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.
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.
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 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.
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/christian-pro-life-and-black-advocating-for-all-of-life/
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.
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.
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 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.