It was no joke. On April Fool's Day in 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to pursue a significant reduction in nuclear arms with "effective verification measures." America and Russia possess the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world by far, which is why Obama told reporters in Moscow, "We must lead by example, and that's what we're doing here today." According to a recent study, 73% of Americans and 63% of Russians support the elimination of nuclear weapons.
With Obama and Medvedev playing nice and public opinion in favor of such action, one has to wonder why there has been little buzz since April. Perhaps there have simply been "more important" discussions in Washington. Healthcare has stolen most of the recent front page headlines. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are fighting over page two. And don't forget the economy.
What would you think if someone told you that the key to abolishing nuclear weapons might be Christians? What if all those religious people turned out to be the force that drove this conversation to its tipping point? The unlikely supporters could undoubtedly make an impact if they were to join the conversation. Christians would bring the numerical strength of their voting bloc as well strong moral arguments, which are always helpful on such issues.
The Two Futures Project (2FP) is a non-partisan Christian movement seeking to abolish nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. 2FP does not call for America to disarm unilaterally, but rightly advocates for multilateral, verifiable, and irreversible disarmament. This effort has been endorsed by many on the political left and right, including George Shultz, Cold War architect and former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan.
Rather than unravel into an exmplanation of boring technicalities, which you would almost certainly not read, I encourage you to digest the information on the 2FP website. Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, Director of 2FP, beautifully articulates why its necessary that Christians oppose nukes. Additionally, he has done a wondrous job of outlining the path to a world free of nuclear weapons.
I recently joined the 2FP movement because I believe nuclear weapons are unchristian. When absolutely necessary, wars should be fought by soldiers not declared on innocent civilians. The Christian God abhors the shedding of innocent blood and nuclear weapons are only capable of widespread, indiscriminate killing and destruction of life. As nukes become more prevalent in our world, the chances of a terrorist gaining possession of one grows. And when a nation is attacked by a terrorist, there is often no country to bomb back.
If you are a follower of Jesus and agree that abolishing nuclear weapons is necessary, I encourage you to join this effort by signing on via the 2FP website. Also, watch and share the powerful 2FP! You just might be joining the movement that finally pushes this issue to the political forefront.
Q: What do you think about the abolition of nuclear weapons? Do you think it is possible? Do you think it is smart? Do you think Christians should be involved in this conversation either way?
Related Posts
"Remembering Hiroshima Rightly"
Bill Beahan said:
Are Christians Key to Anti-Nuke Movement?
Yes in the sense that if everyone were a Christian then the deterrence would be unnecessary. Raising children in the 70s & 80s, I worried about the Soviet Union with nukes but the ones Britain and France had never bothered me at all. Consider what would probably happen if the USA destroyed all our nukes today. We would not have to worry about what happens in DC but what the masters in Peking had in store for us. Even is you could magically remove all nukes and make it impossible for any to be built the world would be a much more dangerous place. I believe that if nukes had never been created that WWIII would have broken out in the 50s or 60s and made the first 2 look like schoolyard fistfights. No rational power attacks a country with nukes. This is one of those issues that on the surface sounds good but in the real world is extremely naive.
Posted: January 5, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
Bill,
You may be right when you say "no rational power" attacks a nuclear country. The problem is that we have been attacked by people who are neither rational nor powers. That's why a super-majority of living Secretaries of State are saying we need to move forward on global, verifiable, irreversible disarmament. Because Cold War thinking isn't effective in a our post-Cold War world.
Your thoughts?
Jm
Posted: January 5, 2010
Bill Beahan said:
There are still rational powers such as Red China and Russia that nukes would deter. Especially Red China who with a world without nukes may well decide they have the power to dictate to the rest of us.
Posted: January 6, 2010
CJ said:
JM, you state:
"What would you think if someone told you that the key to abolishing nuclear weapons might be Christians? What if all those religious people turned out to be the force that drove this conversation to its tipping point? The unlikely supporters could undoubtedly make an impact if they were to join the conversation. Christians would bring the numerical strength of their voting bloc as well strong moral arguments, which are always helpful on such issues."
I can think of numerous issues where Christians bringing the numerical strength of their voting bloc and strong moral arguments could probably make a significant difference. Two that immediately come to mind are abortion and child sex slavery/trafficking.
Yet, if I compare your position and advocacy for eliminating nukes with your position and advocacy for eliminating abortion, there seems to be a key difference: you advocate for "abortion reduction", but when it comes to nukes, you advocate for nuke elimination. If Christians uniting can eliminate nukes, why couldn't we do the same for abortion? Why the difference in approach on these pro life issues? My history may be a little fuzzy, but I think nuke elimination has been an issue longer than an abortion. What I am really questioning is your difference in approach when both are a very challenging political feat, based on the historical policy arguments, decisions, laws and regulations of both.
Posted: January 7, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
CJ,
You are incorrect in your statements on my positions. I have said numerous times that I support the overturning of Roe v. Wade and I believe so-called "abortion on demand" should be outlawed. See my piece in Relevant from 2009 (I will probably repost here soon). I ALSO support what I have called an "in the meantime" strategy of abortion reduction.
Interestingly--though I hadn't realized it until just now--my position on abortion and nukes mirror each other exactly. Russia and the US are only talking about arms "reduction," which I support. But I also support Tyler and Two Futures, which works for global, irreversible, verifiable nuclear "abolition."
Christians have been bringing their moral arguments and political strength to the abortion debate for more than 30 years. In fact, the Greco-Roman world struggled over the issue of abortion and Christian played a role then too. I hope we continue to do so.
Does this explain?
Jm
Posted: January 7, 2010
CJ said:
JM,
My issue strictly concerned pro-life groups or causes for which you choose to advocate, and the questionable consistency of your advocacy therein. My use of the term “position” was meant to convey your position on advocating for common ground, practical, cultural transformation efforts. Yes, you have been very clear about your desire to see abortion eliminated, to see Roe v. Wade overturned, but I wasn’t questioning this. I don’t see your advocacy for overturning Roe v. Wade; I see your acknowledgment and stated support. Your advocacy is limited to abortion reduction and does not seem to include ending abortion on demand.
The consistency I’m looking for is the equivalent abortion-related pro-life group, cause, or initiative calling for an end to abortion, just like 2FP calls for complete, multilateral elimination of nukes. Although I have been following you for a while now, I went back and reviewed more than just your Relevant Mag article. A few things I find is your stated support for overturning Roe v. Wade, your call for finding “common ground” (and thus ending the culture war), your definition of pro-life as more than just abortion (and I agree), and you as a signatory on ThirdWay’s “Come, Let Us Reason Together.” Great. However, I cannot find any other abortion-related pro-life advocacy on your part other than CLURT. Is this because you view most/all other abortion-related efforts as part of the“culture war” milieu? The Guttmacher Institute has a lengthy list of state-based legislation, executive actions and judicial decisions for 2009, including abortion bans - http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/update
Sorry for taking so long to make my point...almost there. You advocate for comprehensive pro-life policies and interventions, such as abortion reduction and multilateral nuclear elimination. You invite your readers to sign on with 2FP and share with others towards ultimate nuke elimination. While unequivocally in support of eliminating abortion on demand, your advocacy is limited to an “in the meantime” approach (CLURT). Why not advocate for both abortion reduction and ending abortion on demand? And while your position on abortion and nukes indeed mirror each other (remember, it wasn’t your position that I was claiming to be inconsistent), your advocacy for each is inverted. Therefore, my challenge to you is to advocate for ending abortion on demand with the same fervor you exhibit in ending nuclear weapons and promoting abortion reduction. And as I previously stated, eliminating nukes is just as much a political feat as ending abortion on demand, so advocating for one while not advocating for the other is, well, inconsistent.
As an aside, thank you for correcting my [very] fuzzy history on abortion.
Respectfully,
CJ
Posted: January 10, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
CJ,
Initially, you made the claim that there was an inconsistency between my position on nukes and abortion: "Yet, if I compare your position and advocacy for eliminating nukes with your position and advocacy for eliminating abortion, there seems to be a key difference."
I answered this by explaining that I support abolition in both cases, but I also believe reduction is a good step in the right direction.
Now, however, you seem less concerned about an apparent inconsistency between my position on two issues and more concerned with the abortion reduction platform in general. I suspect (keeping your previous comments in mind) that this is the REAL rub for you.
It would be helpful for you to recognize that I was asked to join CLURT. I was also asked to be a part of Two Futures. After praying over each, I decided that these were good things. I haven't been asked to be a part of a similar initiative in support of the abolition of abortion, but I would certainly consider one if asked.
I don't claim to have these whole things figured out. I don't claim to have mapped out a perfect strategy for how to tackle complex issues such as these. I believe life is sacred and should be protected from birth. Unlike most of our fellow "pro-lifers," I don't simply vote for a Republican President and then go home and rest well having "done my part." I think these things require hard work.
I understand your reasons for not liking the abortion reduction agenda, and you understand my reasons for thinking it's a great way to save lives while advocating for abolition. Your convictions on these issues may lead you to respond in different ways by supporting different things. That's the beautiful thing about the Body of Christ, isn't it?
Jm
Posted: January 11, 2010
CJ said:
JM,
You need to re-read my last response. I clarified my terms, and repeatedly emphasized the core issue: that for which you choose to advocate. I also differentiated your “support” from your advocacy. You seem to think there is no difference, but I have clearly laid out the difference. Although you make an unwarranted and incorrect assumption, my like or dislike of the abortion reduction agenda is largely irrelevant to the core issue, as is your vote for a president of a particular party, as is how you got involved with 2FP or CLURT. On this last point, are you telling me that you can’t advocate for eliminating abortion until some group asks you to join their cause? I know that’s not true b/c you regularly find all kinds of efforts to promote and challenge your readers to at least consider. Once again, this comes down to that for which you choose to advocate and promote beyond mere statements of support.
Do you not see that this is an issue of integrity for you? You cannot or will not explain why you advocate for the elimination of one mammoth feat (nuke elimination) while not advocating for another (abortion elimination). Even now, you state “the abortion reduction agenda...is a great way to save lives while advocating for abolition.” WHERE ARE YOU ADVOCATING FOR ABOLITION? Again, re-read my last response where I raised this exact issue. Please point me and your readers to your advocacy. Surely a statement of support tacked on to an abortion reduction column doesn’t qualify as advocacy? It certainly doesn’t rise to the same level of effort you give to abortion reduction or nuke elimination. I don’t think there’s even much of a comparison.
You go on to state “Your convictions on these issues may lead you to respond in different ways by supporting different things.” This isn’t about mere support. I am beyond that; it’s about your advocacy, and it’s precisely my convictions that lead me to address the inconsistency in your advocacy. Advocating for abortion reduction, while good in general, is incomplete if you really want to see abortion eliminated. As far as my support, once again, re-read my last response and note I didn’t suggest, infer, or even hint at abandoning abortion reduction. Instead, I challenged you to add abolition to your abortion reduction advocacy.
In promoting abortion reduction, you have rightly challenged your readers in general, and “younger evangelicals” in particular, to expand their scope and definition of pro-life. Yet, your actions (i.e, your advocacy and promotion that go beyond mere support) have been entirely focused on abortion reduction with no complimentary focus on the larger goal: eliminating abortion. In turn, you are leading a generation down a parallel path that has much to offer but stops short of the destination. I am challenging you to merge your paths, advocate for eliminating abortion just the same as you advocate for abortion reduction, and demonstrate to “younger evangelicals” that it is not an either/or choice. I don’t have a perfect strategy mapped out, either. Strategically, reducing abortions is a logical and worthwhile “in the meantime approach,” but only if there are supporting actions that persevere towards the end goal of one day seeing abortion eliminated. Reminding your readers that you “support” eliminating abortion does not qualify as advocacy.
Respectfully,
CJ
Posted: January 14, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
CJ,
We could continue to type mammoth comments about this ad infinitum. I won't do that, but I will give this another go.
I do not believe that I must be invited to join a group in order to be part, but in the case of things such as CLURT, that is the way it works. You, however, are working on another premise. Unless I join a bunch of groups or sign a bunch of petitions, then I am not "advocating" for the abolition of abortion.
No, CJ, I don't think slapping my name on a dime-a-dozen petition is a matter of integrity. God calls each of us to particular issues and particular approaches. God may have called one person to work clean water. You might riddle that person's blog for why they don't work on world hunger, but ultimately that person's integrity is not in question.
How exactly would you like me to work to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?
How exactly would you like me to work to have congress pass a constitutional ban on abortion when there is no bill in any committee and we have a President who would undoubtedly veto it?
Are you an "advocate" on this issue? Please share how you have personally worked on this issue,
As far as the abolition of abortion is concerned--not that I am under interrogation--I share my views with others, I have shared them persuasively in my writings, I have voted accordingly, and I have been a part of more than one private efforts to see movement on this issue (believe it or not, that's where many things happen).
Most importantly, we have, in the words of Cool Hand Luke, a failure to communicate. We are operating from different paradigms. You compartmentalize the pro-life debate politically. That's why you want to talk about legal abolition and reduction as something separate. I see the pro-life debate morally. It is comprehensive and cannot be compartmentalized. We've been called to honor life. And there are many ways we can do that. No one has the energy or time to devote 100% to every strategy. We must each seek God on how each of us should divide our time and efforts. You may not like the way I divide up my time and efforts. Luckily, I answer to Someone else.
Jm
Posted: January 14, 2010
CJ said:
JM,
Thank you for your patience and perseverance in continuing this dialogue. I suspect both of us are weary of carrying this on any further...for now.
Although this is the closest you have come to actually addressing what I have repeatedly defined as my core issue, unfortunately, you continue to spend more time reading into my responses and trying to figure out from what angle I am coming, as if I have some hidden agenda or motive, rather than simply addressing my issue head on. This results in irrelevant and erroneous assumptions on your part, so I spend time and space trying to bring you back to the core issue and repeating myself ad infinitum. For example, now you say “You compartmentalize the pro-life debate politically. That's why you want to talk about legal abolition and reduction as something separate,” yet I have been calling for you to give both equal time--and even integrate the two into your advocacy.
No, your advocacy should not be dependent on first joining some group or signing some document (another erroneous statement), and this has never been my focus. I made this point in my last response, affirmed you in this, and challenged you to (ALERT: core issue coming) bring your advocacy of eliminating abortion in line with your advocacy of abortion reduction and nuke elimination.
I’m not questioning that to which God has called you; I’m (ALERT: core issue coming) questioning your reluctance to advocate for abortion elimination like you do for abortion reduction and nuke elimination. I don’t know what other “particular issue or approach” you think I am “riddling” you on. Regardless, it seems you are now admitting the issue of abortion elimination is not something you plan to advocate for--even alongside your advocacy for abortion reduction; you are content to stick with abortion reduction and nuke elimination, but not take on abortion elimination, a natural extension of abortion reduction and entirely consistent with your advocacy of nuke elimination. Where your advocacy is concerned, you, JM, are the one who is “compartmentalizing,” and I have been calling you on it from the start of this dialogue. The very reason I continue to hammer you on this is b/c I, too, see it as a moral issue, and therein an issue of integrity when it comes to your advocacy.
I have no doubt you share your views on abortion elimination privately, but you have yet to point to even one article where you have “persuasively” advocated for such (not to be confused with your statements of support).
You have a platform and a position of influence (at least among some) that brings with it a heightened responsibility for the views to which you hold and that for which you advocate (for and against)--precisely b/c of the increased reach and potential for influence. I, too, have the same responsibility as a husband, father, D-group leader, and officer in my church, and this is the sphere within which I advocate, but I don’t have the reach or platform like you. Your blog and other public writings are integral to your influence, so it’s only logical that this would be a part of your advocacy when you advocate for abortion reduction. For whatever reason, you have chosen to leave advocacy for abortion elimination out of your writings (but at least you have acknowledged your support for it, and I have never questioned this and even affirmed you in this). All I am challenging (should I say “riddling”) you to do (or at least consider) is add this to your advocacy (going beyond mere statements of support) as part of your writings when you advocate for abortion reduction.
Some examples MIGHT include (emphasis on MIGHT):
-- encouraging followers of Christ (especially younger evangelicals) to devote time and resources, where possible, to organizations that approach abortion reduction efforts as part of a larger sanctity of life ethic
-- what are followers of Christ to think of state abortion bans and state Human Life Amendments--are these any really different from previous efforts of our parents’ generation or should these be something to consider, especially for those who live in states where these efforts are in progress
GA has a state Human Life Amendment - http://personhood.net/default.htm
Again, thank you for your time and effort in addressing my concern(s).
Respectfully,
CJ
Posted: January 18, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
CJ,
1. This post was not about abortion reduction.
2. Because of Roe v. Wade a full state ban on abortion would be unconstitutional.
3. Your first suggestion is something I already do, so looks like I actually pass your advocacy test.
4. You never answered my question: Are you an "advocate" on this issue? Please share how you have personally worked on this issue?
Jm
Posted: January 18, 2010
CJ said:
1. This post was not about abortion reduction.
First you ding me for “compartmentalizing;” now you ding me for not “compartmentalizing.”
2. Because of Roe v. Wade a full state ban on abortion would be unconstitutional.
This is one strategy being given serious attention with mixed support among pro-life advocates. The point of the state ban is to force a court case that would essentially challenge Roe v. Wade. Another strategy is the Human Life Amendment that not only defines life to explicitly include conception, but also sets up a states rights issue.
3. Your first suggestion is something I already do, so looks like I actually pass your advocacy test.
I’m strictly dealing with your writings, and I haven’t seen you address this other than the general challenge to engage in abortion reduction efforts as an “in the meantime approach.” If I missed it, please point me to where you have encouraged this. And my emphasis with the first suggestion is on supporting orgs that abide by and advocate within a sanctity of life ethic.
4.You never answered my question: Are you an "advocate" on this issue? Please share how you have personally worked on this issue?
My sphere of advocacy has been as a husband, father, D-group leader, and officer in my church. I have also written my congressional leaders, included this issue as part of a teaching series in Christian apologetics and volunteered with a pregnancy crises center/Christian adoption agency (my own application of supporting an organization with a sanctity of life ethic vs. volunteering at the Planned Parenthood clinic).
CJ
Posted: January 20, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
CJ,
1. Nope. I said you compartmentalize the abortion issue whereas I see it as holistic. Here I am merely pointing out that you said you were concerned about my position on nukes (relevant to this post) but you are really just wanting to harp on abortion reduction (irrelevant to this post). I actually pointed this out early on: "Now, however, you seem less concerned about an apparent inconsistency between my position on two issues and more concerned with the abortion reduction platform in general. I suspect (keeping your previous comments in mind) that this is the REAL rub for you."
4. Good. We've done roughly the same things.
Jm
Posted: January 20, 2010
CJ said:
Well, I should have followed my instincts and ended my last response with a reminder of what this is really about--the inconsistency in your advocacy of abortion elimination vs. that of abortion reduction and nuke elimination. Your post was indeed about nuke elimination, but my issue from the start has always and only been your inconsistent advocacy.
While we have done roughly the same things, you have a sphere of influence which I do not have--this blog and your other outlets for your writings. It is in this sphere that I have challenged your advocacy, which you simply will not address.
You have done nothing in this dialogue but DENY and DISMISS the inconsistency, DISTRACT from the core issue above by confusing your support for and position on abortion elimination with that of your (non existent) advocacy, and DIVERT the discussion from the core issue to my supposed issues with abortion reduction. Just as you cannot produce any evidence of your advocacy for abortion elimination in this blog or any of your writings, so you cannot produce any evidence of my supposed problem with abortion reduction.
You have lead with your emotions and presuppositions instead of logic and reason throughout this entire discussion, and this is the real reason we have a failure to communicate.
Let the record show that Mr. Faith and Culture is willing to tackle the difficult issues by “navigating the toughest, trickiest, and most controversial conversations,” except when it comes to his own inconsistencies. Well, JM, I have thrown the “hush off” a major inconsistency in your advocacy for abortion elimination--an advocacy that doesn’t exist--and in the process, discovered another flaw in your character through your unwillingness to address it as evidenced by your denying, dismissive, distracting and diversionary tactics.
My challenge still stands: advocate for abortion elimination like you advocate for abortion reduction and nuke elimination.
CJ
Posted: January 22, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
CJ,
I actually feel the opposite. I feel like my logic has been impervious to your emotionalism. Here is what I have stated about the record of my support of abortion elimination:
1. I have stated it in written articles and on this blog with the intent of persuading others. (I even included a defense of it in my public statement at the CLURT press conference.)
2. I have done all the things you have done including working within my church, family, and friends to promote those ideals (although, like I am guessing is the case with you, most of those people are already converts).
3. I have voted for pro-life candidates in elections with consistency and have pressured them through written letters and emails to support certain measures, such as the ban on partial birth abortion.
4. I have worked through off-the-record meetings and conference calls with Washington influentials in an attempt to persuade others.
Those of us in the rational world call that advocacy. Those of us in the logical world call it enumerated consistency. Your definition of consistency is apparently doing enough to pacify your desire for certain advocacy actions (which you have failed to name despite my requests to tell me what you would have me do that I am not doing).
If the above list is "non-existent advocacy" then I welcome you to the club because you've done nothing to work on abortion reduction and I am doing more, saying more, and writing more about the elimination than you based on your own admission.
I am sure every person who has ever visited this site had their own agenda they'd like me to follow. In the end, I am grateful and thankful that I am only responsible to One person for the steps that I take and the proportions with which I use the time and energy to advocate for certain issues. No amount of alliteration, name-calling or paper tiger challenges will change that.
Jm
Posted: January 22, 2010
CJ said:
JM,
I don’t know what emotions are driving your responses (fear, pride, anger, frustration, etc.) but you continue to exhibit the same behaviors I previously mentioned. You can’t point to any “name-calling,” either. I called out your behavior. So, where’s the problem? I greatly appreciate your time, and I never dreamed that we would still be at this almost three weeks after your original post (surely I speak for both of us).
#1, 3&4: I have never questioned your support nor your advocacy outside of your writings, but you simply don’t advocate for abortion elimination like you do for abortion reduction and nuke elimination--in your writings.
Unfortunately, you continue to interchange support and advocacy, and I don’t accept this b/c your numerous posts on abortion reduction and nuke elimination go well beyond mere support--you are calling your readers, especially younger evangelicals, to action. You simply haven’t done this for abortion elimination, and I’m asking “why”.
Having already advocated for abortion reduction and nuke elimination through this blog and other writings, why is it so unreasonable for me (or any other reader) to expect any different regarding abortion elimination, especially as an “author and activist”? While abortion elimination and reduction are different, I believe we should advocate for both (specific abortion reduction efforts not withstanding)--there’s my agenda. You act as if I’m asking you to advocate for something (in your writings) completely out of context and in a different medium of advocacy. I’m not, and since I don’t engage in any such advocacy (i.e, public writings) there is no inconsistency within my sphere of advocacy (#2).
What got this whole thing started with me was your statement, “"What would you think if someone told you that the key to abolishing nuclear weapons might be Christians? What if all those religious people turned out to be the force that drove this conversation to its tipping point? The unlikely supporters could undoubtedly make an impact if they were to join the conversation. Christians would bring the numerical strength of their voting bloc as well strong moral arguments, which are always helpful on such issues." That made me realize there is no difference in the application of this principle to nuke elimination and its application to abortion elimination. You just choose to advocate (in your writings) for the former and not the latter, instead advocating for abortion reduction while acknowledging your support for abortion elimination--in-your-writings...
CJ
Posted: January 24, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
CJ,
Here we go again.
First, when you write in public forums, stating your support IS advocacy. I haven't done anything on the nuke issue other than state my support for it. I've actually done more on the abortion issue, both for reduction and abolition. Furthermore, the nature of advocacy work is that some issues will demand a certain approach and certain strategies and others will be different. Even if there were some significant difference in the way I choose to write about, support, or advocate for these two issues, that would still not be inconsistent. It may merely speak to the fact that I am attempting to accomplish two very difficult and complicated goals in two different ways.
"Name-calling" refers to your pejorative "Mr. Faith and Culture." I got a good laugh from that, but as I stated before, those types of things don't actually change anything.
Jm
Posted: January 24, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
CJ,
That will be my last post on this comment thread.
Jm
Posted: January 24, 2010