Recently, I was offered an opportunity to become a blogger for The Huffington Post. I was a little reticent at first because I have heard others characterize the site, founded by liberal pundit Arianna Huffington, as "very liberal." I knew there would be some people who would attempt to cast me as a liberal in sheep's clothing if I published there, and nothing could be farther from the truth. I couldn't initially confirm that Huffington was indeed "very liberal" because I was personally unacquainted with it, but I firmly believe that people of faith should occupy spaces at both ends of the political spectrum, regardless of perceptions. So I decided to commit some thought and prayer to pursuing it.
The Huffington audience is massive and the nice people at Huffington graciously offered for me to blog with no real control over the content and no strings attached. I spoke with a good friend who is a leader in the conservative Christian movement and he said to "go for it." After thinking and praying about it, I felt like it was a good opportunity to introduce my ideas this forum where some people will agree and others won't. If people wrongly attempt to cast me as a some sort of liberal...well...what else is new?
The subject for my first article for Huffington was aggresive. Abortion has long been considered one of the hottest of the hot buttons in America. It divides America almost neatly down the center and people on both sides harbor fierce opinions. As a committed Christian who believes my faith's teachings on the sacredness of life call me to oppose abortion, I have long taken a "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" position on this issue. I support the overtuning of Roe v. Wade.
Subsequently, I have argued that the "pro-life" position should be expanded to include much more than just abortion. Because we believe life is sacred, we should also advocate on behalf of the thousands who are dying at the hands of genocidal maniacs in Sudan, the nearly 3 million (mostly children) who will die from preventable, water-related diseases this year, and the tens of thousands of civilians who have perished as a result of recent wars. Any "pro-life" position that is exclusively focused on abortion and does not address other anti-life atrocities is incomplete. The sacredness of life calls us to support a culture of life all over the globe.
This commitment to life-causes has also moved me to support an abortion reduction platform as an in-the-meantime approach to reducing the number of children who are aborted in America. This platform has garnered support from the left as well as the right and seeks to reduce abortions through comprehensive sexual education with an abstinence emphasis, greater funding and promotion of adoption, increased funding for unwed mothers, etc. One of the other pillars of this platform is increased availability of contraception for low-income, adult women. Recent studies indicate that contraception availability for low-income women is directly related to lower unintended pregnancy and abortion. I have been skeptical of this point for some time, but think that we may see a shift on this issue among some from the pro-life camp if the numbers are correct.
That was the subject of my recent article for the Huffington Post, "Is Availability to Contraception a Pro-Life Issue?" Please give the article a fair read and feel free to leave comments on both sites 9your voice needs to be heard there, too). As always, I cherish your respectful feedback.
Travis Mamone said:
Great article! As I said before, I think we, as Christians, should open the dialogue to both the Left and the Right. Who knows, we might actually, you know, learn something from each other!
And there actually are other Christian writers who regularly contribute to Huff Po, like Jim Wallis and Cathleen Falsani.
Posted: December 12, 2009
Blake said:
While I agree with several of the points you make about responding to the the people as fallen, I still fear that encouraging the use of contraceptives to lessen abortions is winning a battle to ultimately lose a war. This war isn't about abortion particularly though that comes into play. The war that needs to be won is finding ways to foster more respect between men and women.
Sharon Hodde Miller wrote a blog about the effects of contraception on men's attitudes toward women that took a line of reasoning that I hadn't previously considered in my personal opposition to the use of contraceptives. I recommend reading it: http://sheworships.com/2009/10/19/not-so-une
I think the Catholics have a lot to contribute to this discussion but are not being heard by virtue of our theological disagreements with them. I don't know where the opportunity would come from, but I'm hoping for the chance to take a good look at John Paul II's Theology of the Body before graduating from seminary.
Posted: December 12, 2009
Mike Little said:
Jonathan,
I applaud your courage, conviction and calling to address issues that make people on all sides uncomfortable. In our denomination, we have become to quick to oust those we disagree with... most of the time having never listened to what they are trying to say.
You are prayed for and I'd go to battle for you any day of the week.
God bless brother,
Mike
Posted: December 13, 2009
Justin said:
"I knew there would be some people who would attempt to cast me as a liberal in sheep's clothing if I published there."
Jonathan, from your post this sounds like it was an agonizing decision so I apologize if this sounds harsh but this is ridiculous and absurd. I'll explain what I mean.
Anyone who would label you liberal for where your writing is published, as opposed to the contents of what you write, is ridiculously reductive in this context. Liberal or conservative were once shorthanded ways to refer to a set of beliefs and outlooks as a growth of a shared world view. They have increasingly become social totems; a liberal is someone who is urban, shops at whole foods, watches foreign films, drinks expensive coffee drinks, etc. This has nothing to do with political belief. P.J. O'Rourke used to write for Rolling Stone, does that make him a liberal?
"We should also advocate on behalf of the thousands who are dying at the hands of genocidal maniacs in Sudan"
I'll leave alone the abortion stuff and just take up this because it raises an interesting set of questions (which also tie into abortion, but I'll leave that unstated so this doesn't drag on too long.)
A lot of people in the west raised awareness and advocated some intervention, military perhaps, in Sudan to stop the mass killing. The problem that a lot of people saw, including many people very close to the situation and who studied the issues, pointed out that a military intervention would not make things better and would probably make them worse. Dropping a fighting force in a foreign land to sort out deadly conflicts arising out of disputes and cultural differences that the third force does not understand would have mixed results, at best.
An alternative measure is to attempt to use international law to bring the leaders to justice. Well, that didn't work out. When the ICC handed out a warrant for Al-Bashir, well intentioned people felt like they had taken a step forward for justice and they are right. The problem is that Bashir then ordered the UN aid workers out of the country because they helped gather evidence against him, leading to massive hunger and renewed hostilities. The measurable effects of that act of justice caused immediate and tremendous damage to the people on whose behalf it was supposedly on.
One quick thought - A similar point is to be made regarding the recent Iranian protests over the rigged elections. A lot of western 'conservatives' were publicly calling for Obama to express solidarity with the protestors instead of the measured responses he gave. The problem, as many people, including leaders of the Iranian dissident movement, pointed out that if he did that then the only effect would be that the Iranian government would come down even harder under the pretense that the dissidents were agents of a hostile foreign government, the United States. So if Obama, or the U.S. government, had come out for justice and moral posturing, the only measurable effect would have been to make life harder for the people it was supposedly expressing solidarity with.
Posted: December 13, 2009
Mike said:
"Pro-life Christians would still likely oppose distribution of contraception claiming that it will promote sexual promiscuity."
You don't have to be a pro-life Christian to think that public schools are not the venue for handing out rough rider condoms or that taxpayer funds should be spent on Yaz. Contrary to the inane federal progams supported by Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama, there is not a lack of access to rubbers in America.
To all the Christians in favor of taxpayer suupport for contraceptives, to those who insist that 1) "studies prove" abstinence doesn't work 2) it's a health issue and 3) it reduces abortions, it's all very simple. If you really believe in this, you will be the first to give condoms to your teenage son. On a weekly basis, of course, because he might run out. After all, as you noted, most people will not abstain, so let's ensure that our children are protected?
"Christians should not expect non-Christians to adhere to Christian principles for healthy living."
That's the test? Figure out first, whether it's a "Christian" issue, and if it is, retreat because non-Christians might not agree? That is flawed on so many levels.
Posted: December 15, 2009
Marc said:
Great article Jonathan. Well-said again. I like your seat belt analogy and I'm glad to see you getting the opportunity on the Huffington Post.
Posted: December 17, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Wow. I appreciate all the support on this decision.
Posted: December 19, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Justin,
You may think it is ridiculous and absurd to agonize over a decision like this but in the world we live in, labels matter. If someone gets labeled the wrong way by too many people, pretty soon no one will be reading their stuff except your mom and Aunt Hilda. Lol.
Thanks for your your feedback.
Also, I enjoy reading your blog. It's intelligent stuff.
Jm
Posted: December 19, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Mike,
You're putting words in my mouth. Go back and read this post (or any post on this subject that I've written in the past). Did I ever mention giving "rough rider condoms" to public school children or indiscriminately passing out "rubbers" in America? Did I ever say that parents should give condoms to their teenage sons "on a weekly basis?" Did I ever say infer that abstinence doesn't work?
Nope. Actually, the only thing for public school children in this approach is "sexual education with an abstinence emphasis." The contraception is available for low-income, adult women. In other words, it is for people who are going to be pursuing their own sexual path regardless of what you or I believe. The culture war mentality loves to set up straw men and knock them, but it would be better if you would evaluate my ideas on their own merits (and disagree with them if you feel so compelled).
Furthermore, no one is saying that we should figure out if something is a Christian issues and if so, "retreat" so no non-Christians get mad. As followers of Jesus, we should speak the truth in love. You may notice that I wrote a 3-week post on the incompatibility of universalism with orthodox Christianity. I defended the exclusivity of Christ in those posts without apology. That's not exactly a retreat from the Christian position.
Jm
Posted: December 19, 2009
Mike said:
No, you didn't express support for passing out condoms in schools, etc. Didn't-say-you-did.
I was picking out three arguments made in support of gov. funded contraceptives i.e., (1) "studies prove" abstinence doesn't work 2) it's a health issue and 3) it reduces abortions, and pointing out the absurd conclusions it would lead too if those are really the only considerations. Because the conclusion does sound absurd.
But at the same time, those three items are the arguments made by supporters and the means of getting to what sounds like an absurd "straw man" conclusion to you is perfectly rational, and certainly not unheard of (the gov. does make contraceptives available to high schoolers in some areas).
For example, many teenagers in high school are sexually active. No one disagrees with that, and they are "going to be pursuing their own sexual path regardless of what you or I believe." Again, no disagreement there. Gov. provided contraceptives would certainly prevent unwanted pregnancy and disease. Bingo. And we do have sex education in public schools, so we have a captive audience who will hear the message.
You support gov. funded contraceptives for low income adult women. Great. That being said, why not give support for government funds to a low income 17 year old female in high school so she can receive the same tools to protect herself? Any why not make it available to males? Should adults get protection but not our sexually active teens?
I find it very hard to believe that once the government door is opened (as it already is), it's going to shut for anyone who isn't a "low-income, adult women." The law doesn't work that way, it's just the opposite.
Do I have a problem with a private charity doing this? No. Tax-payer dollars are another matter. That's when the radar goes up and we need to do more than consider whether it sounds like a neat idea, because there are always consequences.
Posted: January 13, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
Mike,
I honestly don't understand most of your post. Honestly. I am not trying to be smart. I can't make sense of most of your arguments.
The first and second paragraphs were understandable so I I'll try to answer those.
1. You said I said "studies prove." That's false, and you are putting words in my mouth. In my Huffington piece I said "IF the Guttamacher numbers stick" and in this post I said studies "indicate." Those are correct. Recent studies indicate certain things, and these things have ramifications.
2. You wanted to oppose that this is a "health" issue. If you have sex and get an STD, you have contracted a disease. If you have sex and conceive a child, you'll need the care of a doctor to have a child. Ergo Contraception, sex, conception are health issues.
3. You said I claimed "[contraception] reduces abortions." See #1. I said recent studies "indicate" this. I have no way of knowing for sure if it does or doesn't. I only have data from studies being conducted--just like everyone else.
Look, these are complex issues and you don't have to agree with this approach. We agree that life should be protected and honored from conception. We don't have to agree on the best way to do that.
Best,
Jm
Posted: January 13, 2010