Where is the Love?

I enjoyed reading this article on Andrew Sullivan's blog. It is a writer responding to an article on gay marriage. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, this conversation is one with having. I'm convinced that so much of my Christianity has been based in fear instead of love. But if we believe that scripture is inspired, if we believe that it is His Word or His words, then we have to strongly weigh this verse: "There is no fear in love" (1 John 4:18). Can we hold to our belief system outside of fear? Can we related to those outside our belief system without resorting to fear? Where is the love?

Christian Fear Or Christian Love?
A reader writes [in response to a previous article]:

You write:

"Civil marriage for all; religious marriage for all who want to supplement it with God's grace. Why is that so hard for some people of faith to grasp? Why are their marriages defined not by the virtues they sustain but the people they exclude?"

(Emphasis mine.) Because -- as you well know -- their faiths themselves are defined by the people they exclude: the unbelievers, the unsaved (or let's be blunt: the "damned"), the always-demonized Other: without that division, that exclusion, their entire theology, indeed their entire worldview, collapses: a theology of inclusion is anathema to them, just as a politics, a sociology or even a science of inclusion (evolution) is anathema.

And why? Because despite their fine words, and their closely-guarded self-images, the actual and real ruling principle of their lives and their theology is fear, not love.

Everything flows from that original orientation, that original choice (because it is, finally, a choice). For them, to be inclusive is to expose themselves to what they fear; and what they fear most is summarized in their mythology of hell and eternal damnation: an eternal torture of body, mind, soul and spirit administered by an angry, vengeful, psychopathic god. It is all pure projection.

And irony of ironies, it is precisely the opposite of the message the Christian Savior tried to bring: that salvation is found only through love, through inclusion, through openness of mind and heart and spirit, through, ultimately, trust -- that this world, with all its difficulties and pain and imperfections, built through evolution, and including endless Others, is as it should be, as it was intended to be.

But that leap, from fear to trust, from fear to love, from fear to inclusion, is not an easy one, either for the individual or for a society. No evolutionary leap ever is -- and that is precisely what the leap from fear to love is: an evolutionary leap; evolution in action, evolution at the cognitive, emotional and spiritual levels. It's not easy, and it's not fast: we've been working on this for 2000 years -- and longer. Evolution takes its own time, but since this is the evolution of consciousness itself, we do have something to say about it: it's something we can consciously promote, and consciously accelerate -- and it's something we need to accelerate, and complete: the problems we face in this world, social, political and environmental, will not be solved by a people animated by fear.

We need to make the leap. Which is why gay marriage is important, beyond its importance to the individuals involved: the inclusion of the gay community -- the full inclusion -- within the human family is a necessary catalyst to this leap, just as the full inclusion of, for instance, the African-American and female communities have been necessary: A house divided against itself cannot stand; neither can it leap. This is where America can, and should, lead by example.

There is a radio program I heard yesterday that illustrates this leap from a fear-based to a love-based theology in the most personal terms, while reflecting the social and religious difficulties involved: the story of Reverend Carlton Pearson, "a renowned evangelical pastor in Tulsa, Oklahoma, who cast aside the idea of Hell, and with it everything he'd worked for over his entire life… Carlton Pearson's church, Higher Dimensions, was once one of the biggest in the city, drawing crowds of 5,000 people every Sunday. But several years ago, scandal engulfed the reverend. He didn't have an affair. He didn't embezzle lots of money. His sin was something that to a lot of people is far worse: He stopped believing in Hell... "

And he started believing in inclusion.

This program is nearly an hour long, but worth it (Chicago Public Radio's "This American Life" does a fantastic job). Listen especially to that part of the story, towards the end, when Reverend Pearson, cast out as a heretic by the fundamentalist evangelical community and shunned by all his old friends and colleagues, is invited to a gay church in San Francisco: what happens there moves him to tears as he tells it, and it is moving; it is what real Christianity ought to be.

Original article found here.

Does Abortion Cause Depression?

I am very opposed to abortion. It takes the life of an innocent child. It is horrific, and is hardly the perfect answer to an unwanted pregnancy.

That being said, I often find myself at odds with the methods of those who oppose abortion. They tend to battle the issue from only a few viewpoints- moral and religious grounds, which often alienates themselves from others who don’t hold the same views. There are other aspects of the abortion issue to consider: medical, psychological, social, cultural, economical, legal, etc. Sometimes the pro-life crowd will address these other issues but only through their theological lenses. If they don’t like what they hear, they try to explain it away, burry their head in the ground, or yell louder about their morally superior stand. Instead of finding areas of common ground the pro-lifers escalate the division and move in the opposite direction. (I’m sure more could be said about what the pro-choice crowd could do to move towards agreement, but since I haven’t lived in that camp, my observations are from the tent I’ve frequented.)

There are two values that I wish took precedence in this cause- one for our hearts and one for our heads. The first is value is love. It’s my belief we will never change the nation by fighting to change the rules. When we end up seeing this issue as a battle we literally start warring against others. Aren’t they also the flesh and blood that we say we want to protect? No, the answer is love: loving the unborn babies, the mommies with unwanted pregnancies, the papas that impregnated them, even the people who have taken such a strong stand for choice. Our hearts must lead with Love.

(I do find it ironic that the way we want to solve this issue of sin is by control. Our creation story is about a God that chooses not to control but gives the people he loves freedom. He did this even when He knew it could, even would, be abused. But He still didn’t control, He gave us choice. Why? Love! After we made wrong decisions we tried to solve it by living under the law. But that system didn’t work. God knew it wouldn’t. He intended for the law to show us we couldn’t obtain righteousness by trying to live right or by controlling others decisions. We weren’t created that way. Then through Christ he provided us freedom again, and He did it through Love. And even now relationship with God still comes down to choice, not control. Do we dare think we’ve figured out a better way?)

The value that I wish was more prevalent in our heads, regarding abortion, is truth. But it seems to me that the pro-life crowd cares more about their opinions being right than honestly engaging the questions. They want to, need to be right and often come across as ignorant and unaware.

A good example is the link that pro-lifers have made between abortion and breast cancer. Many studies have been done to show that this link is not valid, but much of the pro-life crowd will not accept the findings. Although there is still debate on the issue the American Cancer Society's current stand is that there is no link between the two. Why has this continued to be a fighting point for the pro-lifers? Maybe they think if there is a chink in one area of their debate armor then they are exposed and could lose the battle. From my perspective they have a whole lot more to lose by acting ignorant. They will lose their place at the discussion table if they aren’t willing to engage truth. Truth isn’t something that we need to fear.

Why do I bring this up today? Because another argument from the pro-life crowd has been called into question. One of the long-standing arguments against abortion has been that abortion causes psychological distress, or a "post-abortion syndrome.” A study came out today that says that is not the case (it also addresses similar studies done with political motivation). What will the pro-life crowd do with this study?

I certainly know that there are women who are plagued with guilt over having an abortion. I’ve talked and ministered to several. I believe there is forgiveness for their decisions and healing for their hearts.

I also have talked with women who had guilt ladled over them by those who assume it should be there. If there wasn’t a healthy display of post-abortion syndrome the actions of well-meaning counselors helped bring it on, and in doing so caused these women much more pain.

It’s my opinion that the job of conviction is that of the Holy Spirit’s, and not ours. He doesn't need our help, and we aren't qualified to play His role. And seeing that He doesn't motivate us by fear, so maybe we should stop doing it to each other.

The part that He has asked us to do is simply this: Love.

Abortion not seen linked with depression
Thu Dec 4, 12:08 am ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – No high-quality study done to date can document that having an abortion causes psychological distress, or a "post-abortion syndrome," and efforts to show it does occur appear to be politically motivated, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

A team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore reviewed 21 studies involving more than 150,000 women and found the high-quality studies showed no significant differences in long-term mental health between women who choose to abort a pregnancy and others.

"The best research does not support the existence of a 'post-abortion syndrome' similar to post-traumatic stress disorder," Dr. Robert Blum, who led the study published in the journal Contraception, said in a statement.

"Based on the best available evidence, emotional harm should not be a factor in abortion policy. If the goal is to help women, program and policy decisions should not distort science to advance political agendas," added Vignetta Charles, a researcher and doctoral student at Johns Hopkins who worked on the study.

An estimated 1.29 million American women get elective abortions each year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. An estimated 25 million women globally have legal abortions every year.

Abortion is a hot-button political issue, with many voters and members of the U.S. Congress as well as state lawmakers seeking to ban it.

"The U.S. Supreme Court, while noting that 'we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon,' cited adverse mental health outcomes for women as part of the rationale for limiting late term abortions," Blum's team wrote.

The researchers reviewed all English-language, peer-reviewed publications between 1989 and 2008 that studied relationships between abortion and long-term mental health.

They analyzed those that included valid mental health measures and factored in pre-existing mental health status and potentially confusing factors.

"The best quality studies indicate no significant differences in long-term mental health between women in the United States who choose to terminate a pregnancy and those who do not," they wrote.

"...studies with the most flawed methodology consistently found negative mental health consequences of abortion," they added. "Scientists are still conducting research to answer politically motivated questions."

(Reporting by Maggie Fox, editing by Vicki Allen)

Does this make abortion acceptable? Not for me. But it has given me pause to be more careful of my assumptions of the affects of an abortion. Using the fear of psychological distress in debating the issue may not only be unkind (as is all fear-based argumentation) it may also be wrong.