I am very curious as to you thoughts on historical through lines with racism in this particular matter.
On 4/4/2022 my own governor, Gov. Jared Polis, signed Colorado House Bill 22-1279 - Reproductive Health Equity Act into law. When I read the text of the law, I was stunned. 25-6-403(3) of the law says;
(3) A FERTILIZED EGG, EMBRYO, OR FETUS DOES NOT HAVE INDEPENDENT OR DERIVATIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE.
These grotesque words sounded familiar to me. For you as a historian on race in America, they should be very, very, familiar. You likely know exactly where they can be found in the annals of the Supreme Court.
Since I am no PhD of history, it took some thinking and digging for me to figure out why these words were so familiar. After some thinking and digging, I figured it out!
In the final ruling in DRED SCOTT v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD, paragraph 26 of the final opinion of the Supreme Court stated the following;
“The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS, WHETHER THE CLASS OF PERSONS DESCRIBED IN THE PLEA IN ABATEMENT COMPOSE A PORTION OF THIS PEOPLE, AND ARE CONSTITUENT MEMBERS OF THIS SOVERIEGNTY? WE THINK THEY ARE NOT, AND THAT THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED, AND WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED, UNDER THE WORD 'CITIZEN' IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND CAN THERFORE CLAIM NONE OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES WHICH THAT INSTRUMENT PROVIDES FOR AND SECURES TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. ON THE CONTRARY, THEY WERE AT THAT TIME CONSIDERED A SUBORDINATE AND INFERIOR CLASS OF BEINGS... AND HAD NO RIGTHS OR PRIVILEGES BUT SUCH AS THOSE WHO HELD THE POWER AND THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT CHOOSE TO GRANT THEM. “
You and I likely agree that the Dred Scott ruling was one of the most evil and insidious rulings in the history of our nation, particularly because of the logic and language of this exact paragraph. All 7 of the justices who ruled in the majority of Dred Scott case were appointed by Jacksonian/Democrat party. Are you willing to speak up boldly when you see the identical language being used in modern legislation from the very party that was responsible for the Dred Scott ruling?
While you want to immediately draw attention to inconsistencies in how evangelicals may have viewed abortion historically (pre the commercialization of the abortion industry, BTW) and try to tie them to potential roots in racism, are you willing to draw attention to the historical echoes (or screams, IMO) of institutionalized racism which defined the Democrat party particularly for a majority of the 19th and more than first half of the 20th centuries which can clearly be heard within actions of the current Democrat party as well? Or should we limit our scrutiny to evangelicals only?
Do you think we should step back for a second when we see stories like this, in which prominent black religious leaders are encouraging their congregations to view abortion as a cultural and societal good, enough so to drive their votes to a party that explicitly endorses unrestricted, full-term abortion in this country?
Jemar can certainly respond to you on his own, but I find your response to be a bit careless and off topic. Jemar isn't arguing that abortion is good, he is pointing out that the vast majority of the religious right has no understanding of the history of their own movement and its very recent and dramatic shift in its position on abortion access. I think that's extremely valuable and can help inform the debate enormously. It has certainly shaped my own rethinking of my personal position on abortion access. I would be willing to bet it would have a big impact on many Christians' view on the legality of abortion--understanding the history of the issue in the Black and White Christian churches has huge implications for where one ultimately comes down on that question.
Additionally, you mischaracterized the position of Black Christian leaders in the RNS article. None said abortion was good. They said the right to choose was good. There's a world of difference there. Virtually no one thinks abortion is good, as a recent Notre Dame study showed, even among the most pro-abortion advocates. We all inherently know it is a problem. The question is what to do about it. I believe that we'll make more progress towards ending it by providing even more resources to women in need during this critical time in their lives, and there's plenty of data to support this position. Of course, this could end up being wrong, but the question has to be debated openly and rationally, and that's hard to do when people on one side throw out "baby killers", and people on the others side say it's only about owning women's bodies, because both sides have some good points to bring to the discussion.
Finally, I would say that given that you misunderstand the thesis under consideration as abortion itself rather than abortion access, it is quite audacious to put words into the mouth of one of the heroes of the faith and champions for justice in America. It might very well be that her choicest words would be for you, sir.
I appreciate the response and I'll warn you ahead of time, I am going to be blunt here.
I think Jemar has a clear purpose here. I also listened to his Pass the Mic episode on the matter and has only solidified his stance in this matter.
On the very week that news broke about the real potential of Roe v. Wade being overturned, something that generations of Christians have been sincerely praying for for 50 years, and many were rightfully celebrating, Jemar decides that the most important thing to write about is how their efforts are really about racism and power. He bludgeons. He doesn't have any time to discuss the rich history of how champions for racial justice such as Fannie Lou Hamer (who was not unclear in the least as to her stance that abortion "amounts to genocide") and Mildred Jefferson spoke out so clearly and powerfully against abortion and the commercialization of abortion in our country. He simply used his platform to smear Christians who are passionate about this particular issue and may be feeling a real sense of gratitude in current the moment. It's manipulation, plain and simple. I heard Jemar's exact talking point repeated at nauseum by so many on the political left and the likes of mainstream news orgs. like MSNBC, Politico, and CNN, to name a few. I read as fellow Christians posted the same text stating that those who are anti-abortion "have the blood of racism flowing in their veins", including by someone that I have personally provided free housing and food to during a rough patch in her life and given a free car when her family was in desperate need, asking nothing in return. Our family's care and pro-life "womb to tomb" beliefs were immediately meaningless because we were defamed, labeled, and categorized by those like Jemar, politicians, and the talking heads as racist power mongers. I'm not saying that my personal experience is what Jemar was intending, but it's stunning to watch in real time.
Jemar writes and speaks about the need for justice constantly, that is obviously his calling. But I have found that his appeal is quite hypocritical and only for a very select version of justice. He calls for fighting racism, but only a narrowly tailored definition of racism. If, as a Christian, my stances on justice and racism differ at all from his opinions, he immediately labels them injustice. If I feel called to stand up for justice issues that don't meet his specified definitions (this article for example), he wastes no time to demean, although, with nice sounding words and in a very polite tone.
For example, in his Grove City Chapel political stump speech, he made it very clear that there was no nuance for Christians to have differing ideas of what racial justice would look like in our day. It's his way or no way. No humility or nuance allowed. In fact, he believes this so fully that he made sure to reference Joshua 24 "choose this day whom you will serve", to indicate that you are either for his select version of racial justice or injustice. No room for a discussion as to how racial reconciliation may be meted out by Christians across the spectrum. No charity to assume the best of fellow believers and their desire to fight against racism and injustice in their own ways. No room for slowing down and practicing "deep humility for such a charged issue." No calls for being deeply thoughtful and "testing the spirits". Nope, his speech was clear. You are either for us or against us.
But now, when it comes to abortion, which is clearly a justice issue, with no shortage of biblical and theological clarity, as well as a rich history of Christian activism over millennia (see Tertullian, Apology 9.8, Written sometime around 200 A.D.), Jemar wants to get wishy-washy and avoid clarity at all costs. The reason is clear: he knows it will go against his political tribe. He knows that if he takes a clear stance against abortion, he will lose his affection from our current culture. Those guest spots on NPR, CNN and in the Atlantic will dry up real fast. All the sudden, he implores Christians to slow down and show "deep humility" and calls for "humility and nuance" in such a "highly charged" matter, and then gives his political tribe red meat to run with.
Short of it is, this justice issue does not line up with his politics and he clearly allows his political identity to drive his response. This is the exact thing he constantly speaks against for conservative Christians (even in this very article), yet he can't seem to see that he is employing the exact same tactic. Humility and self-reflection seem to be no existent.
With your point about "no one thinks abortion is good", I may have agreed with you 5-10 years ago, but the conversation has morphed significantly. For example, as you see in my first post, politicians of my state have made it clear that a baby in the womb, no matter what, has no human rights whatsoever. None. Does this allow room for nuance? This is as far from a nuanced legislative position as one can get. This is the definition of using systemic power for injustice. The bill's language was lifted almost word for word from Dred Scott, is evil, and should be clearly called as much by all Christians across the political spectrum. But as the RNS article indicates, the very political party that is now pushing this kind of legislation nation-wide and calling for unrestricted abortion at any time believes that they can actually drum up significant political support within the church pews by using the euphemism of "choice". It truly saddens me. The differentiation between "choice for abortion" and "abortion" is dishonest. Either way, abortion is the driving factor, and as we see in Colorado, when taken to the ultimate conclusion, the voiceless human being in the womb gets no choice, no matter what, just death. The Imago Dei of that child appears to be worth no more than garbage.
One final talking point I find concerning, particularly with many Christians on the political left is the idea that we need to increase social programs before we overturn Roe v Wade. Like you have stated, many progressive Christians claim that greater social spending and safety nets will actually reduce abortion rates because they will get at the root causes of why women are choosing abortion.
I think it sounds very reasonable and I likely could find places of common ground with this perspective.
That said, I think this is wrong. Even a cursory look at the data shows this to be untrue. US states with the highest abortion rates in the country are the bluest states with some of the highest pro-rata welfare spending in the country, while the states with lowest abortion rates are solidly red with some of the lowest welfare spending. For example, D.C., New York, California, Rhode Island and Delaware all fall in the top 10 states with highest abortion rates and top 10-13 states for per-capita welfare spending. Conversely, Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, and South Dakota all fall within the 10 states wit the lowest abortion rates and10 sates with lowest welfare spending as well.
States with Highest Abortion Rates
1. District of Columbia (32.7)
2. New York (29.6)
3. New Jersey (25.8)
4. Maryland (23.4)
5. Florida (20.6)
6. California (19.5)
7. Nevada (19.4)
8. Connecticut (19.2)
9. Rhode Island (17)
10. Delaware (16.7)
States with Lowest Abortion Rates
1. Wyoming (1.3 per 1,000 women 15-44)
2. South Dakota (3.1 per 1,000 women 15-44)
3. Kentucky (3.8 per 1,000 women 15-44)
4. Idaho (3.9 per 1,000 women 15-44)
5. Missouri (4 per 1,000 women 15-44)
6. Mississippi (4.3 per 1,000 women 15-44)
7. West Virginia (4.4 per 1,000 women 15-44)
8. Utah (4.4 per 1,000 women 15-44)
9. South Carolina (5.3 per 1,000 women 15-44)
10. Nebraska (5.5 per 1,000 women 15-44)
See any trends? What this shows me is that increased welfare spending and social programs does not necessarily lead to limiting abortion rates, as many fellow Christians are assuming at the moment. In fact, an untrained statistician may assume correlation equals causation and claim that more spending and more less abortion restriction may actually increase abortion rates...If that is indeed the case, would you be willing to change your mind? Or at least move from the position that we should allow for unrestricted abortion until we get all the other pieces figured out. If we take this stance, we'll be waiting forever. Seems like important data to bring to the table in these conversations, if we are discussing this topic in an honest manner, right?
I admire your passion and respectful tone. You are clearly very knowledgeable about many aspects of the issue, and I don’t have the time or expertise to respond to every point you’ve made, but let me address a few, because I hear someone who’s heart is for justice. I have been on my own journey of discovery in the last two years and feel my eyes have been open to things I’d never seen before, so I know what it feels like to question all you’ve ever thought about an issue. I must say, you seem to have a real issue with Jemar’s approach to racial justice, but I wonder if you’re not have a hard time with the truth of what he’s saying because it cuts a little to close to home. If so, then I understand what you’re going through. Just a few examples below to try to help you see this, if possible.
“On the very week that news broke about the real potential of Roe v. Wade being overturned, something that generations of Christians have been sincerely praying for 50 years, and many were rightfully celebrating, Jemar decides that the most important thing to write about is how their efforts are really about racism and power.”
The whole point of Jemar’s article and the RNS article is that your statement can only be said to be true of generations of White Christians. It’s not to say that Black Christians never pray for this, but it’s never been their number one prayer. Their number one prayer has been for racial justice and the strength to carry on when it doesn’t arrive. Jemar is not only being true to his personal passion but to the witness of the Black Church in the US. The question you might ask yourself is why isn’t the Black church celebrating this like the White church is? What might you need to understand about the Black experience to understand why your brothers and sisters in Christ see this situation so differently?
“He doesn't have any time to discuss the rich history of how champions for racial justice such as Fannie Lou Hamer (who was not unclear in the least as to her stance that abortion "amounts to genocide") and Mildred Jefferson spoke out so clearly and powerfully against abortion and the commercialization of abortion in our country.”
You may be correct about Hamer, but the odds are certainly against it, in my estimation. You have taken a quote from her before the advent of the Religious Right and assumed she would make the same statement today. There is very good reason to doubt she would have the same position, because as we’ve already established, most Black Christians today have a different position. She would most likely be well within the mainstream Black church position on this, which would put her closer to Jemar that to you. If this is the case, then why would this be? Is it perhaps, in part, because between the 1960s and today the Religious Right was intentionally developed as a White evangelical effort to wield political power on the national stage, never stopping to ask the Black church what they were interested in, and that ultimately chose as its champion an openly racist moral degenerate like Trump, and who it still supports overwhelmingly even though he instigated a violent insurrection and is actively trying to undermine our faith in American democracy itself for his own glory?
“I read as fellow Christians posted the same text stating that those who are anti-abortion "have the blood of racism flowing in their veins", including by someone that I have personally provided free housing and food to during a rough patch in her life and given a free car when her family was in desperate need, asking nothing in return. Our family's care and pro-life "womb to tomb" beliefs were immediately meaningless because we were defamed, labeled, and categorized by those like Jemar, politicians, and the talking heads as racist power mongers.”
If I understand you correctly, you feel very hurt because someone you gave to sacrificially has now labeled you as having “the blood of racism flowing in your veins” because you are anti-abortion. If that’s correct, then I am very sorry to hear it. However, I haven’t heard Jemar say that or seen him post it, so is it possible that you are conflating him with the careless words of others who actually hold a different position than he does?
“If, as a Christian, my stances on justice and racism differ at all from his opinions, he immediately labels them injustice. If I feel called to stand up for justice issues that don't meet his specified definitions (this article for example), he wastes no time to demean, although, with nice sounding words and in a very polite tone. For example, in his Grove City Chapel political stump speech, he made it very clear that there was no nuance for Christians to have differing ideas of what racial justice would look like in our day. It's his way or no way. No humility or nuance allowed. In fact, he believes this so fully that he made sure to reference Joshua 24 "choose this day whom you will serve", to indicate that you are either for his select version of racial justice or injustice. No room for a discussion as to how racial reconciliation may be meted out by Christians across the spectrum.”
I honestly don’t know how to respond to this exactly. It is true that Jemar clearly stated he believes we are living in a second Civil Rights movement, and that this brings with it the need to act against racism urgently. But I really don’t see where you get “it’s his way or the highway”. The examples he gave in his talk for ways to act were, “Take the class, go on the trip, attend the events, start the book club or the Bible study, watch the documentaries, follow the activists on line and on social media, fill your mind with an awareness of racial justice…:. This seems like a pretty broad array of ways to act justly and don’t appear very narrow or extreme to me. Am I missing something? Also, Jemar doesn’t quote Joshua 24 in this talk, so were you referring to a different talk?
“With your point about "no one thinks abortion is good", I may have agreed with you 5-10 years ago, but the conversation has morphed significantly. For example, as you see in my first post, politicians of my state have made it clear that a baby in the womb, no matter what, has no human rights whatsoever. None. Does this allow room for nuance? This is as far from a nuanced legislative position as one can get. This is the definition of using systemic power for injustice. The bill's language was lifted almost word for word from Dred Scott, is evil, and should be clearly called as much by all Christians across the political spectrum.”
Well, I have good news for you here. The legislators in your state appear to be on the extreme end of the spectrum, because the Notre Dame study I cited is very recent and clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of Americans do not think this way about abortion. I would argue that the whole fight at the national level over Roe v. Wade has contributed to the extreme positions on both sides. The best thing about the overturning of Roe v. Wade will be that sane American voices can come to the front and establish a moderate position in line with the rest of the industrialized world. Don’t blame the extremists on one side without blaming them on the other. My Republican governor and legislature has now turned citizens against each other by making it legal to sue someone I don’t even know because they seek abortion services. These people call themselves Christians, by the way. We desperately need the temperature to come down, and I hope it will soon.
"The differentiation between "choice for abortion" and "abortion" is dishonest."
As a thought experiment, consider a wealthy suburban woman with lots of plastic surgery and every luxury life can provide who just can’t remember to take her birth control pills and so has serial abortions as a method of birth control. Now imagine a poor inner-city teenager who is sexually assaulted by her Mom’s live-in boyfriend (Dad’s a pretty good guy who went to prison for selling a few ounces of weed because his state-appointed lawyer didn’t give a damn about providing a decent defense) who finds out she’s pregnant, fears being found out by the Mom and so threatens the girl that if she doesn’t get an abortion, he’ll kill her, and so she gets an abortion. Do these women have the same amount of moral blame for their decision? If not, then is the differentiation between “choice for abortion” and “abortion” really dishonest in all cases?
“If that is indeed the case, would you be willing to change your mind? Or at least move from the position that we should allow for unrestricted abortion until we get all the other pieces figured out. If we take this stance, we'll be waiting forever. Seems like important data to bring to the table in these conversations, if we are discussing this topic in an honest manner, right?"
I hope I am always willing to change my mind, and I have done so many times in my life on some big issues, but I must say you haven’t provided good reasons for me to do so but have in fact helped to confirm my current position, which is not for unrestricted abortion or anything close to it. As I said before, almost no one wants that. I hope you believe that I’ve discussed these with you in an honest manner. If you would like to continue dialoging, I will do my best, but I am working on a church history assignment related to racial justice that I’m very excited about but that needs more work, so I’ll do what I can.
I really appreciate the charitable response. It is very uncommon for someone to match or exceed my comment lengths. I sense our brains work very similarly. Although we likely disagree on much, I think we would make fast friends, based on your responses.
I won't continue to go back and forth on the details. You point out some great points and some errors in my words (i.e. his Joshua 24 reference was in an article about his GCC speech, not in the speech itself, my apology for the mix-up).
Here are a few precise points as to why I typically find myself so frustrated with Jemar's approach:
1. My main purpose for writing is simply as a warning. I have read and listened to much of Jemar's work and while I clearly hear his heart for justice, I also see him using the exact same tactics that he speaks out so vehemently against regarding the fundamentalist Religious Right. My analysis over the years it that he is increasingly cloaking political activism in religious language. The politics appears to be ever more foundational and the Christianity an accessory. I could very well be wrong here. I don't know him personally. This is just what I interpret from his public words. There is just as much of a danger of falling into a form of religious fundamentalism on either side of the political isle in our present moment. I sense it growing in his work and I am simply sending up some red flags as a brother in Christ.
2. You are correct, much of Jemar's activism indeed "cuts a little to close to home." To be honest, I have some baggage that comes to the fore when I read much of his writing or listen to his talks. My wife and I take care of our niece on a pretty regular basis. She is the picture perfect example of marginalization that Jemar describes in much of his work. She is the child that very well could have been aborted based on her mom's circumstances. She is our "womb to tomb". Much of what I hear Jemar proposing and encouraging other Christians to support in our modern progressive politics has had an incredibly detrimental effect on her in real-time, particularly in recent years. I have watched it with my own eyes. My wife and I have worked to fight for her and advocate for her as she has been unjustly treated and impacted by the very people claiming to care so much for the marginalized. I would be happy to share what I have seen on the ground in her life, but for the most part, those on the political progressive left are far more willing to broad-brush people like me with the terms of "upholding white supremacy" and "racism", than engage with some uncomfortable truths. I am watching my own niece getting crushed and when I raise my voice to advocate on her behalf, I quickly find myself dismissed or castigated, because I don't follow the current political recipe of the day. Accordingly, it has made me quite distrustful to those claiming they care for the marginalized. When I hear language and talking points typically raised by those in the modern "social justice" movement, I find myself with a immediate sense of skepticism. But that is my personal baggage to deal with, not Jemar's.
3. Finally, I see a wild amount of asymmetry in Jemar's analysis. He allows his own deep political bias to clearly effect what injustice he brings to the forefront and what injustice he writes off as unimportant or merely distraction, and most of the time it falls directly along political lines. Again, exactly what he warns that the Religious Right does. Proverbs 20:23 says, "The Lord detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him." Having political leanings is not a bad thing. Diversity is a beautiful part of the Body of Christ. Some of us are toes and some are an appendix. Great! I have found others in this space that are willing to rise above the political battle lines and call out the injustice both on the other side of the political isle and their own as well. and while we disagree on much, they have earned my trust. In my experience, I have not seen this willingness from Jemar. The ability to address injustice regardless of whether it is found in your own political tribe or not is a foundational building block to building trust on all sides of these conversations. An unwillingness to do so erodes trust very quickly. I am more than happy to do it if anyone wants to discuss my own political biases. I am just pleading for more balance, and pleading for people like Jemar to rise above the fickle political lines of our day. They are unhelpful for those who truly seek justice.
Hopefully that helps clarify my thoughts in a more succinct manner. Happy to discuss more if you would care to.
One final point Byron. The idea that support for full-term unrestricted abortion access is a legislative priority for only the extreme end of the current Democrat party is simply not true. Today the US Senate voted on the Women's Health Protection Act, which essentially codifies unrestricted abortion access both before and after "viability". Only one Democrat voted against it. The remaining 49 voted in favor. 2 Democrats of 220 in the US House voted against it back in September. Definitely not fringe, unless you consider 98% of the Democrats in the US Senate and 99% of the Democrats in the House as fringe and extreme....which in this particular matter would not be a false statement.
"I love God. I love the Bible. So I hate abortion. Scripture is clear. God is the author of life. He alone has the authority to say when it can be given and when it can be taken away....Abortion horrifies us because the notion of life as a gift has been infused in us by our Creator....God endowed all human beings with inherent dignity when he created them in his image and likeness (Gen. 1:26-27). We have an instinct for life because existence itself images the Creator...Since God animates all humanity he has all rights over it. In Genesis 8, after the Flood he declares, “‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.'” God’s unrivaled command over the lives of all people as their Creator means he alone has the authority to declare the conditions under which life can be taken. God’s prerogative over life unequivocally extends to the unborn... While the contribution of certain individuals and organizations during the Civil Rights Movement should never be forgotten, this advocacy is no reason to ignore the contra-biblical practices of abortion providers."
- Jemar Tisby, August 28, 2015
Now that is some clarity on the issue with which I can agree wholeheartedly. Seems like his stance has clearly changed. Did God or the Bible change, or just politics?
"I love God. I love the Bible. So I hate abortion. Scripture is clear. God is the author of life. He alone has the authority to say when it can be given and when it can be taken away....Abortion horrifies us because the notion of life as a gift has been infused in us by our Creator....God endowed all human beings with inherent dignity when he created them in his image and likeness (Gen. 1:26-27). We have an instinct for life because existence itself images the Creator...Since God animates all humanity he has all rights over it. In Genesis 8, after the Flood he declares, “‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.'” God’s unrivaled command over the lives of all people as their Creator means he alone has the authority to declare the conditions under which life can be taken. God’s prerogative over life unequivocally extends to the unborn... While the contribution of certain individuals and organizations during the Civil Rights Movement should never be forgotten, this advocacy is no reason to ignore the contra-biblical practices of abortion providers."
- Jemar Tisby, August 28, 2015
Now that is some clarity on the issue with which I can agree wholeheartedly! Seems like his stance has clearly changed. Did God or the Bible change, or just politics?
I've known about the Bob Jones University link to the current frenzy in the wyte Evangelical church for a while now. I was one of those who was stampeded by the frenzy because of the high emotional content, the righteous anger expressed by those who sought to make the wyte Evangelical church into a political arm of conservative politics, and the extremely naïve view that my religious elders, pastors, and teachers knew what they were talking about. And I had no idea of the history of the American churches, let alone the broad swath of theologies and dogmas of the worldwide church in the present as well as in history.
In short, I was fooled by that combination of personal innocence and the deliberate strategy to use my innocence.
The argument that abortion became a tool to move forward wyte supremacist theologies and gain political power seems to be lost, again and again, and I suspect that deliberate erasure happens because it strikes at the presumed moral argument over abortion.
That push to adopt abortion as a tool of argument was a deeply cynical ploy by wyte supremacists to get control of one of the largest religious movements in America—wyte Evangelicals, who up to the 1980s did not much take part in American politics. The SBC, among others, was of the belief that Christians should avoid the messiness of politics and use their influence to change the hearts and minds of people through their preaching and their teachings. (It's very hard to see the historic teachings of the Baptist churches in general and compare them to the extraordinary changes in outlook we see today. Power corrupts, I guess.)
Seeing the shadow of the loss of power of the wyte majority, and seeing the loss of control over education (and other aspects of our civil, secular society) to the point where wyte people would have to co-exist equally with Black people, and seeing that openly racist theologies and political aims were not generally popular, abortion as a topic became the convenient vehicle for political and religious power.
Absent any argument pro or con, the idea that not a few people were fooled by this approach seems like something we'd all want to know about. It is an example of how what actually happened in history can explain how we got to the point where we are today where a *segment* of the wyte Evangelical church drives a minority political party that uses that slice of reliable voters to enact policies that, overall, are anti-life and anti-people.
It is hard to see the nakedness of that effort. It is harder still to see how thoroughly people insist that they not see it.
We really do have a problem with seeing history, whether it is of the original colonization of the American coast or the events that were initiated by the enforcement of the 14th Amendment in the 1970s.
There is a deep link between all forms of racial discrimination and abortion : human beings , based on what is convenient for them, get to decide who is human enough or who is not human enough to have the right to live. At some point in history, based on our inability to communicate with them in a language they understood, and to exhibit the traits they deemed universal to humanity, some people decided that we could be trafficked and killed like mere objects. I see a clear link with the commodification of human life and specifically kids that is more and more prevalent in this society. While some people would go to extremeties and use scientific prowesses and humans as factories to have kids, others claim the right to kill the exact same human life arguing it is not human yet or it has no personhood. In sum, the value of a human life is totally dependant on wether a parent wants it or not. Just like the value of black lives has been and is still in some ways dependant on the gaze of dominant cultural groups.
Thanks for sharing. What’s interesting (and all I’m really showing in this post) is that evangelicals have not always been united on their views toward abortion.
And if they are mostly united now, is that a bad thing? Could the unison be chalked up to something other than a smoke screen for racism, or is that the only possible explanation in your mind?
Dr Tisby, I always appreciate how you thread history together and bring factual information to the seeker. I’ve heard the BobJones story and studied the churches historical position on slavery and my take away is right from the mouth of Jesus - “It is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick.” Matthew 9:12 Those professing to be Christian need the “doctor” as much as the rest but clearly “access” to the doctor isn’t enough to make them better. It’s following the doctors plan that will make the difference. The “church” is not well.
Getting Roe v Wade overturned is only the beginning for the Religious Right/Christian Nationalist. LGBTQ rights will go, inter-racial marriage will go, segregation will return. Their goal is to make the USA a Christian nation based on biblical rule. The thing about that is, it will be a select few who determine which interpretation of biblical rule and which version of Christianity they will force on everyone.
A very helpful corrective. I was also taught there was a role that was central coming from the Catholic church regarding using abortion as a galvanizing Right's political strategy in the 1970's as well. I have yet to find the sources on that argument, but wondering about that as well in light of how Catholicism made strange bed fellows w evangelicals on abortion. Perhaps this galvanization also pulled Catholics toward more conservative politics, turning away from a very inclusive Catholic Social Teaching strategy in re: labor rights, inclusion and Civil Rights in this era and beyond.
How easy you forget the history of your own party! The democrats, the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK. How you forget that Planned Parenthood main purpose was (and still is) to destroy black lives. I honestly can’t believe that you are pro-abortion? How is your hatred so plain to see. Can’t you see how is destroying you? How sad. You need to come to the cross of Christ and repent. I hope you do.
I am very curious as to you thoughts on historical through lines with racism in this particular matter.
On 4/4/2022 my own governor, Gov. Jared Polis, signed Colorado House Bill 22-1279 - Reproductive Health Equity Act into law. When I read the text of the law, I was stunned. 25-6-403(3) of the law says;
(3) A FERTILIZED EGG, EMBRYO, OR FETUS DOES NOT HAVE INDEPENDENT OR DERIVATIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE.
These grotesque words sounded familiar to me. For you as a historian on race in America, they should be very, very, familiar. You likely know exactly where they can be found in the annals of the Supreme Court.
Since I am no PhD of history, it took some thinking and digging for me to figure out why these words were so familiar. After some thinking and digging, I figured it out!
In the final ruling in DRED SCOTT v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD, paragraph 26 of the final opinion of the Supreme Court stated the following;
“The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS, WHETHER THE CLASS OF PERSONS DESCRIBED IN THE PLEA IN ABATEMENT COMPOSE A PORTION OF THIS PEOPLE, AND ARE CONSTITUENT MEMBERS OF THIS SOVERIEGNTY? WE THINK THEY ARE NOT, AND THAT THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED, AND WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED, UNDER THE WORD 'CITIZEN' IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND CAN THERFORE CLAIM NONE OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES WHICH THAT INSTRUMENT PROVIDES FOR AND SECURES TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. ON THE CONTRARY, THEY WERE AT THAT TIME CONSIDERED A SUBORDINATE AND INFERIOR CLASS OF BEINGS... AND HAD NO RIGTHS OR PRIVILEGES BUT SUCH AS THOSE WHO HELD THE POWER AND THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT CHOOSE TO GRANT THEM. “
You and I likely agree that the Dred Scott ruling was one of the most evil and insidious rulings in the history of our nation, particularly because of the logic and language of this exact paragraph. All 7 of the justices who ruled in the majority of Dred Scott case were appointed by Jacksonian/Democrat party. Are you willing to speak up boldly when you see the identical language being used in modern legislation from the very party that was responsible for the Dred Scott ruling?
While you want to immediately draw attention to inconsistencies in how evangelicals may have viewed abortion historically (pre the commercialization of the abortion industry, BTW) and try to tie them to potential roots in racism, are you willing to draw attention to the historical echoes (or screams, IMO) of institutionalized racism which defined the Democrat party particularly for a majority of the 19th and more than first half of the 20th centuries which can clearly be heard within actions of the current Democrat party as well? Or should we limit our scrutiny to evangelicals only?
Do you think we should step back for a second when we see stories like this, in which prominent black religious leaders are encouraging their congregations to view abortion as a cultural and societal good, enough so to drive their votes to a party that explicitly endorses unrestricted, full-term abortion in this country?
https://religionnews.com/2022/05/03/roe-wade-supreme-court-overturn-ruling-black-church-leaders-elections/
Your late hero, Fannie Lou Hamer, would have some very choice words if she was here to speak...
This leak was obviously an attempt at massive political manipulation, plain and simple.
Should we take the bait?
Jemar can certainly respond to you on his own, but I find your response to be a bit careless and off topic. Jemar isn't arguing that abortion is good, he is pointing out that the vast majority of the religious right has no understanding of the history of their own movement and its very recent and dramatic shift in its position on abortion access. I think that's extremely valuable and can help inform the debate enormously. It has certainly shaped my own rethinking of my personal position on abortion access. I would be willing to bet it would have a big impact on many Christians' view on the legality of abortion--understanding the history of the issue in the Black and White Christian churches has huge implications for where one ultimately comes down on that question.
Additionally, you mischaracterized the position of Black Christian leaders in the RNS article. None said abortion was good. They said the right to choose was good. There's a world of difference there. Virtually no one thinks abortion is good, as a recent Notre Dame study showed, even among the most pro-abortion advocates. We all inherently know it is a problem. The question is what to do about it. I believe that we'll make more progress towards ending it by providing even more resources to women in need during this critical time in their lives, and there's plenty of data to support this position. Of course, this could end up being wrong, but the question has to be debated openly and rationally, and that's hard to do when people on one side throw out "baby killers", and people on the others side say it's only about owning women's bodies, because both sides have some good points to bring to the discussion.
Finally, I would say that given that you misunderstand the thesis under consideration as abortion itself rather than abortion access, it is quite audacious to put words into the mouth of one of the heroes of the faith and champions for justice in America. It might very well be that her choicest words would be for you, sir.
Byron,
I appreciate the response and I'll warn you ahead of time, I am going to be blunt here.
I think Jemar has a clear purpose here. I also listened to his Pass the Mic episode on the matter and has only solidified his stance in this matter.
On the very week that news broke about the real potential of Roe v. Wade being overturned, something that generations of Christians have been sincerely praying for for 50 years, and many were rightfully celebrating, Jemar decides that the most important thing to write about is how their efforts are really about racism and power. He bludgeons. He doesn't have any time to discuss the rich history of how champions for racial justice such as Fannie Lou Hamer (who was not unclear in the least as to her stance that abortion "amounts to genocide") and Mildred Jefferson spoke out so clearly and powerfully against abortion and the commercialization of abortion in our country. He simply used his platform to smear Christians who are passionate about this particular issue and may be feeling a real sense of gratitude in current the moment. It's manipulation, plain and simple. I heard Jemar's exact talking point repeated at nauseum by so many on the political left and the likes of mainstream news orgs. like MSNBC, Politico, and CNN, to name a few. I read as fellow Christians posted the same text stating that those who are anti-abortion "have the blood of racism flowing in their veins", including by someone that I have personally provided free housing and food to during a rough patch in her life and given a free car when her family was in desperate need, asking nothing in return. Our family's care and pro-life "womb to tomb" beliefs were immediately meaningless because we were defamed, labeled, and categorized by those like Jemar, politicians, and the talking heads as racist power mongers. I'm not saying that my personal experience is what Jemar was intending, but it's stunning to watch in real time.
Jemar writes and speaks about the need for justice constantly, that is obviously his calling. But I have found that his appeal is quite hypocritical and only for a very select version of justice. He calls for fighting racism, but only a narrowly tailored definition of racism. If, as a Christian, my stances on justice and racism differ at all from his opinions, he immediately labels them injustice. If I feel called to stand up for justice issues that don't meet his specified definitions (this article for example), he wastes no time to demean, although, with nice sounding words and in a very polite tone.
For example, in his Grove City Chapel political stump speech, he made it very clear that there was no nuance for Christians to have differing ideas of what racial justice would look like in our day. It's his way or no way. No humility or nuance allowed. In fact, he believes this so fully that he made sure to reference Joshua 24 "choose this day whom you will serve", to indicate that you are either for his select version of racial justice or injustice. No room for a discussion as to how racial reconciliation may be meted out by Christians across the spectrum. No charity to assume the best of fellow believers and their desire to fight against racism and injustice in their own ways. No room for slowing down and practicing "deep humility for such a charged issue." No calls for being deeply thoughtful and "testing the spirits". Nope, his speech was clear. You are either for us or against us.
But now, when it comes to abortion, which is clearly a justice issue, with no shortage of biblical and theological clarity, as well as a rich history of Christian activism over millennia (see Tertullian, Apology 9.8, Written sometime around 200 A.D.), Jemar wants to get wishy-washy and avoid clarity at all costs. The reason is clear: he knows it will go against his political tribe. He knows that if he takes a clear stance against abortion, he will lose his affection from our current culture. Those guest spots on NPR, CNN and in the Atlantic will dry up real fast. All the sudden, he implores Christians to slow down and show "deep humility" and calls for "humility and nuance" in such a "highly charged" matter, and then gives his political tribe red meat to run with.
Short of it is, this justice issue does not line up with his politics and he clearly allows his political identity to drive his response. This is the exact thing he constantly speaks against for conservative Christians (even in this very article), yet he can't seem to see that he is employing the exact same tactic. Humility and self-reflection seem to be no existent.
With your point about "no one thinks abortion is good", I may have agreed with you 5-10 years ago, but the conversation has morphed significantly. For example, as you see in my first post, politicians of my state have made it clear that a baby in the womb, no matter what, has no human rights whatsoever. None. Does this allow room for nuance? This is as far from a nuanced legislative position as one can get. This is the definition of using systemic power for injustice. The bill's language was lifted almost word for word from Dred Scott, is evil, and should be clearly called as much by all Christians across the political spectrum. But as the RNS article indicates, the very political party that is now pushing this kind of legislation nation-wide and calling for unrestricted abortion at any time believes that they can actually drum up significant political support within the church pews by using the euphemism of "choice". It truly saddens me. The differentiation between "choice for abortion" and "abortion" is dishonest. Either way, abortion is the driving factor, and as we see in Colorado, when taken to the ultimate conclusion, the voiceless human being in the womb gets no choice, no matter what, just death. The Imago Dei of that child appears to be worth no more than garbage.
One final talking point I find concerning, particularly with many Christians on the political left is the idea that we need to increase social programs before we overturn Roe v Wade. Like you have stated, many progressive Christians claim that greater social spending and safety nets will actually reduce abortion rates because they will get at the root causes of why women are choosing abortion.
I think it sounds very reasonable and I likely could find places of common ground with this perspective.
That said, I think this is wrong. Even a cursory look at the data shows this to be untrue. US states with the highest abortion rates in the country are the bluest states with some of the highest pro-rata welfare spending in the country, while the states with lowest abortion rates are solidly red with some of the lowest welfare spending. For example, D.C., New York, California, Rhode Island and Delaware all fall in the top 10 states with highest abortion rates and top 10-13 states for per-capita welfare spending. Conversely, Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, and South Dakota all fall within the 10 states wit the lowest abortion rates and10 sates with lowest welfare spending as well.
States with Highest Abortion Rates
1. District of Columbia (32.7)
2. New York (29.6)
3. New Jersey (25.8)
4. Maryland (23.4)
5. Florida (20.6)
6. California (19.5)
7. Nevada (19.4)
8. Connecticut (19.2)
9. Rhode Island (17)
10. Delaware (16.7)
States with Lowest Abortion Rates
1. Wyoming (1.3 per 1,000 women 15-44)
2. South Dakota (3.1 per 1,000 women 15-44)
3. Kentucky (3.8 per 1,000 women 15-44)
4. Idaho (3.9 per 1,000 women 15-44)
5. Missouri (4 per 1,000 women 15-44)
6. Mississippi (4.3 per 1,000 women 15-44)
7. West Virginia (4.4 per 1,000 women 15-44)
8. Utah (4.4 per 1,000 women 15-44)
9. South Carolina (5.3 per 1,000 women 15-44)
10. Nebraska (5.5 per 1,000 women 15-44)
See any trends? What this shows me is that increased welfare spending and social programs does not necessarily lead to limiting abortion rates, as many fellow Christians are assuming at the moment. In fact, an untrained statistician may assume correlation equals causation and claim that more spending and more less abortion restriction may actually increase abortion rates...If that is indeed the case, would you be willing to change your mind? Or at least move from the position that we should allow for unrestricted abortion until we get all the other pieces figured out. If we take this stance, we'll be waiting forever. Seems like important data to bring to the table in these conversations, if we are discussing this topic in an honest manner, right?
worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/abortion-rates-by-state
commodity.com/blog/us-states-welfare
I admire your passion and respectful tone. You are clearly very knowledgeable about many aspects of the issue, and I don’t have the time or expertise to respond to every point you’ve made, but let me address a few, because I hear someone who’s heart is for justice. I have been on my own journey of discovery in the last two years and feel my eyes have been open to things I’d never seen before, so I know what it feels like to question all you’ve ever thought about an issue. I must say, you seem to have a real issue with Jemar’s approach to racial justice, but I wonder if you’re not have a hard time with the truth of what he’s saying because it cuts a little to close to home. If so, then I understand what you’re going through. Just a few examples below to try to help you see this, if possible.
“On the very week that news broke about the real potential of Roe v. Wade being overturned, something that generations of Christians have been sincerely praying for 50 years, and many were rightfully celebrating, Jemar decides that the most important thing to write about is how their efforts are really about racism and power.”
The whole point of Jemar’s article and the RNS article is that your statement can only be said to be true of generations of White Christians. It’s not to say that Black Christians never pray for this, but it’s never been their number one prayer. Their number one prayer has been for racial justice and the strength to carry on when it doesn’t arrive. Jemar is not only being true to his personal passion but to the witness of the Black Church in the US. The question you might ask yourself is why isn’t the Black church celebrating this like the White church is? What might you need to understand about the Black experience to understand why your brothers and sisters in Christ see this situation so differently?
“He doesn't have any time to discuss the rich history of how champions for racial justice such as Fannie Lou Hamer (who was not unclear in the least as to her stance that abortion "amounts to genocide") and Mildred Jefferson spoke out so clearly and powerfully against abortion and the commercialization of abortion in our country.”
You may be correct about Hamer, but the odds are certainly against it, in my estimation. You have taken a quote from her before the advent of the Religious Right and assumed she would make the same statement today. There is very good reason to doubt she would have the same position, because as we’ve already established, most Black Christians today have a different position. She would most likely be well within the mainstream Black church position on this, which would put her closer to Jemar that to you. If this is the case, then why would this be? Is it perhaps, in part, because between the 1960s and today the Religious Right was intentionally developed as a White evangelical effort to wield political power on the national stage, never stopping to ask the Black church what they were interested in, and that ultimately chose as its champion an openly racist moral degenerate like Trump, and who it still supports overwhelmingly even though he instigated a violent insurrection and is actively trying to undermine our faith in American democracy itself for his own glory?
“I read as fellow Christians posted the same text stating that those who are anti-abortion "have the blood of racism flowing in their veins", including by someone that I have personally provided free housing and food to during a rough patch in her life and given a free car when her family was in desperate need, asking nothing in return. Our family's care and pro-life "womb to tomb" beliefs were immediately meaningless because we were defamed, labeled, and categorized by those like Jemar, politicians, and the talking heads as racist power mongers.”
If I understand you correctly, you feel very hurt because someone you gave to sacrificially has now labeled you as having “the blood of racism flowing in your veins” because you are anti-abortion. If that’s correct, then I am very sorry to hear it. However, I haven’t heard Jemar say that or seen him post it, so is it possible that you are conflating him with the careless words of others who actually hold a different position than he does?
“If, as a Christian, my stances on justice and racism differ at all from his opinions, he immediately labels them injustice. If I feel called to stand up for justice issues that don't meet his specified definitions (this article for example), he wastes no time to demean, although, with nice sounding words and in a very polite tone. For example, in his Grove City Chapel political stump speech, he made it very clear that there was no nuance for Christians to have differing ideas of what racial justice would look like in our day. It's his way or no way. No humility or nuance allowed. In fact, he believes this so fully that he made sure to reference Joshua 24 "choose this day whom you will serve", to indicate that you are either for his select version of racial justice or injustice. No room for a discussion as to how racial reconciliation may be meted out by Christians across the spectrum.”
I honestly don’t know how to respond to this exactly. It is true that Jemar clearly stated he believes we are living in a second Civil Rights movement, and that this brings with it the need to act against racism urgently. But I really don’t see where you get “it’s his way or the highway”. The examples he gave in his talk for ways to act were, “Take the class, go on the trip, attend the events, start the book club or the Bible study, watch the documentaries, follow the activists on line and on social media, fill your mind with an awareness of racial justice…:. This seems like a pretty broad array of ways to act justly and don’t appear very narrow or extreme to me. Am I missing something? Also, Jemar doesn’t quote Joshua 24 in this talk, so were you referring to a different talk?
“With your point about "no one thinks abortion is good", I may have agreed with you 5-10 years ago, but the conversation has morphed significantly. For example, as you see in my first post, politicians of my state have made it clear that a baby in the womb, no matter what, has no human rights whatsoever. None. Does this allow room for nuance? This is as far from a nuanced legislative position as one can get. This is the definition of using systemic power for injustice. The bill's language was lifted almost word for word from Dred Scott, is evil, and should be clearly called as much by all Christians across the political spectrum.”
Well, I have good news for you here. The legislators in your state appear to be on the extreme end of the spectrum, because the Notre Dame study I cited is very recent and clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of Americans do not think this way about abortion. I would argue that the whole fight at the national level over Roe v. Wade has contributed to the extreme positions on both sides. The best thing about the overturning of Roe v. Wade will be that sane American voices can come to the front and establish a moderate position in line with the rest of the industrialized world. Don’t blame the extremists on one side without blaming them on the other. My Republican governor and legislature has now turned citizens against each other by making it legal to sue someone I don’t even know because they seek abortion services. These people call themselves Christians, by the way. We desperately need the temperature to come down, and I hope it will soon.
"The differentiation between "choice for abortion" and "abortion" is dishonest."
As a thought experiment, consider a wealthy suburban woman with lots of plastic surgery and every luxury life can provide who just can’t remember to take her birth control pills and so has serial abortions as a method of birth control. Now imagine a poor inner-city teenager who is sexually assaulted by her Mom’s live-in boyfriend (Dad’s a pretty good guy who went to prison for selling a few ounces of weed because his state-appointed lawyer didn’t give a damn about providing a decent defense) who finds out she’s pregnant, fears being found out by the Mom and so threatens the girl that if she doesn’t get an abortion, he’ll kill her, and so she gets an abortion. Do these women have the same amount of moral blame for their decision? If not, then is the differentiation between “choice for abortion” and “abortion” really dishonest in all cases?
“If that is indeed the case, would you be willing to change your mind? Or at least move from the position that we should allow for unrestricted abortion until we get all the other pieces figured out. If we take this stance, we'll be waiting forever. Seems like important data to bring to the table in these conversations, if we are discussing this topic in an honest manner, right?"
I hope I am always willing to change my mind, and I have done so many times in my life on some big issues, but I must say you haven’t provided good reasons for me to do so but have in fact helped to confirm my current position, which is not for unrestricted abortion or anything close to it. As I said before, almost no one wants that. I hope you believe that I’ve discussed these with you in an honest manner. If you would like to continue dialoging, I will do my best, but I am working on a church history assignment related to racial justice that I’m very excited about but that needs more work, so I’ll do what I can.
Byron,
I really appreciate the charitable response. It is very uncommon for someone to match or exceed my comment lengths. I sense our brains work very similarly. Although we likely disagree on much, I think we would make fast friends, based on your responses.
I won't continue to go back and forth on the details. You point out some great points and some errors in my words (i.e. his Joshua 24 reference was in an article about his GCC speech, not in the speech itself, my apology for the mix-up).
Here are a few precise points as to why I typically find myself so frustrated with Jemar's approach:
1. My main purpose for writing is simply as a warning. I have read and listened to much of Jemar's work and while I clearly hear his heart for justice, I also see him using the exact same tactics that he speaks out so vehemently against regarding the fundamentalist Religious Right. My analysis over the years it that he is increasingly cloaking political activism in religious language. The politics appears to be ever more foundational and the Christianity an accessory. I could very well be wrong here. I don't know him personally. This is just what I interpret from his public words. There is just as much of a danger of falling into a form of religious fundamentalism on either side of the political isle in our present moment. I sense it growing in his work and I am simply sending up some red flags as a brother in Christ.
2. You are correct, much of Jemar's activism indeed "cuts a little to close to home." To be honest, I have some baggage that comes to the fore when I read much of his writing or listen to his talks. My wife and I take care of our niece on a pretty regular basis. She is the picture perfect example of marginalization that Jemar describes in much of his work. She is the child that very well could have been aborted based on her mom's circumstances. She is our "womb to tomb". Much of what I hear Jemar proposing and encouraging other Christians to support in our modern progressive politics has had an incredibly detrimental effect on her in real-time, particularly in recent years. I have watched it with my own eyes. My wife and I have worked to fight for her and advocate for her as she has been unjustly treated and impacted by the very people claiming to care so much for the marginalized. I would be happy to share what I have seen on the ground in her life, but for the most part, those on the political progressive left are far more willing to broad-brush people like me with the terms of "upholding white supremacy" and "racism", than engage with some uncomfortable truths. I am watching my own niece getting crushed and when I raise my voice to advocate on her behalf, I quickly find myself dismissed or castigated, because I don't follow the current political recipe of the day. Accordingly, it has made me quite distrustful to those claiming they care for the marginalized. When I hear language and talking points typically raised by those in the modern "social justice" movement, I find myself with a immediate sense of skepticism. But that is my personal baggage to deal with, not Jemar's.
3. Finally, I see a wild amount of asymmetry in Jemar's analysis. He allows his own deep political bias to clearly effect what injustice he brings to the forefront and what injustice he writes off as unimportant or merely distraction, and most of the time it falls directly along political lines. Again, exactly what he warns that the Religious Right does. Proverbs 20:23 says, "The Lord detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him." Having political leanings is not a bad thing. Diversity is a beautiful part of the Body of Christ. Some of us are toes and some are an appendix. Great! I have found others in this space that are willing to rise above the political battle lines and call out the injustice both on the other side of the political isle and their own as well. and while we disagree on much, they have earned my trust. In my experience, I have not seen this willingness from Jemar. The ability to address injustice regardless of whether it is found in your own political tribe or not is a foundational building block to building trust on all sides of these conversations. An unwillingness to do so erodes trust very quickly. I am more than happy to do it if anyone wants to discuss my own political biases. I am just pleading for more balance, and pleading for people like Jemar to rise above the fickle political lines of our day. They are unhelpful for those who truly seek justice.
Hopefully that helps clarify my thoughts in a more succinct manner. Happy to discuss more if you would care to.
One final point Byron. The idea that support for full-term unrestricted abortion access is a legislative priority for only the extreme end of the current Democrat party is simply not true. Today the US Senate voted on the Women's Health Protection Act, which essentially codifies unrestricted abortion access both before and after "viability". Only one Democrat voted against it. The remaining 49 voted in favor. 2 Democrats of 220 in the US House voted against it back in September. Definitely not fringe, unless you consider 98% of the Democrats in the US Senate and 99% of the Democrats in the House as fringe and extreme....which in this particular matter would not be a false statement.
"I love God. I love the Bible. So I hate abortion. Scripture is clear. God is the author of life. He alone has the authority to say when it can be given and when it can be taken away....Abortion horrifies us because the notion of life as a gift has been infused in us by our Creator....God endowed all human beings with inherent dignity when he created them in his image and likeness (Gen. 1:26-27). We have an instinct for life because existence itself images the Creator...Since God animates all humanity he has all rights over it. In Genesis 8, after the Flood he declares, “‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.'” God’s unrivaled command over the lives of all people as their Creator means he alone has the authority to declare the conditions under which life can be taken. God’s prerogative over life unequivocally extends to the unborn... While the contribution of certain individuals and organizations during the Civil Rights Movement should never be forgotten, this advocacy is no reason to ignore the contra-biblical practices of abortion providers."
- Jemar Tisby, August 28, 2015
Now that is some clarity on the issue with which I can agree wholeheartedly. Seems like his stance has clearly changed. Did God or the Bible change, or just politics?
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/christian-pro-life-and-black-advocating-for-all-of-life/
"I love God. I love the Bible. So I hate abortion. Scripture is clear. God is the author of life. He alone has the authority to say when it can be given and when it can be taken away....Abortion horrifies us because the notion of life as a gift has been infused in us by our Creator....God endowed all human beings with inherent dignity when he created them in his image and likeness (Gen. 1:26-27). We have an instinct for life because existence itself images the Creator...Since God animates all humanity he has all rights over it. In Genesis 8, after the Flood he declares, “‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.'” God’s unrivaled command over the lives of all people as their Creator means he alone has the authority to declare the conditions under which life can be taken. God’s prerogative over life unequivocally extends to the unborn... While the contribution of certain individuals and organizations during the Civil Rights Movement should never be forgotten, this advocacy is no reason to ignore the contra-biblical practices of abortion providers."
- Jemar Tisby, August 28, 2015
Now that is some clarity on the issue with which I can agree wholeheartedly! Seems like his stance has clearly changed. Did God or the Bible change, or just politics?
Thank you for your accurate historical review.
I've known about the Bob Jones University link to the current frenzy in the wyte Evangelical church for a while now. I was one of those who was stampeded by the frenzy because of the high emotional content, the righteous anger expressed by those who sought to make the wyte Evangelical church into a political arm of conservative politics, and the extremely naïve view that my religious elders, pastors, and teachers knew what they were talking about. And I had no idea of the history of the American churches, let alone the broad swath of theologies and dogmas of the worldwide church in the present as well as in history.
In short, I was fooled by that combination of personal innocence and the deliberate strategy to use my innocence.
The argument that abortion became a tool to move forward wyte supremacist theologies and gain political power seems to be lost, again and again, and I suspect that deliberate erasure happens because it strikes at the presumed moral argument over abortion.
That push to adopt abortion as a tool of argument was a deeply cynical ploy by wyte supremacists to get control of one of the largest religious movements in America—wyte Evangelicals, who up to the 1980s did not much take part in American politics. The SBC, among others, was of the belief that Christians should avoid the messiness of politics and use their influence to change the hearts and minds of people through their preaching and their teachings. (It's very hard to see the historic teachings of the Baptist churches in general and compare them to the extraordinary changes in outlook we see today. Power corrupts, I guess.)
Seeing the shadow of the loss of power of the wyte majority, and seeing the loss of control over education (and other aspects of our civil, secular society) to the point where wyte people would have to co-exist equally with Black people, and seeing that openly racist theologies and political aims were not generally popular, abortion as a topic became the convenient vehicle for political and religious power.
Absent any argument pro or con, the idea that not a few people were fooled by this approach seems like something we'd all want to know about. It is an example of how what actually happened in history can explain how we got to the point where we are today where a *segment* of the wyte Evangelical church drives a minority political party that uses that slice of reliable voters to enact policies that, overall, are anti-life and anti-people.
It is hard to see the nakedness of that effort. It is harder still to see how thoroughly people insist that they not see it.
We really do have a problem with seeing history, whether it is of the original colonization of the American coast or the events that were initiated by the enforcement of the 14th Amendment in the 1970s.
There is a deep link between all forms of racial discrimination and abortion : human beings , based on what is convenient for them, get to decide who is human enough or who is not human enough to have the right to live. At some point in history, based on our inability to communicate with them in a language they understood, and to exhibit the traits they deemed universal to humanity, some people decided that we could be trafficked and killed like mere objects. I see a clear link with the commodification of human life and specifically kids that is more and more prevalent in this society. While some people would go to extremeties and use scientific prowesses and humans as factories to have kids, others claim the right to kill the exact same human life arguing it is not human yet or it has no personhood. In sum, the value of a human life is totally dependant on wether a parent wants it or not. Just like the value of black lives has been and is still in some ways dependant on the gaze of dominant cultural groups.
Thanks for sharing. What’s interesting (and all I’m really showing in this post) is that evangelicals have not always been united on their views toward abortion.
And if they are mostly united now, is that a bad thing? Could the unison be chalked up to something other than a smoke screen for racism, or is that the only possible explanation in your mind?
Dr Tisby, I always appreciate how you thread history together and bring factual information to the seeker. I’ve heard the BobJones story and studied the churches historical position on slavery and my take away is right from the mouth of Jesus - “It is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick.” Matthew 9:12 Those professing to be Christian need the “doctor” as much as the rest but clearly “access” to the doctor isn’t enough to make them better. It’s following the doctors plan that will make the difference. The “church” is not well.
Getting Roe v Wade overturned is only the beginning for the Religious Right/Christian Nationalist. LGBTQ rights will go, inter-racial marriage will go, segregation will return. Their goal is to make the USA a Christian nation based on biblical rule. The thing about that is, it will be a select few who determine which interpretation of biblical rule and which version of Christianity they will force on everyone.
A very helpful corrective. I was also taught there was a role that was central coming from the Catholic church regarding using abortion as a galvanizing Right's political strategy in the 1970's as well. I have yet to find the sources on that argument, but wondering about that as well in light of how Catholicism made strange bed fellows w evangelicals on abortion. Perhaps this galvanization also pulled Catholics toward more conservative politics, turning away from a very inclusive Catholic Social Teaching strategy in re: labor rights, inclusion and Civil Rights in this era and beyond.
Thank the Lord for opening our (conservative right’s) eyes to see that racism AND abortion are sin!!!!
How easy you forget the history of your own party! The democrats, the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK. How you forget that Planned Parenthood main purpose was (and still is) to destroy black lives. I honestly can’t believe that you are pro-abortion? How is your hatred so plain to see. Can’t you see how is destroying you? How sad. You need to come to the cross of Christ and repent. I hope you do.