Social Issues

The Return of the Pregnant Man

Brett McCracken — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:05:41 -0800

(Part 1 of the three-part series: What We Really Need Now is “No”)

Just when I had almost purged the memory from my mind, the “pregnant man” re-emerged in the pop culture zeitgeist, and reminded me (as if I needed reminding) that the world is on the brink of losing whatever shred of rational bearings it still has left.

The pregnant man. Oh, the pregnant man. “He” (aka Thomas Beatie, formerly Tracy Beatie) first made waves last spring when (s)he appeared on Oprah, with a beard and a pregnant belly. (S)he gave birth to a baby girl last summer, which (s)he plans to raise with his/her wife/lesbian, Nancy. To read about the sordid biological minutia of all this, just google “Thomas Beatie Pregnant Man.”

On Oprah, Beatie said that whether you are a man or a woman, you have the right to get pregnant and have a baby.

“I feel it’s not a male or female desire to have a child. It’s a human need. I’m a person and I have the right to have a biological child.”

Really? I mean … Really?? Even though it is physically impossible for a male to biologically get pregnant and have a baby, it is somehow still their right to do so?

Is it a right because you say it is a right? Does it follow that whatever one sincerely feels or desires deeply—whether to get pregnant as a man, or perhaps to marry a horse—that it is a “right”? Since when are rights derived from the fickle and variant desires of the individual? Personally, I sincerely, passionately desire that I be able to fly… but even if it became scientifically plausible, I would not ever consider it to be the right or natural thing to do. Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean that we should. Clearly, humans were not created to fly. Clearly, men were not created to give birth to babies.

It’s a very western, capitalistic notion, I think: this idea that it is our human right and prerogative to do and be whatever we want. To some extent, it is healthy to champion this “sky is the limit” mentality. But there have to be limits: clear, moral limits that necessarily rely on some sense of transcendent truth. Unbridled capitalism (I think we’d all agree) means trouble, just as a “buy and become whatever you desire” consumer mindset frequently winds up being damaging.

And the same goes for identity. Young generations in the industrialized west have grown up hearing from everyone that they can be whoever they want to be, that their identity is completely within their grasp and is definable by them and them alone. “You are special,” was the message we got from Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street, teachers, parents, and presidents. “You can be whoever you want to be. Don’t let anyone or anything get in your way.”

And of course, when that is what a civilization preaches, it is only a matter of time (and science) before we get things like “the pregnant man.”

How far will we go in this “anything goes” free-for-all before we collectively recognize that there must be limits? We’ve set a moral course and precedent that relies on dangerous precepts—that something is permissible if 1) it is sincerely or passionately felt to be one’s “right,” 2) it doesn’t directly hurt anyone else, and 3) it is scientifically possible.

My sense is that younger generations will be the first to rebel against this “all is permissible” mindset. Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are going to be (I think) the last generations to actively push this “you can and should do whatever you think is right” fallacy. In my experience, kids these days are fatigued by hearing “yes you can!” from every direction. They recognize the lack of authenticity and sustainability inherent in this overpopulated forest of yeses. They are desperately longing for limits, for someone—anyone—to tell them “No!” We’ve gone up the postmodern mountain and over the hump, and now (I think) we are cautiously coming down on the other side.

Friday Miscellanea (11/21/08)

Nick Bogardus — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:29:47 -0800

I come across a lot of stuff that I read, listen to, or see that I think, "Hey, I want to mention that on my blog", but because they're short they tend to get bumped for longer or more timely pieces. That being the case, I think I might start a regular Friday Miscellanea post where I put together a few things I want to mention but don't have enough time to write a longer blog about.

First up, my good friend Dustin is putting out an online-only Christmas album this year. It has a lot of covers; ranging from the Pogues to O Holy Night and would be a great addition to holiday music this season. Personally, the highlight for me is "This is War", the last song on the record and, I believe, the only original song of his on the album. You know a dude has some talent when, in a bevy of classic cover songs, his own original stands out so powerfully.

You can give it a listen on Amazon.

Next is this fantastic video by the unfortunately-named Advent Conspiracy (it sounds like a crummy hardcore band). The name might be bad but the video, it's message, and the mission are well worth the 2 minutes and 30 seconds.

Thirdly, two of our friends here in M*ngolia, Jonathan and Marielle, have a non-profit that helps the poorest of the poor here with their education by funding libraries and printing school books for those who can't afford them. You should read about their work when you have a minute. I'm mentioning it now because they are doing a Christmas program where you can buy these awesome Christmas cards for your family and friends AND help a Mongolian child get an education.

My beautiful and talented wife has also posted a new blog and two new pictures that you should take a look at. She also has posted some of her photography in the Undiscovered section if you want to give them some votes. ;)

To Legislate or Not To Legislate: That is the Question

Christy Tennant — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:00:00 -0800

Since my post on Prop 8, I have been in ongoing dialogue with friends, family and co-workers over the Prop 8 debate and fallout, and over the bigger issue of legislating morality.

I have been challenged to revisit how much we should legislate what are (as Joan Ball and others pointe out) essentially spiritual issues. I see the point that legislating is not necessarily the right solution, and I am thinking a lot about it. As my friend Bryan said to me today, the conversation that needs to happen is not happening, and a lot of conversations that are not offering helpful solutions are taking everyone's attention.

It has been suggested to me that we should only legislate over moral issues that directly affect a person's civil rights. For example, abortion affects the civil liberties of unborn children, so that should be illegal. However, I have heard it said, gay marriage does not affect me personally, so it shouldn't be a matter of civic legislation, but rather dealt with on a spiritual level, through prayer, etc.

One friend pointed out that he will protect another person's civil rights to the utmost of his ability, even if he thoroughly disagrees with their choices, because he wants his own civil rights to be protected. Because he would not want to see his rights to a Christian marriage to be illegal, he doesn't want to make non-Christian unions (i.e. gay marriages) illegal. I see his point and don't disagree.

So what are your thoughts? Are there certain moral issues you feel should be legislated, and others you don't? How do you decide which is which? Do you feel that biblical values should become legislated laws?

Aliens and Citizens

Christy Tennant — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:00:00 -0800

If you didn’t see it, I recommend reading the article “Aliens and Citizens: In the Body of Christ, We Learn to be Both,” by Jordan Hylden, Christianity Today, November 2008.

He explores and articulates a struggle I really feel, and I suspect many of you do. I am not aligned cleanly with the "right" or with the "left." I feel very strongly about issues that seem to be represented (or dismissed) by both conservative and liberal politics, and I confess to being a bit resentful about being labeled conservative or liberal by whichever side I'm not - well - siding with.

That, incidentally, was why I had a very difficult time deciding which presidential candidate to vote for in the Nov. 4 election. Neither one fully represented good solutions to the issues I feel most strongly about.

This paragraph in Jordan's article particularly resonated with me:

“What, for instance, should make the protection of unborn life and the promotion of stable families necessarily “conservative” issues? Shouldn’t all Christians have an interest in saving unborn lives and in strengthening marriage in a country where nearly four out of ten children are born out of wedlock? And what, to take another example, should make environmental stewardship and the plight of migrant farm workers the sole preserve of the Left? Don’t all Christians have an obligation to care for the earth and for the alien and stranger in our midst? Yet only rarely does one year a pro-life call from the Left, and any mention of fair-trade foods tends to earn automatic derision and skepticism from the Right. Before we are Christians, it would seem, many of us remain Americans.”

How about you, dear reader? Am I right? Do you struggle with this as much as I do?

Dr. James Dobson's Letter - Letter From 2012 in Obama's America

brianwurzell — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:53:06 -0800

I don't know if you happened to see the fictional letter that Dr. James Dobson wrote regarding what an Obama Presidency would look like in 2012. I found it pretty low to speculate with such little hope. I also resonated with the response letter from Jim Wallis to Dr. James Dobson. I think as Christian leaders we need to be smart as we play in the political realm. I think to be Dr. Dobson and to have his level of potential influence on the office of the Presidency and to then forfeit that possibility by writing the letter that he wrote is a sad day. But, maybe that's spineless Christianity, not to speculate the worst?! I had a guy recently tell me that I'm spineless in my faith because I won't bash Obama. This is what we relegate following Jesus too?!

What are your thoughts?! Here is the letter to Dr. Dobson from Jim Wallis and in it you can find a link to read the fictional letter that Dobson wrote:

James Dobson, you owe America an apology. The fictional letter released through your Focus on the Family Action organization, titled "Letter From 2012 in Obama's America", crosses all lines of decent public discourse. In a time of utter political incivility, it shows the kind of negative Christian leadership that has become so embarrassing to so many of your fellow Christians in America. We are weary of this kind of Christian leadership, and that is why so many are forsaking the Religious Right in this election.

This letter offers nothing but fear. It apocalyptically depicts terrorist attacks in American cities, churches losing their tax exempt status for not allowing gay marriages, pornography pushed in front of our children, doctors and nurses forced to perform abortions, euthanasia as commonplace, inner-city crime gone wild because of lack of gun ownership, home schooling banned, restricted religious speech, liberal censorship shutting down conservative talk shows, Christian publishers forced out of business, Israel nuked, power blackouts because of environmental restrictions, brave Christian resisters jailed by a liberal Supreme court, and finally, good Christian families emigrating to Australia and New Zealand.

It is shocking how thoroughly biblical teachings against slander--misrepresentations that damage another's reputation--are ignored (Ephesians 4:29-31, Colossians 3:8, Titus 3:2). Such outrageous predictions not only damage your credibility, they slander Barack Obama who, you should remember, is a brother in Christ, and they insult any Christian who might choose to vote for him.

Let me make this clear: Christians will be voting both ways in this election, informed by their good faith, and based on their views of what are the best public policies and direction for America. But in utter disrespect for the prayerful discernment of your fellow Christians, this letter stirs their ugliest fears, appealing to their worst impulses instead of their best.

Fear is the clear motivator in the letter; especially fear that evangelical Christians might vote for Barack Obama. The letter was very revealing when it suggested that "younger Evangelicals" became the "swing vote" that elected Obama and the results were catastrophic.

You make a mistake when you assume that younger Christians don't care as much as you about the sanctity of life. They do care--very much--but they have a more consistent ethic of life. Both broader and deeper, it is inclusive of abortion, but also of the many other assaults on human life and dignity. For the new generation, poverty, hunger, and disease are also life issues; creation care is a life issue; genocide, torture, the death penalty, and human rights are life issues; war is a life issue. What happens to poor children after they are born is also a life issue.

The America you helped vote into power has lost its moral standing in the world, and even here at home. The America you told Christians to vote for in past elections is now an embarrassment to Christians around the globe, and to the children of your generation of evangelicals. And the vision of America that you still tell Christians to vote for is not the one that many in a new generation of Christians believes expresses their best values and convictions.

Christians should be committed to the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of America, and the church is to live an alternative existence of love and justice, offering a prophetic witness to politics. Elections are full of imperfect choices where we all seek to what is best for the "common good" by applying the values of our faith as best we can.

Dr. Dobson, you of course have the same right as every Christian and every American to vote your own convictions on the issues you most care about, but you have chosen to insult the convictions of millions of other Christians, whose own deeply held faith convictions might motivate them to vote differently than you. This epistle of fear is perhaps the dying gasp of a discredited heterodoxy of conservative religion and conservative politics. But out of that death, a resurrection of biblical politics more faithful to the whole gospel--one that is truly good news--might indeed be coming to life.

Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening, Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

Abortion is Racism

Christy Tennant — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:00:00 -0800

Here is an interesting and insightful sermon I recommend listening to, exploring the tie between abortion and racism (When is Abortion Racism? By Dr. John Piper, DesiringGod.org).

I specifically found the quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s niece, Dr. Alveda C. King, very important, as well as Rev. Clenard H. Childress, Jr.'s reference to abortion as black genocide. He is quoted* as saying (referring to 2002 stats), "[The] incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 10 million abortions [probably up to 13 million now]. Michael Novak . . . calculated, “Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 41 million persons. It would be 35 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member.” (*Source links are included in the manuscript).

If you're able to read or listen to it, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Freedom of Choice Act

Christy Tennant — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:03:18 -0800

At a Planned Parenthood address, then presidential candidate Barak Obama stated that the first thing he would do when elected President of the U.S. would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. This Act would nullify all previous legislation designed to place restrictions on abortion, such as parental notification and bans on partial birth abortion. If you are unfamiliar with the Freedom of Choice Act, click here for more info.

I am vehemently against making abortion a totally unrestricted process in our nation, and that is precisely what the Freedom of Choice Act would do. No more parental consent, which means girls 15 years old would be able to have an abortion without their parents even knowing. This is frightening to me, particularly because last year a young woman (who is a friend of a friend of mine) went in for an abortion without telling anyone, and she ended up dying because of it. Contrary to what many are saying, this is not a minor medical procedure, and with late term abortions, the risk to the mother is high.

If you, like me, want to see abortion regulated by governmental legislation placing limits on its availability and accessability, please click here and join me in signing a petition against the Freedom of Choice Act.

If you are reading and you are actually in favor of the Freedom of Choice Act, I'm very curious to hear your reasoning. Either way, please comment below.

In Their Own Words: Zayaa (Mongolian video)

Nick Bogardus — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:13:54 -0800

My beautiful wife made another video with one of her students, Zayaa, that I think is fantastic. I hope it helps give you more of a sense of what it’s like out here.

Zayaa from kim bogardus on Vimeo.

An Disconcerting Conversation That Occurred While Waiting to Vote

Phil Towne — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:48:55 -0800

So, last Tuesday, while waiting in line to vote at the local church where we vote, I struck up a conversation with the gentleman directly behind me. One of the first questions that came up, as usually does in this sort of conversation, was that of occupation. I told him that I am a pastor on staff at a local church, and that I lived nearby. He then said that he believed that we "follow the same carpenter" with a sort of "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" in his voice. A bit cheesy of a line, but I understood what he meant.

He then went on to tell me he was a financial advisor and that his business was to tell Christians how to manage their finances according to God's plans, etc. This all sounded pretty fair and good. He then began to tell me about his kids. He had three, and two were currently attending High School. When he told me which one, I quickly thought, "wait a minute, that school is not in our district, what is up?" So I asked him about why his kids were not in our district (I am intentionally keeping specific names out of this blog), seeing as I knew he had to live only a block or two from my house to be voting where I voted.

His response astounded me. He said, "Well, my first son attended the school in our district and we found (and at this point his voice got very quiet, almost a whisper) that there were a lot of ethnicities in that school. The school in the upper part of town (which is not in our/their district) has a lot more Caucasians in it." At this point, I am really not sure if my jaw physically dropped or not, but I was pretty darn sure that he was not voting for Barack Obama. It is at times like this when I really have no comeback. I have thought of numerous witty comebacks or things to say since then, but when someone says something like this so directly and with so little shame, it leaves me with such a shock, I am quite unsure what to do.

At any rate, after that I really had no desire to further our conversation, although he continued to try to tell me about his financial ministry and how great it was and how Christians and Churches respond so well to it. I thought to myself, "there is no way I want your racist booty in my church." Isn't it interesting that this man was so interested in getting his financial house in order, and helping others, but something which to me is so fundamental as the equality of people based upon race is so easily overlooked? I wonder what kinds of things I overlook while I am so pius about others?

My other thought coming out of this is how astounding it is that we have our first African American President elected to take office. Being white, I usually don't think about prejudice in our country because it doesn't effect me (which I am realizing I need to become more aware of), but seeing the massive outpouring of emotion after Obama's Presidential victory, made me emotional. Regardless of which party you voted for, this is a landmark in our history, and one to be celebrated. I pray and hope that this is something that will continue to foster better racial reconciliation.

Phil

Obama, Bi?

Daniel Hodge — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:02:10 -0800

No, no, I’m not referring to Obama’s sexual orientation!! Don’t get it twisted yo! However, I am referring to Obama’s ethnic background: Bi-racial. Or, as many would call it, “Mixed.” Black and White. Hmmm. African American & Euro-American. Hmmm. Or is he just Black as many people, including myself, have summarized him down to? It’s hard being mixed. Trust me, I know, I’m half Black and half Mexican. My mom is Mexican and my dad was African American. I’ve struggled my entire life trying to “fit in” with one or the other. But to have a “mixed” president, is a new and uplifting thing for me.

Back in the day Tiger Woods got a lot of slack for not identifying with his “roots.” In other words, Tiger was slammed by many in the Black community for not claiming his Black side. Tiger simply said that if he only paid attention to the Black side of him, he would be denying his mother. A lot of folk could not understand that, yet, I could. I’ve been forced to choose many times. And not just by “friends.” Take a notice on any type of professional application you fill out, there will inevitably be a section there to fill in your “race.” If it’s electronic it will typically only let you choose one box and they’ll make it clear: African American (non-Hispanic), Latino (Non-African American), etc. America does not do well with “multi racial people.” In most cases you are asked to choose between the two. When I’m with my Latino friends, it’s hard to have the Black in me come out because of the racial tensions. When I’m with my Black friends, those Brown tensions run deep too. Growing up, I was never called a spic, wetback, or greaser. I was called a coon, nigger, and a colored; I therefore began identifying with the Black side of me. Having a mom that loved Black culture didn’t help either!

It’s not been until recently (within the last 5 years) that I have begun to embrace the Mexican side of me. Now don’t’ get it twisted, I grew up in a Mexican culture, speak great Spanish, know most of the Mexican holidays, understand and participate in Mexican culture, and have relatives that stretch back to Santa Anna fighting at the Alamo. My Mexican heritage runs deep. Likewise, my African American roots run deep too, but, not having seen my dad since 1982 means I’ve had to find a lot of my Black roots on my own.

American in general does not like to deal with the mixed people of the world. We like absolutes and clear and present ethnicities—a relic of the modern mindset. Most of mainstream society does not deal well with people who are mixed. Look at our celebrities, we don’t really ask Jessica Alba her ethnic background. We look at the Roc and say, “What is he?” Halle Berry gets looked at with a mixed set of lenses too. We as a culture like it when someone is “full.” This bi thing confuses us. Obama being mixed presents a whole set of new issues we as a country have yet to deal with or wish to deal with. Yet, mixed people are growing. My daughter, for example, is mixed with German, Scottish, Black, and Mexican ethnic backgrounds. So, what does that make her? Black? In society we would most likely just call her that and lump her into that category. Moreover, what do you do with folks like Eminem? He talks “Black.” He dresses “Black.” But, dangit, he’s White—right? These are all deep conversations that I feel, and hope, that Obama is able to address within his tenure in office—we’ll see.

Obama is not just African American, as much as most of us would love to think—including me. Now, he is our first Black president, but that is because there is a fundamental difference between race and ethnicity. Race is a social construct while ethnicity is more the biological construct of a person. Yeah, it gets complicated. So, we do have a socially Black president, but we have an ethnically bi-ethnic president who has two sets up ethnic heritages.

I too hope we can someday get to a place where all this does not matter. But, I’ll be honest; I’m not holding my breath! We have a lot of work to do and when people have a hard time dealing with one ethnicity, it makes it even harder for folks like me to bring in my “other;” which is the title I usually get when filling out census forms: other. I’ll anxiously wait to see the next 4 years to see how some of this might break down and hopefully change!