he's entirely satisfied with the usual glib answers from the establishment left either.

It seems to me that Rev. Tune is trying to stake out a principled Christian center. That's not a bad desire to have, although I'm not sure it can be done.

If it is possible, I would suggest to the good reverend that the key will be to put together a set of principles -- even if he has to cobble together a set from the existing left and right. Among other things, that will mean acknowledging that the right is correct about a few things, and that some of the designs of contemporary liberalism are seriously flawed and should be discarded. And vice-versa.

I also think that the creation of a principled Christian center will require serious thought about the limitiations of church, government, and civil society. Conservatism is fond of pointing out the limits of government, but (as Don correctly points out) the state is not the only institution with limits.

I would encourage Rev. Tune to listen to the better advocates of both sides, start out with an open mind, and draw his own conclusions.

Lord Voldemort

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 11, 2008 5:45 PM

Rev. Tune, I want to agree with another commenter on the quality of your blog posts. They are at least as consistently high quality as any of the others, IMHO, although that is a very high standard - Phyllis Tickle and Brian McLaren, for examples, I really appreciate.

I do think that the idea that everything we think is sinful should also be outlawed by the state is mistaken. The state's role is different from that of the church.

That does leave it somewhat murky as to the proper Christian position on some issues of public policy where it comes to laws that prohibit or license certain behavior. The state needs to legislate on what is needed for good public order while allowing a reasonable degree of freedom for citizens. I'm not sure the church is always in a good position to figure out exactly where the state should come down in that balance. I think there may sometimes be a temptation to jump in beyond where we are called by God. For instance, a faith community where I used to be a member recently called for Bush to be impeached. I doubt that's something on which they should have taken a formal faith community position.

I do think it is incumbent upon us to have compassion on all, including those who engage in activities which we don't believe God desires for them (as well as humility in realizing that we ourselves fall short of the mark). When it comes to making it easy for people who are partners to make medical decisions for each other when one is incapacitated and such things, it doesn't seem compassionate to me to deny the reality of the relationship and to make it difficult because as people of faith we may not believe the relationship is blessed by God. But some Christian groups vehemently oppose even very moderate measures in this respect.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | August 11, 2008 7:14 PM

Matt, on Capital Punishment vs Abortion, there is no comparison.

Abortion disrespects life by destroying it.

Capital Punishment values life by defending it against murderers.

Also, if you're comparing abortion with poverty, I would ask this: Would you rather be poor or dead? It's somewhat like triage. If you come upon an accident and there are multiple people injured, you would prioritize based on severity or which cases were life-threatening. A broken leg, although serious and requiring attention would not be treated with the same urgency as a lacerated femoral artery. Certainly, the fact that you work to stop the bleeding does not mean that you don't care about the other guy with the broken leg.

Also, I would chalenge the assumption that liberal "poverty" solutions are either effective or compassionate, but that's another debate.

Posted by: Bradley | August 11, 2008 9:51 PM

"At a societal level, only the shared human values ought to be legislated."

Shared by whom? The majority? This is a line of argumentation fraught with landmines.

"There is a shared human value placed on life, which is why faith based and non-faith based groups oppose the death penalty (think AI)."

This would be one of the landmines. See below.

"{as an aside this shared human value on life does not apply to the abortion debate because there is not a shared understanding of when life begins - most who give and receive abortions do not view it as the taking of life}."

There is certainly a shared understanding, though there are many different understandings shared.

So, should we adhere to the shared understanding of the majority? The majority in America believe that the death penalty ought be allowed in certain circumstances. Personally, I think the shared understanding on this issue is absurd and uninformed. But it is what it is.

So do we accept shared understanding as the basis for discerning what constitutes life? My inclination is to reject the concept outright, but I am open to your arguments.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 12, 2008 12:30 AM

kevin --

As for the abortion issue, I would ban it in all circumstances except where the mother's physical health is at risk. I would stop short of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution because such matters have traditionally been handled state-by-state and I see no reason to change that.

"Gay marriage," however, is legally more problematic. That's more of a cultural issue because in many societies the community, generally parents, choose marriage partners; in Western society, however, two people choose each other, usually based on sexual attraction. For that reason I'm not entirely sure how to deal that issue.

Posted by: Rick | August 12, 2008 10:02 AM

There might be some confusion about what I said above. I'm pro-life cradle to grave (the "seamless garment of life" Cardinal Bernadin called it). While Trent argues that my abortion views impose my faith on another, I would counter that the nuances of abortion demand significantly more reasoning than just that. Yes, the idea of "when life begins" is a philosophical/religious question. The idea that a viable fetus can be killed because the mother does not want the inconvience of a child is not-- that is a case that fails all tests of rational consideration and legality.

I concede that though I personally oppose first trimester abortion, it is a harder case to make to impose it in a free democratic socity. Yet the current American policy which is pledged to be upheld by the Democratic party enables abortion-on-demand and abortion-as-birth control long beyond the viability of the fetus. As a matter of Christian ethics and as a matter of basic human reason-- current US abortion policy is philosophically immoral. I would oppose both capital punishment and abortion on Christian faith but also on principles of common good and a rational understanding of justice in a free democratic society. Too many religious progressives skip the hard work of actually considering the justification of which government policies they support or oppose based upon principles of faith and reason.

Posted by: Matt K | August 12, 2008 3:10 PM

I have found this posting along with the comments following it to be very interesting. I think that the central issues here, or really any issues that have political, moral, and spiritual implications are primarily related to how people and religious people specifically view the role of the the rule of law and how God should inform that. In regards to this I do not think there is any answer that will create a solution. Although the emotions involved in these debates stem from spiritual and moral conviction, it seems to me what is really being argued is whether or not religious doctrines have a space any given country's legal system. How far can a legal system go to ensure some sort of moral code?

I can see how many pro-life advocates see abortion as a form of murder and logically it follows that if murder is illegal and termination of pregnancy is a form of murder and should be illegal. As someone who works in the OBGYN field and is very knowlegable about fertility, pregnancy, and fetal development I must say that biologically it is a much more nuanced and complex issue. Prenatal environment also has a huge impact on how a fetus will physically develop and thus how developed and healthy a baby will be. There are many women who are not in a place in their lives to provide a healthy prenantal environment. This may be due to the fact that they have addiction problems, which cannot be immediately kicked the moment a woman finds out she is pregnant. I work with pregnant low income women in an urban context and many of these women sustain extremely high stress levels due to how difficult it is to be poor in The United States. They face sexism, racism, lack of finances, lack of housing and proper nutrition, lack of any support, and often lack of prenatal care. On top of this many low-income people live in extremely toxic areas and these environmental toxins not only impact them, but have the capacity to harm an unborn baby since the prenatal environment is a sensitive one. These are very real problems for thousands of American women who are pregnant and making the decision whether or not to keep their babies. I respect the sanctity of life and I have wrestled with the abortion issue, but I cannot say that it is a sin to recognize your inability to grow a healthy baby. Often these factors that would make it very difficult for a woman to prenatally support and then raise a child are not considered factors that "put the mother at extreme medical risk". They merely increase the chances significantly that the baby will not be healthy. I think this is a variable in the equation that most people are not thinking about. Until I began this work I also had not considered all these factors.

I do not want to diminish anyone's spiritual convictions, but rather to add a bit more depth. Many people may say that this is skirting the issue, but I personally am not prepared to fight against abortion until our country has fought against our class system, our environmental pollutions, our racism, and has created a country in which almost all if not all pregnant women can create healthy prenatal environments for their babies. Clearly not all women who have abortions are low-income, but there are significant numbers of women facing the obstacles I'm describing.

During the time the Bible was written bodies were understood in a different way. Our knowledge of human biology and biology in general gives us more tools when approaching tough moral situations like this.

I do not think that Jesus would ever say that science is more important than love, kindness, acceptance, community, or reconciliation. I do however think that the Jesus I have studied through the Bible and gotten to know through my own personal relationship with him, would use the scientific knowledge in his practice of love through social, environmental, and reproductive justice. When trying to figure out whether or not I was going to believe in Jesus what really connected me to his work was his ability to consistently love everyone and his ability to break out of moral norms for the sake of truly loving someone and fostering healthy people and communities.

Before we try to understand and wrestle with abortion let's understand pregnancy and the socio-economic factors associated with it. I think that that would be a way to understand and thus love the women who are making these heart wrenching decisions more fully and thus have a more comprehensive and compassionate stance on the issue.

Posted by: Rebecca | August 12, 2008 4:24 PM

@ Trent, Nad2, et al.

The question I'm hearing posed to me is how a legal/rational argument can be made against abortion without "imposing my faith" on the issue.

A fetus has unique human DNA distinct from the mother. A fetus is not merely a part of a woman's body-- it is a unique human being and as such should be afforded some unique human rights. While the argument about the rights of a zygote are hard to make apart from religious convictions, would it not be medically correct to speak of a human being with active brain function to be a sentient being? If I'm not mistaken, we now know that a fetus has measurable brain activity within a matter of weeks of conception-- and this point is more importantly made in that the fetus certainly does feel pain at some point in its gestation and that the "vacuum and extraction" method of abortion on a later term fetus must certainly be a cruel infliction of pain upon the child before its death.

While the "letter" of Roe v. Wade might allow states to limit late term abortion to medically necessary rationale, functionally abortion is essentailly legal at any stage for any reason in the United States (compare to the UK and France where third trimester abortions must have legitimate fetal/maternal health concerns validated by two doctors). Currently in the United States only about 1% of abortion is in response to rape and incest and some 7-8% are medically related-- the overwhelming majority of abortions performed in the US is abortion-as-birth control. When we consider the moral questions of the personhood of beings who have distinct human dna, have active brain function, and are near or at viability--- why can a civil society not ask mothers to carry the fetus to term so that a loving family can adopt the child and give it the chance to live a full and worthy life.

As I've said multiple times now, the complete outlawing of abortion is more than we can ask of a free democratic society. But a just society must ask serious questions about serious regulations about non-medically necessary abortion as accessible as it currently is.

Posted by: Matt K | August 13, 2008 6:42 PM

Romal,

Very nice job! I think the "wedge" issues you mention have been politicized to death. As Christians we have a responsibility to apply the scriptures to our every day lives. But we are also given the ability to choose. According to scripture, abortion is murder. The law of the land views it differently depending on the age of the unborn child. But with that in mind, each person has a right to choose. I am "pro-choice" not because I'm in favor of abortion. I'm against it but I'm not against a woman's right to make that choice. As far as homosexuality goes I think that it is an "act" just as fornication is. Unfortunately a group of people have been labeled for this act as GAY or LESBIAN. They are actually men and woman engaged in homosexual acts. Tough argument I know but we have to reject the notion of dismissing people based on the sin. We are all sinners--saved by grace.

Posted by: Beverly | August 14, 2008 4:22 PM

Beverly, I presume that with your understanding of homosexuality you would not consider me to be a homosexual. I have not been sexually active for many years. Nor do I experience sexual thoughts about other people either male or female. I have had no interest in becoming sexually involved with any person for a very long time.
I would like to assure you that I am never-the-less a lesbian. I am a lesbian not because of sexual actions but because when ever I have fallen for someone, meaning when ever I have given my heart to another person, it has always been given to another woman. That is just how I experience life. As a Christian, sexual acts and even sexual thoughts are not things I would want to indulge in outside of a covenanted relationship. I am a sinner, but by the grace of God I do not have to struggle with this particular kind of sin.
If you were my "friend" and you were unable to recognize my heart's orientation in life, it would be difficult for me to experience your friendship as real. If I did experience your friendship as real and you persisted in denying the orientation of my heart, that would be painful to me, just as it would feel painful if I was a gifted artist and you denied that, or if you refused to acknowledge the special role/relationship I have as mother to my two now grown children.

Posted by: Sonja | August 28, 2008 2:16 AM