Brian McClaren is the guru of one of the most recent evangelical theological fads, something called the emerging church. He’s a regular contributor at Sojourners and spent a lot of time last year campaigning for President Obama, trying to convince evangelicals that Obama was actually the pro-life candidate. For example, he wrote:
Some of my friends and relatives have been reading my reasons for voting for Barack Obama, but the issue of abortion is a major roadblock for them. They believe that a vote for Obama is a vote for abortion, and a vote for McCain is a vote against abortion. They are surprised to learn that I believe an Obama presidency could actually take us farther in reducing abortion than a McCain presidency, and it could do so through a wiser, less-divisive, more effective strategy.
The campaign continues. Now McClaren is shocked that anyone could ever possibly suggest that President Obama or congressional Democrats could even remotely consider abortion funding as a part of any health care reform proposal. One fellow recently wrote to him saying, “The reason I do not support the President [on health care] is his pro abortion views. The Senate bill will mandate government payment for abortion.” Here is McClaren’s response:
Where did you hear this? Whoever told you this was misinforming you. I have been involved with a group of religious leaders who are working hard to be sure this will not be the case. The language we’re using is “abortion neutral”—health care reform, we believe, should not become a surrogate battlefront for either side in the abortion conflict. Whoever told you this is a fact—that reform will involve abortion—was either intentionally trying to mislead you or they were passing on misleading information unintentionally. (I hope you will notify them.) Although it is highly unlikely, it is possible that such a bill could pass, and that’s why many of us are involved in seeking good reform that will be abortion neutral.
I must confess that I don’t believe for a moment that McClaren is working hard to make sure that health care reform is abortion neutral. I’m inclined to think that he is working hard “partnering with God” and all the other progressive faith-based leaders to carry Obama’s water to the faith-based community. But maybe I’m being too cynical about the motives of Brother McClaren. So here’s a chance to prove me wrong.
McClaren, as an outspoken faith-based authority on health care reform, is no doubt aware that in each of the three House committees, and in the Senate committee considering health care reform, amendments were proposed to keep elective abortion out of the public plan and to prevent federal subsidies from going to private plans that cover elective abortion. Democratic committee chairmen and majorities voted down each and every pro-life amendment. Perhaps McClaren could tell us all which of those amendments he supports and why. Perhaps he can tell us why the Republicans were right to support these amendments and the Democrats wrong to oppose them. Perhaps he can tell us why, if abortion was no big deal, these pro-life amendments were rejected in the first place.
Second, McClaren assures us that anyone making an issue out of abortion and healthcare reform is either (1) a liar or is (2) unintentionally spreading misleading information. One wonders what to make then of the comments of his fellow evangelical Michael Gerson. In “When Planners Decide Life,” Gerson writes that it is increasingly clear that Democratic health reforms would disrupt the rough social equilibrium on abortion.
Take abortion. The House approach to the coverage of the procedure in federally subsidized insurance plans is presented as a compromise: Abortions would be funded out of the premiums that come from individuals, not money from taxpayers. But this is a cover, if not a con. By the nature of health insurance, premiums are not devoted to specific procedures; they support insurance plans. It matters nothing in practice if a premium dollar comes from government or the individual—both enable the same coverage. If the federal government directly funds an insurance plan that includes elective abortion, it cannot claim it is not paying for elective abortions.
In fact, any national approach to this issue is likely to challenge the current social consensus on abortion. The House bill would result in federal funding for abortion on an unprecedented scale. But forbidding federal funds to private insurers that currently cover elective abortions (as some insurers do) would amount, as pro-choice advocates note, to a restriction on the availability of abortion. Either way, government will send a powerful, controversial social signal.
Perhaps McClaren could tell just exactly where Gerson is (1) lying or (2) unintentionally spreading misinformation.
That might keep him busy for a while. But here’s another little homework assignment. I wonder if McClaren has ever heard of an organization called the National Right to Life Committee, or its legislative director, Douglas Johnson. Johnson and the NRLC have a decidedly different take on abortion and health care than McClaren and company. Here is the NRLC’s most recent press release of August 19.
The following comment may be attributed to Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the national federation of state and local right-to-life organizations:
Emboldened by the recently demonstrated superficiality of some organs of the news media, President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component of the health care legislation that his congressional allies and staff have crafted. As amended by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 30 (the Capps-Waxman Amendment), the bill backed by the White House (H.R. 3200) explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions. Obama apparently seeks to hide behind a technical distinction between tax funds and government-collected premiums. But these are merely two types of public funds, collected and spent by government agencies. The Obama-backed legislation makes it explicitly clear that no citizen would be allowed to enroll in the government plan unless he or she is willing to give the federal agency an extra amount calculated to cover the cost of all elective abortions—this would not be optional. The abortionists would bill the federal government and would be paid by the federal government. These are public funds, and this is government funding of abortion.
In 2007 Obama explicitly pledged to Planned Parenthood that the public plan will cover abortions (see the video clip here). Some journalists have reported that Obama “backed off” of this commitment in an interview with Katie Couric of CBS News, broadcast July 21, but Obama actually carefully avoided stating his intentions—instead, he simply made an artful observation that “we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care.”
It is true that there is such a tradition—which Obama has always opposed, and which the Obama-backed bill would shatter.
Does McClaren believe that Johnson and the NRLC are (1) lying or (2) passing on misleading information unintentionally? Can he identify precisely where they are lying or unintentionally misleading?
Once McClaren tackles those questions we can perhaps move on to his explanation for President Obama’s comments on health care reform and abortion before Planned Parenthood back in 2007. But this will do for now. We could use a little truth-telling on abortion and health care reform, but somehow I suspect that McClaren just isn’t up to the task.
August 21st, 2009 | 10:49 am
In my opinion, McLaren is not up to a lot of tasks, and eventually, like all fads, will quickly become irrelevant. I predict that in the not too distant future, people will say about the “emergent” movement, “What was I thinking?”
August 21st, 2009 | 2:51 pm
[...] A Few Questions for Brian McClaren on Abortion and Health Care – Keith Pavlischek [...]
August 21st, 2009 | 3:15 pm
This argument against healthcare reform strikes me weak.
Take Europe. Either the socialized and semi-socialized healthcare systems there do or they do not fund elective abortion. I don’t know the answer (and I doubt many of you do either). But if they do, I’d be interested in knowing what position that Pope and others take on the issue. For instance, do priests reject coverage? Do they require their parishioners to do they same? And if not, then why not (assuming any participation in a government system that in some way subsidizes elective abortion taints the whole thing, which seems to be the basic premise of your criticism of the alleged likely effects of Obamacare).
On the other hand, if the European systems do not fund abortion, then that shows we, too, can model our system on theirs. Admittedly, this is an issue where Republican input would be helpful. Too bad all we get are the sort of scare tactics Focus on the Family has been pandering on Christian radio (which, come to think of it, are at least somewhat superior to the screaming and shouting of the birthers at the townhall meetings).
August 21st, 2009 | 3:25 pm
Wow. It’s worse than I thought. According to this article, 89% of private insurance plans already fund abortion. That means you are likely “already financing other people’s abortions through private-insurance premiums and co-pays.” So, if this bothers you so much, will you (1) determine whether your plan does so, (2) if so, cancel your coverage, and (3) start urging all Christians to do the same?
I would LOVE to know your answer!
The article also notes that “In heavily Catholic Portugal, abortion was legalized for the first time just two years ago. Though the change was controversial, the government health-care system now fully funds abortions within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.” Would love to know if priests and bishops in the land of Fatima have rejected coverage under the Portuguese system and demanded that all Catholics do the same. Somehow, I doubt it.
Read the whole thing — and remember that by virtue of living in this fallen world of ours we are going to be part of, and have our tax dollars fund, sin, but that doesn’t mean we needn’t render unto Caeser. And last I checked, Christ was far less interested in how Caeser ran his empire than in how those of us in that other society that is in the world, but not of the world orders ours.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_uniquely_american_abortion_debate
August 21st, 2009 | 5:58 pm
Mark H., apparently in response to the general controversy ongoing in the original post, points out that those who self-identify as believers in many countries do not choose to pay the costs of overtly refusing participation in state actions which their beliefs label as immoral. He implies that either they are hypocrites — claiming to hold beliefs which they do not truly hold — or that it is morally acceptable to acquiesce in a putatively immoral action taken by the state to which they are subject (at least within Christianity).
I would offer two additionally possible explanations: they do not realize that the immoral state action is being taken, or they are true believers who believe that they are sinning by their failure to oppose state action and bear the use of coercive force against them which would follow. I would grant that, while the first of these is probable, the second is likely not a widespread mindset.
Is it morally acceptable to fail to oppose an immoral use of state power, based on a personal evaluation of the likely costs of doing so, as opposed to the benefits? In the context of abortion, for example, the generally accepted pro-life view seems to be that even to use force against an abortionist who consciously and intentionally destroys what he knows to be innocent life — i.e., a murderer — is unacceptable because it would be destructive of the rule of law imposed by the state. The likely cost of this is judged to be even worse than the murder of the specific innocents who might be spared by stopping the abortionist.
Whether or not one accepts this type of reasoning, or any specific judgements made by an analogous method, I would assert that one should still recognize a difference between this situation and that upon which Mark H. comments. The question is not, “What should one do when living under such a regime once the state has imposed it?” Rather, the question is, “Given a democratic republic in which representatives and other officials are to some degree responsive to public argument and opinion, should one advocate against an immoral action by the state before it is taken?”
Mark H. seems to imply that the answer to this question is “no,” or “not with such great intensity.” Perhaps he does not actually view this particular state action as immoral. Or perhaps he believes that the likely cost imposed by such advocacy (failure on the part of the state to take this whole action) is greater than its likely benefit (avoidance of the portions acknowledged as harmful by both himself and the advocates). Fairly, he might judge that benefit as so unlikely that the unpopularity acquired by advocating on its behalf is a significant cost on its own.
Or he might judge that the intensification of state control of the provision of health care is a benefit so great that it outweighs the cost of widespread, active, and official legitimation of abortion, as well as the likely increase in and continuation of abortions which would result. To test this, one could evaluate existing states which control the provision of health care more closely than does the United States, and judge whether the benefits that they have derived therefrom, either moral or practical, outweigh the costs.
I am not convinced that the statement, “Say what you want, you’ll roll over and deal with it when it happens, as others have done,” necessarily implies the statement, “So you should just shut up, and stop trying to keep it from happening in the first place.” But perhaps this is not how the argument is meant to be understood.
August 21st, 2009 | 6:10 pm
“…that’s why many of us are involved in seeking good reform that will be abortion neutral.”
Re:
Revelation 3:16
So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth.
August 21st, 2009 | 9:04 pm
Mark H. makes some good observations and asks good questions. What do the priests and nuns in Europe do about abortions? In Portugal, for instance? Someone should have the facts. Human Life International, perhaps?
August 22nd, 2009 | 2:59 am
Paul Jones writes:
“Rather, the question is, ‘Given a democratic republic in which representatives and other officials are to some degree responsive to public argument and opinion, should one advocate against an immoral action by the state before it is taken?’”
I agree! That was the point of my nod to Christian Republicans, when I suggested that they might play a much more helpful role in the debate over healthcare if they demanded that any healthcare reform passed did not fund abortion rather than simply opposing any plan on the grounds that some Democrats want it to fund abortions. Read the papers — none of the plans in either the House or the Senate is in final form. They are both fluid, and will continue to be so even when they are passed (if they are passed) and sent into reconciliation. Obama has endorsed this fluidity by suggesting that he would not be opposed to continuing the traditional ban on abortion funding through public federal funds.
If the only reason Christians oppose healthcare reform is for reasons related to abortion or apparent fears about euthanasis, then they should by all means bring those concerns to the table. Agreed. But simply suggesting that we cannot have any reform because we will, at some point, have to address these issues is sort of silly to me. Or rather, it would be silly if so many were not suffering due to their lack of access to healthcare.
And yes, if my original posts seemed somewhat flippant toward the pro-life cause as promulgated by many Christians, that’s because I think they tend to be not so much hypocritical as inconsistent. Jesus asked his disciplies to take up their crosses and follow him. He did not, so far as I know, instruct them to push for democratic reforms in the Roman Empire or use whatever means Jews might have had then to change Roman (or local Jewish) policies, as the zealots did. The only exceptions I can think of are those instances are (1) when he demanded purity within the “church” (as when he cleansed the temple) and (2) when he urged others to be more lenient towards sinners than the law would otherwise have urged. I can imagine Jesus saying about a woman who has had an abortion, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” And then to her: “Go and sin no more.” But I can also imagine him saying about certain pro-life Republicans, “You think by voting for George W. Bush you have served my cause. Depart from me, for I never knew you. Where were you when I was pregnant and needed healthcare to carry my baby to term? Where were you when my boyfriend was pressuring me to have sex with him and you were too busy applauding the fact that at least he was a real red-blooded American and not some homosexual?”
Maybe you understand what I’m trying to say? It’s better to try to be the Church — and to love it and reform it and make its mission central to our lives — than it is to try to be the best god-fearing, tax-paying American we can be?
August 22nd, 2009 | 3:28 am
Paul Jones — also, I think we have a basic disagreement here about who Christ was and what it means to believe (1) that he was true God and true man, (2) that he was sinless, and (3) that he lived in the world of his time, participated in its economy, supported (at least in some sense) its government), had family and friend and co-workers and enemies, and thus in some sense was part of “the world” and its fallen system.
Actually, I have no idea how to reconcile the above three propositions. In other words, I believe that Christ was sinless, but I find it difficult to understand how a sinless person living in that age might not have had (so far as we know) at least a few strong words to say about Caesar. But the Jesus of the Gospels seems more interested in the sins of religious leaders and those person who deign to follow him. Caesar no doubt committed many sins; yet it is to Peter (and his successors?) that he reserves harsh words like, “Get thee behind me Satan.”
My theory is that Christ was perfect because, living and thus participating in some sense in this sinful world, he did not hate the world. He did not try to reform it and make it perfect and demand that it be so. Satan tempted him in this manner; but he rebuked him. Instead, he showed more concern about the sin that was proximate — as in the parable of the Good Samaritan — rather than in the sin that was distant, such as the sin I would imagine we all agree occurred in the Roman games.
I think the Christian message would be strengthened if we in America took to heart this distinction. Yes, we should play a role in our republican government. But we should also recognize that — however much fame and glory and power this role might promise — it is very small indeed compared to what we do to the homeless man we encounter in the street, or the friend who calls when in existential crisis, or the spouse whom we do (or do not) show compassion to in our daily lives.
“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.”
August 22nd, 2009 | 10:02 am
To Mark H.:
I am a Canadian and, therefore, live under a socialized medicine system that pays for elective abortion. I have no alternative to the system if I need health care. I assume that is the case for all those priests and nuns in Europe. Are you suggesting that we have to forgo health care to ensure the salvation of our souls? Or will our public opposition to social policies that we believe imperil us all be counted in our favour?
August 22nd, 2009 | 2:51 pm
Lauri — you asked: “Are you suggesting that we have to forgo health care to ensure the salvation of our souls?”
No. But I think that was the point of the entire original post criticizing McLaren. In any event, that is one of the big issues here — Obamacare allegedly will directly or indirectly result in public funding of abortion, and therefore Christians should oppose it.
To which I say — no, we might just as easily oppose any form of Obamacare that includes public funding of abortion. Why haven’t people like James Dobson of Focus on the Family made that simple distinction? I fear the answer is because they are secretly beholden to the GOP first, and only secondarilly to the Church. Thus, they have no qualms with misusing the moral convictions of those whom they influence to try to defeat healthcare reform — not to serve Christ and his church, but their true masters in the GOP.
And to the extent this is their motivation, I think it is pretty disgusting.
August 22nd, 2009 | 2:58 pm
Lauir asks: “Are you suggesting that we have to forgo health care to ensure the salvation of our souls?”
No — but I think that was the point of the original post. Because Obama care allegedly will directly or indirectly fund abortion, we must work for its defeat. My point is that we also have the option of working for a bill that will not fund abortion.
August 23rd, 2009 | 7:52 am
Obama’s plans abortion neutral?
Not true – See:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/
August 23rd, 2009 | 11:43 am
I am grateful to Mark H. for his clearly articulated response to my questions. I strongly agree that both biological and social proximity and a consideration of likely cost and benefit are central to our individual moral obligations in this life, and that because this is true of us as men, it was also true of Jesus during his life as a man. Nevertheless, I must also concur that we have a fundamental disagreement.
I think that the point of the original post was that McLaren was actively misleading other believers as to the meaning and likely cost of the portions of the current health-care proposals relevant to the provision of abortion, and that he was willing to do so because his judgement was that the successful incorporation of these proposals into the law of the state were worth these costs. In the words of my earlier post: “[H]e might judge that the intensification of state control of the provision of health care is a benefit so great that it outweighs the cost of widespread, active, and official legitimation of abortion, as well as the likely increase in and continuation of abortions which would result.”
This is our central disagreement, I would think. I judge that the intensification of state control of the provision of health care in this country is not a benefit, but rather a cost. Therefore its sucessful implementation cannot justify any further costs, emphatically including the legitimation, continuation, and expansion of abortion. Though not relevant to my original questions, my general argument is that no choice compelled or induced by true coercion or the threat thereof, by the state or otherwise, can ever truly be charitable. Coercion can only morally be employed to enforce the obligations of the natural law, and that means that the specific choices that would both (a) if made freely, be truly charitable, and (b) also be properly violently compelled by others if not made freely, are naturally very few and limited. Thus the state may not coerce a man into surrendering his property in order to give it to a doctor in exchange for his services in replacing the hip of a stranger in a different city. All else being equal, it would certainly be morally laudable if that man were to freely give his property for that purpose, but such a situation is essentially different.
In the interests of not being even more verbose than was my original post, I will refrain from further explication. I would suppose that Mark H. would take issue with the chain of reasoning in the preceding paragraph; so would St. Augustine, I imagine, at the distinction I imply between the whole “city of man” and the state as an institution within it, as well as various other points. So Mark H. is in good company, I will grant. I would ask him to consider, however, that opposition to the current proposed legislation may arise from morally serious reasoning, rather than mere hard-heartedness towards others, or slavish obedience to political “sides.”
But perhaps I misjudge Mark H. as being generally in favor of these proposals; parts of his arguments explain the reasons that believers should follow Jesus in their personal lives and not expend too much effort preventing correcting the injustices of the state, which will manifest in some way in any case. Here, too, he is in good company, not only that of many Christian fathers but of most of the Shi’a marja’iah who have not adopted Khomeinist radicalism. When they advocate such a course, we call it “quietism.” Myself, I would argue that it is an inappropriate reaction to prospective state immorality by believers who are, politically, citizens of a democratic republic.
August 23rd, 2009 | 5:40 pm
[...] Senate, amendments were proposed to keep public plans from paying for elective abortions. They were all voted down by Democratic [...]
August 24th, 2009 | 4:25 pm
I guess my own views — though not entirely developed — are influenced by the narrative example of the Gospels, such as Christ stopping Peter from interfering with his arrest and his telling Pilate that the latter would have no power over him if his father did not will it.
Having said that, our obligations may change somewhat in a democratic society. But even so, the mission of the church is first and above all to be the church — to preach, baptize, celebrate communion, perform good works, love one another, build fellowship, weep with those who weep, rejoice with those who rejoice, and so forth.
We may indeed find it necessary from time to time to become involved in political issues, and certainly will do so as individuals. But our primary mission will never be to reform the American government or to somehow try to make it holy. And that’s why we had better be very careful whenever we say that such-and-such position is *the* Christian one.
October 9th, 2009 | 11:21 am
[...] that any legislation will be “abortion neutral.” So called progressive evangelicals such as Brian McClaren, David Gushee, Jim Wallis and the all the other “prophetic voices” at Sojourners, have [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact