The best songs you've never heard

There are songs that everyone has heard because they are great. People will still be listening to "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" long after I am dead. But just as not all popular songs are great ones - see "Macarena" and approximately 3000 other examples - not all great songs are popular. Some of the best music out there simply never made it through the industry PR machine to a popular audience. Here are a few that everyone should hear:

10. "Changes Come" - Over the Rhine


9. "They All Fall Down" - GRITS

This rap duo is as likely to send you reaching for a dictionary as they are to have you waving your hands. And the music is just as original: this song features classical guitar and piano, while others feature Nashville session players and jazz bands. Full disclosure: this song launched my own very brief hip-hop career with a performance in Compton, CA.

8. "Corpus Christi" - Youngest Son

Steve Slagg offers his own explanation of this song, which could very well be the soundtrack for  Paul's 1st Letter to the Corinthians, which is possibly the best letter ever written to a group of people.

7. "Boxing Day" - Relient K

As I've noted before, Michael W. Smith's It's A Wonderful Christmas is probably the greatest Christmas album since Handel released The Messiah. However, this song is by definition the best in it's category - because it seems to be the only post-Christmas song in existence. Someone had to address that curious mixture of melancholy and nostalgia that persists between Christmas and New Year's Day, and Relient K's Mat Thiessen did just that.

"The hearts of men are bitter and weathered / Cold as the snow that falls from above / But just for one day we all came together / Showed the whole world that we know how to love" 

That's the spirit of Christmas in a nutshell.

6. "Silence" - Jars of Clay

Christian music rarely addresses the silence of God in the face of suffering and injustice. This song not only expresses the agony of apparent abandonment, but does so with all of the anger wrung out. Best of all, Jars of Clay resisted the temptation to end the song on a note of resolution or even hope. Instead, they kept it honest, allowing the tension to linger... just as it does as the end of Psalm 88.

5. "The Blues" - Switchfoot

Switchfoot is one of the few rock bands that not only creates eminently singable songs, but songs that often seem better suited to a large choir or a Broadway musical. Perhaps this is because Jon Foreman disciplines himself to write a song every single day. The entire band is in great form here, on an album that could be summarized as "The Book of Ecclesiastes, set to music." If you can sing lines like this without tearing up, you might not be alive:

 "It will be a day like this one, when the sky falls down, when the hungry and poor and deserted are found."

4. "Shiver" - The Prayer Chain:

"[The album] Mercury... is... a haunting study in numbness that appropriates planetary imagery as a potent metaphor for human isolation. Eric Campuzano's lyrics... are perfectly suited to Mercury's languid, chilly atmosphere. .... The record feels like a horror film. ... Mercury was rejected by horrified record executives who could not wrap their heads around what it was the Prayer Chain were trying to do. [The original version - entitled Humb - is now available for purchase or for listening online]. Its release was delayed for months as the band was forced to remix, remaster, and re-record until the label felt satisfied." ~ J. Edward Keyes, Rovi. 

 Or, as co-producer Chris Colbert put it, "you can hear the band break up on the album."

But be forewarned - I played this album for The Lady while driving through Oklahoma at night during an electrical storm. About halfway through, she pleaded with me to turn it off. It took her half an hour to stop crying, and she couldn't sleep that night.

3. "18 Bullet Holes" - Waterdeep [or "Down at the Riverside"]

Waterdeep has a knack for marrying classic rock with strangely thoughtful lyrics ("It's against Your nature to be impolite, but would you please break into my heart tonight, and steal away my fear?") and folk music with shocking lyrics ("In the gas station bathroom by the condom machine, I heard the word of the Lord"). Here they do a little of both, careening from violent imagery to emotive pleading: "Oh God, it hurts so bad to love anybody down here."

2.  "elle g." - The Newsboys:

"The best moment on the album.... is the story from a survivor's point of view of trying to come to terms with a friend who has committed suicide. What makes this song so outstanding is its honesty, lyrical depth, and the complex musical journey that accompanies the story line. The words reveal both deep compassion and acute anger, in addition to trying to bring a greater meaning to the event in a larger context. The ending guitar solo fits extremely well with the lyrical content, while the entire cut leaves a lasting impression on the listener. The willingness to go deeply into such a subject matter and admit some ambiguity may be seen as a sign of weakness to some believers, but in this case it brings a profundity that is not expected, and most welcome." ~ Michael Ofjord, Rovi

1. "Lord, Thou Hast Been Our Refuge" - Ralph Vaughn Williams

From August of 2011 (when I first heard it) to December 2012 (when I helped sing it at our church's consecration) I listened to this song approximately 200 times. At one point, I sang it twice a day. Vaughan Williams' choral setting of Psalm 90 takes a long and complex journey, turning Moses' words into a prayer that defines one's life.  In some of our darkest days, the only time I could believe that we would have the family we dreamed of was during the last 30 seconds of this 8-minute song.

The Most Racist Movie I've Watched

 In a course at Kansas State University on the Civil War, we watched excerpts of D.W. Griffith's Birth Of A Nation, which glorifies the Ku Klux Klan. I've never seen Gone With The Wind and have no desire to do so. I was uncomfortable upon noticing that the opening scenes in nearly every Dirty Harry movie featured people of color as minor villains. I have always seen John Wayne as more of a caricature than a hero. But racism is most insidious when it resembles a bikini-clad porn star: covered just enough to get past the gatekeepers.

The most racist movie I have watched, from beginning to end, is Sex And The City (2008). And although some incongruities were obvious when I accompanied The Lady to see it, not until recently did I realize just how wrong it was. Although I found Sex And The City 2 (2010) intolerably stupid, the first movie remains more disturbing.

The movie functions as a coda to the wildly-popular six-season show on HBO. Executive-produced by Michael Patrick King, it was once characterized as "a show about 4 women acting like gay men." Contemporary criticism initially focused on the show's obsession with fashion and appearance, belief that shopping can cure all emotional ills, sex-positive dialogue, and attempt to merge blatant pornography with sex columnist Carrie Bradshaw's contemplations on modern love and life. 

But then another problem became apparent - not with the sex, but the city. New York City is portrayed as at least 95% white, the exceptions being a few nameless people of color who perform menial work for the white people. A Black man is briefly introduced in Season 3 as an interest of the sex-addicted Samantha, but his family rejects her because she's white. (So now you know: there are a few Black people in New York, and they are the real racists!) For all the show's purported realism, Michael Patrick King portrayed a city that seems to exist only in his imagination: a place filled with upper-class white people who are always available for sex.

Perhaps Mr. King and his bevy of writers - all of whom were either straight women or gay men - felt guilty about this. So they added a Black character to the movie, Louise. For the (minor) role, they cast Jennifer Hudson, a talented singer with magnetic presence who stole the show in Dreamgirls (2006) but struggled to capitalize on her early success. Thus she finds herself interviewed by Sarah Jessica Parker (as Carrie Bradshaw). 

"So you're from St. Louis?"

"Yes, Louise from St. Louis."

"And you have a degree in computer science - well, good for you, I can barely text. And... have you ever been a personal assistant?"

"No, but I'm the oldest of six kids, so I'm sure I can handle anything you got."

They discuss her family and living situation, and then...

"Why did you move to New York?"

"To fall in love. [pauses] Does that sound corny?"

What computer science graduate, male or female, says that their career goal is "to fall in love?" Software engineers don't talk like that. Engineers or scientists of any variety don't talk like that. She sounds like a dreamy pre-teen who can hardly wait for her first school dance, not a young woman who graduated in a challenging major and moved to the finance capital of the world.

And why isn't she working for an investment bank, or a consulting firm, or in tech or media? The iPhone was released 18 months before this movie - did she consider creating an app? Why can't a computer science graduate in New York City find any work other than organizing Carrie Bradshaw's email? 

Because she's a Black woman - thus, she is expected to be a white woman's servant, and to aspire to nothing beyond that. 

And what becomes of Louise? Does she find her success and sex in the city? No. She gives up and goes back to where she came from. Before leaving, she eats with the 4 white women upon whom the show centers, resulting in a painfully awkward scene. She is literally the 5th wheel, conspicuous and yet superfluous.

There is no Christian objection to the COVID vaccines

The persistence of COVID-19 in the United States of America is largely attributable to the unusually low vaccination rate of adults, in comparison to other developed countries. This is ironic, given that the USA created and produces the four leading vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Many causes have been cited, from distrust of government and institutions, to rejection of scientific knowledge, to political polarization, to the fact that over 95% of infections produce only mild illness and some people have already recovered. 

But an unusually large number of Americans have claimed a religious objection to receiving any of these vaccines. While such objectors have typically been granted exemptions, historically they rarely amounted to more than a few percent of the population; thus the consequence was negligible and the precise reasons for such objections were largely unexplored. Now that religious exemptions to vaccination are being widely claimed, and often by those who never previously rejected vaccination, the substance of these claims deserves examination.

Nothing in all of the Bible forbids vaccination. There is not one major Christian denomination that requires its member to reject any of the COVID vaccines. Not one significant strand of Christian theology and ethics - Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, Baptist, African-American, or Pentecostal - teaches vaccine rejection. 

It is true that some vaccines were developed from stem cells that were originally derived from fetal issue that was probably obtained from an abortion in the late 1960s. But no unborn children, at any stage of gestation, are killed in the creation, testing, or manufacture of any vaccine. Not one vaccine contains the DNA of a one-tiny human who would now be in his or her 50s. 

In 2003, the Vatican appointed a working group to examine the bioethics of vaccines derived from fetal stem cells. Given the Roman Catholic Church's consistent opposition to abortion, predating white evangelical involvement in the pro-life movement, if any church were to officially reject such vaccines it would be theirs. Yet the group concluded that not only was it morally permissible to receive these vaccines, it was possibly immoral to reject them due to the harm that rubella poses to current unborn children.

In contrast, no fetal tissue was used in the creation or production of the mRNA vaccines (though some of the same stem cells may have been used in laboratory-scale testing of vaccine candidates). And note that many of those rejecting the COVID vaccines received the fetal-tissue-derived vaccines without protest.

There is no Christian objection to receiving any of the COVID vaccines. Rather, there are Christians who refuse the vaccines for various reasons which they know are not compelling, and thus use Jesus to justify their refusal. This use is dangerous.

It is dangerous to the cause of religious freedom, because when one of first freedoms is used as an excuse for behavior that is not remotely religious it cheapens the value of this freedom in the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans and creates doubt in the courts as to whether this freedom is too widely construed. If we are serious about protecting our religious freedom, we must not carelessly invoke it whenever we encounter a law, rule, or practice that we simply do not like. The more this objection is misused, the more actual threats to freedom of worship and conscience will be dismissed as mere personal preference.

It is even more dangerous to the health of our churches and our souls. The Bible is not a tool to be used for our own selfish ends, but a life-giving word that sits in authority over us. We are in dire need of moral guidance from our churches, but we cannot trust such guidance if it is simply partisan talking points propped up with proof-texted verses and religious slogans. The seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:13-17) attempted to use Jesus for their own ends, and the results weren't pretty. I do not claim to be Jesus' spokesperson, so perhaps it bothers him less than it bothers me, but I do know that not one human being enjoys being used and I suspect that the Lord of all creation appreciates it even less.

If you don't want the vaccine, come up with a valid reason. Or, refuse it and nobly accept the consequences of sticking to your personal principles (whatever they may be). But don't use religious freedom or Jesus to justify not doing something that you simply don't want to do.

Lisa Marie Montgomery (1968-2021)

Lisa Montgomery was once a little girl, just like my daughters. But Lisa's stepfather did not love her. He repeatedly raped and tortured her along with his friends, beating her so severely as to cause brain damage - and the State of Kansas did nothing. She should have gone to foster care, and ideally given a new family through adoption.

Instead, she grew into a woman so twisted and delusional that she strangled a pregnant woman, then cut the baby out of her and claimed the child was her own. The mother, Bobbie Jo Stinnett, died; her child lived.

During Trump's final days, while pardoning the security guards who murdered Iraqi children, he rushed to execute several people on federal death row. Lisa Montgomery was one of them. But what did we accomplish by killing her? Stinnett is still dead, Stinnett's daughter is (presumably) still alive but without a mother, and we are not any safer since Montgomery was already behind bars. 

Having failed to protect Lisa, and thus failed to protect Bobbie Jo, we killed Lisa. We didn't kill her because we were afraid of her, or angry at her. We gave her the death penalty because we were ashamed of her.

American Idols and Demons

 Our Bible study, which met every Sunday night in our home, was discussing the confrontations between Jesus and demons - as recorded in the Gospels - and how removed it seemed from our experience. Someone quoted the demon Wormwood from C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters: "Our strategy, for the moment, is to remain concealed." The Lady pointed out that this was not the case in all cultures, that many people in Africa and South Asia seemed to live in a world in which demonic manifestations and miraculous healings are a part of ordinary life. A consensus began to form that demonic evil takes different forms in different cultures.

Then our friend Alyssa said, "I've wondered if in our country it's manifested in our horrible treatment of minorities." This intrigued me, because I had never considered it before. I understood that human beings built unjust systems and structures so that one group could exploit another - what the Bible calls "The World." I had at least a few mental models for how demons could play with the hearts and minds of individual human beings: the Screwtape Letters and the novels of Frank Peretti being merely two examples. I had no mental model for how the spiritual realm could directly interact with political, economic, and social structures that transcend individuals. 

But the Bible does. 

The Hebrew Prophets devoted the majority of their words to condemning two correlated evils: idolatry and injustice. They occasionally addressed personal morality, but most often challenged their nation to stop worshipping false gods and to stop cheating their workers, to remove corruption from their worship and to remove oppression from the poor. Idolatry and injustice are always connected.

In the New Testament, idolatry is always connected with demonic activity - implicitly in the Gospels (e.g. Mark 5) and explicitly in Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Paul describes the paradox of an idol:

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one." (I Corinthians 8:4)

But also:

Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. (I Corinthians 10:19-20)

An idol is not real. It is fake, fabricated, artificial, and insubstantial. It is a fanciful lie, a self-evident poser. Those who worship it are deluded.

Yet behind every idol is a non-imaginary, malevolent evil. The delusion is not harmless, it is sinister. We make idols, but idols use us.

Idolatry is the link between demonic power and violent, oppressive injustice. An idol unites greedy, hateful or lustful individuals into a dangerous mob.  An idol is what leads an entire group of people to such a manic state that will lynch a family, burn down the Black district of a city, massacre a tribe, or storm the Capitol in attempt to hang the Vice President. An idol, being "nothing" (as per Paul), requires elaborate props and systems, which are always built on those who are considered undesirable or expendable. An idol, made in the image of warped human nature, reflects our worst impulses back to us in a feedback loop of destruction. Through idols, demons corrupt necessary institutions and build abominations that seem impervious to all attempts at demolition.

Race is an idol. Biologically speaking, race is not real. It is true that individuals originating from similar geographic regions are similar in appearance and in some physical attributes, but genetic variation between racial groups (however they are defined) is minor compared to genetic diversity within those groups. Ethnicity - one's heritage, culture and family background - is real, but the grouping of ethnicities into racial classes is wholly artificial and has changed over time with social attitudes. Race is a social construct - something human beings created to serve evil purposes. 

But racism, also known as White supremacy, is real. The racial caste system in America has not ended, though it is significantly weakened, and even if it ended tomorrow we would be living with its effects for 3 to 4 generations (see Exodus 20:5). Millions of Americans still worship it, while tens of millions comfortably tolerate it. It operates through structures that most White people don't notice, and through overt practices that Black, Indigenous and People of Color live with daily: police brutality, mass incarceration, concentration camps at the southern border, diversion of public resources, poverty on reservations that comprise a fraction of the land rightly belonging to those who live there. 

Racism has always had its visible manifestations, such as the Confederate flag and monuments, but these were socially or geographically marginalized. For many Americans, racism remained an invisible idol, if ever-present. That is, until June 16, 2015, when a quadruple-bankrupt real estate developer turned reality television star launched his Presidential campaign by blaming all of the country's woes on one group of immigrants. By the time he had cemented his personal grip on his political party, midway through his Presidency, he had become something that was missing from American public life since at least Andrew Jackson: a singular, personal embodiment of our American idol.

We are assured that, "those who trust in idols... will be turned back in utter shame" (Isaiah 42:17). The embodied idol of white supremacy will self-destruct, taking many worshippers down with him. This idolatry has infected churches, which must repent of it if they are to have worship acceptable to God (Isaiah 58).

But the demonic nature of racism means that it will live on, weaker and mutated but not eliminated. Like all injustice, it must be fought with laws and actions, yet we must remember that this is a spiritual battle and "the weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world" (2 Corinthians 10:4). Governments can restrain evil through policies, but spiritual entities cannot be overcome by political action. 

The only solution is for the Church - the whole body of Christ in America - to repent of this idolatry, pray against it, and take decisive action to tear this idol down. 

Questions about Sex and Gender

A recent debate forced me to rethink my position on the transgender debate, resulting in a slight shift in how I see the issue. I outline my current thinking as a series of questions - some rhetorical, some not.

Disclaimer: I am a follower of Jesus, I do science for a living, and I have 5 daughters. I will not apologize for any of these things, or pretend that any of these things are not true.

1. If a man can become a woman simply by removing part of himself, does that confirm Aristotle's conception that women are merely a defective form of men?

2. If we no longer have separate restrooms for Whites and Blacks, because race is a social construct that is not rooted in biology, then why should we have separate restrooms for men and women if gender is a social construct not rooted in biology?

3. Why do we have separate restrooms for men and women?

4. Why are feminists the most outspoken critics of the transgender movement?

5. If people who are gay, lesbian or bisexual need to accept the way that they were born, why shouldn't people with gender dysphoria accept the way that they were born?

6. If a man can become a woman by changing his appearance and identifying as a woman, can a White woman become a Black woman by changing her appearance and identifying as black?

7. If a person claims to be a woman born in a man's body, what part of that person is a woman?

8. If a person does not like their body, by what standard can they claim that their body is wrong? Who made this error?

9. If ancient and traditional cultures believed that eunuchs could be fully trusted with women, why should modern cultures fear allowing eunuchs in women-only spaces?

10. If a person is not required to identify with his or her biological sex, why should a person be required to identify with his or her biological age?

11. Does the existence of intersex conditions in 0.02-0.04% of the population prove that a person's biological sex is not a function of their genetic makeup?

12. Does the existence of intersex conditions in 0.02-0.04% of the population prove that biological sex is fluid?

13. Why don't intersex conditions lead to gender confusion (except in cases when involuntary "sex-corrective surgery was performed on infants)?

14. Why do intersex victims of involuntary surgery frequently reject both the gender in which they were raised and the gender that a physician attempted to make them?

15. If the claim of Genesis 1:27, "male and female [God] created them," is a statement about general revelation, then how could people truly distinguish male from female prior to the discovery of X and Y chromosomes in 1905?

16. If male and female are properly understood as 2 opposite ends of a spectrum, why hasn't anyone moved from one end of the spectrum to the other?

17. If gender is defined by biology, then how can God the Father and God the Holy Spirit - see John 3:5-8, which describes the Holy Spirit as giving birth - have genders if neither has a body?

18. How, if at all, does gender dysphoria differ from anorexia?

19. If the desire to be a different gender arises purely from biochemical processes in a person's brain, wouldn't it ultimately be better to change those processes via medication instead of performing major surgery?

20. If gender has nothing to do with biological sex, then why do the overwhelming majority of people identify with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex?

21. If there are only two biological sexes, why should there be more than two genders?

22. Is society required to recognize any identity of any kind that a person assigns to their self?

23. If others are only required to recognize certain identities, how can we know which identities we are obligated to recognize and which are optional?

24. If intersex is a real biological condition, should we recognize a third gender on that basis?

25. Should we make a distinction between those born with intersex conditions, and those who have effectively made themselves intersex by modifying their bodies surgically and/or pharmacologically?

26. In what way(s) do trans or intersex individuals differ from those categorized in the ancient/Biblical world as eunuchs?

27. In what biological sense, if any, is Caitlin Jenner a woman?

28. What purpose would be served by requiring Caitlin Jenner to use the men's restroom?

29. If a woman can be erroneously born in a man's body, or vice-versa, can a cat be born in a human's body? A Black man in a White man's body? A tall man in a short man's body?

30. If someone can change their gender, can they do so repeatedly? If not, why not? If repeatedly, how many times and how often?

31. If "gay conversion" therapy - to change the mind of a person whose desires do not align with their biology - is wrong and harmful, then why is sex-reassignment - chemicals or surgery to change the body of a transgender person - acceptable? 

Rethinking Atonement

Most evangelical presentations of the good news of Jesus Christ explain the purpose of His death on the cross as taking the punishment for our sins, so that we can be forgiven. Put another way, Jesus paid the debt we could not pay, settling our account with God. Or in the words of a much-loved hymn, "On that cross, as Jesus died / The wrath of God was satisfied". I even made similar assertions in an opinion column I wrote for the K-State Collegian as a sophomore in college.

Although this doctrine is viewed as inviolable and essential by many Christians, and has roots in the feudal world of Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), it was not explicitly stated until the Reformation recast salvation as a legal transaction in keeping with its emphasis on the rule of law. But this was neither the first or the last word on this subject, much less the only one; other theories of the atonement include medical substitutionary atonement, Christus Victor, the Ransom theory, governmental and moral influence.

I was raised unaware of or unfamiliar with these other views. But as I read uber-Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul's allegory The Prince's Poison Cup to my children, I was startled by an incongruity: when the people who have rejected the King build their own City of Man, in the center is a fountain flowing with poisonous liquid representing... the King's wrath. But how did the wrath of the King, whom they left, get into their own city? Why would they fill their own fountain with it? Would it not more logically represent their own wrath?

Later, I attempted to defend penal substitutionary atonement in an online discussion group about racial reconciliation, only to realize that I no longer felt bound to believe it. I certainly don't consider Luther or Calvin to be heretics, but I am convinced their legal interpretation is wrong.

First, it is not Biblical. That is not to say, necessarily, that it is un-Biblical. Rather, no single verse or passage of the Bible teaches any aspect of penal substitutionary atonement ("PenSA"). Not one passage connects the Cross with God’s wrath; Romans 1 mentions God’s wrath three times, but the extensive discussion of the atonement later in this letter references it not even once. Not one passage states, even indirectly, that “God killed Jesus on the cross” – unless you count Isaiah 53:10, “it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,” but neither this wording nor the context teach anything so direct. Not one passage explicitly states that it was God who punished Jesus, or that Jesus' death satisfied God's wrath. Rather, Peter’s speeches in Acts 2 and 3 draw a clear distinction between God’s actions and man’s actions, pinning responsibility for Jesus’ death entirely upon the latter; other passages (such as Acts 7, 1 Thessalonians 2) draw a similar distinction. At the very least, it is hubris to make a doctrine a fundamental article of the faith when it lacks such direct Biblical support. Nearly all the sub-claims associated with PSA are, at best, extrapolations from the Bible that rely upon certain theological or philosophical presuppositions.

Second, the key presupposition upon which PenSA rests – that forgiveness is impossible without punishment – violates both the character of God, as revealed in the Bible, and the ethic prescribed for all followers of Jesus. From Genesis to Revelation, there are examples of God forgiving without punishing, and we are commanded to do the same. Restitution – the restoration of what was lost to someone from whom it was taken – is a vital part of the Biblical understanding of justice. But to demand a punitive payment from someone – anyone, whether the perpetrator or not – as a prerequisite for forgiveness, is not forgiveness at all. Although interpreted in various ways, many of which are benign, the doctrine of PenSA contributes to an obsession with legalistic punishment that is manifested in both mass incarceration and opposition to so-called “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants.

Third, although the Bible teaches us mysteries that are a-rational, such as the Trinity, it teaches nothing that is irrational. Reason alone cannot yield truth, but reason is never to be discarded. The fundamental logic of PenSA violates all notions of justice, whether human or divine, and is irrational. To punish an innocent person does NOT satisfy justice, nor does it absolve the guilty one!

Fourth, PenSA confuses guilt with punishment. Even if Jesus were to take our punishment in our place, how would he take our guilt? All standard analogies of PenSA presume that punishment absolves guilt. But in the courtroom logic of atonement, even if someone else volunteers to take the punishment for a crime which I committed, I remain a convicted felon. Herein lies the problem at the root, not only of PenSA, but of all understandings of the atonement:

How can I be found not guilty of a crime which I did commit, and yet justice still be upheld?

There is only one way: if the victim refuses to press charges. Thus, in a very literal and non-mysterious sense, taking my evil upon their body – or possessions, or reputation, or emotions – and suffering for my sin. If I murdered someone, they would have to return from the dead to do this.

That is what Jesus did. As the perfect man, he took the worst of humanity’s hatred – and greed and envy and all else – for his fellow man. As God, he received all of mankind’s irrational rage against its Creator. He suffered our sin as the victim of it. We killed Jesus on the cross. We murdered Him. Before dying, He forgave us. Then, He returned from the dead and took no retribution.

Of course, as the Bible repeatedly emphasizes, God’s providence arranged all of this to happen. But it wasn’t God’s wrath that Jesus suffered on the cross – it was ours. It wasn’t Jesus’ unjust punishment itself that absolved our guilt, but His forgiveness and resurrection. His suffering and death was not an arbitrary price paid to an angry third party, but inherent to the nature of our redemption.

The Gospel of Mark, a.k.a. Episode I

Two things are strange about the Gospel of Mark: the way it begins, and the way it ends. The latter has spawned centuries of debate and provided unending fodder for higher criticism and skeptics of the Resurrection. But the former is often missed in hurried readings.

What if they are connected?

Much has been made of the fact that Mark's Gospel, as originally written, ends with this statement:

Entering [Jesus'] tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

How can you end a story with an opened grave, a missing body, and a cryptic message from an unearthly being? It's as if the next sentence should read, "To Be Continued..." This story does not merely leave upon the possibility of a sequel, as so many films do these days, it demands one. 

That the earliest Gospel doesn't clearly portray Jesus rising from the dead, but merely missing from the grave, has spawned a cottage industry of academics and crackpot conspiracy theorists (two partially-overlapping groups) generating alternate explanations for the empty tomb. Surely Mark didn't believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Maybe he was confused. Perhaps he wanted to be provocative. Eventually, someone else decided to finish the story with a preposterous return from death, a rabbit, and some pastel-colored eggs; most likely, this was part of their plan to get themselves executed by the Roman Empire.

William Lane Craig explains that I Corinthians 15:3-7 functioned as the earliest creed of the church, written in the style of a Rabbinic "tradition."

that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 

All Christians heard and believed that Jesus had been crucified, died and rose again. But their understanding of what led to those crucial events varied widely. Thus Mark set out to cobble together a prequel; not a biography of Jesus' entire life (those would be written later by Matthew and Luke) but a biopic covering his public ministry and the events leading up to those recounted in the creed.

Mark makes his purpose clear in the first sentence: 

The beginning of the gospel [good news] of Jesus Christ, the Son of God  

Why would someone begin a work with the statement, "This is the first sentence of this book?" Who needs to be told that the first page of a book starts the story? But taken as a statement of purpose, it is clear that Mark is not telling us the entire story of Jesus - merely the beginning. 

Like any good prequel, it ends by overlapping just enough of the story known by the audience to enable them to connect the two parts. Mark's first readers would have read his last line and said, "Oh, I know what comes next! You don't have to tell me." Any more would be redundant.

 

But after the Apostles died, and Christianity spread farther and wider through the Roman Empire - and beyond - more people began looking to the Gospels as primary sources of information about Jesus. Mark's Gospel gradually went from being "The Prequel" to "A Biography." Those reading it without having heard the gospel proclaimed might think that no one knew why his tomb as empty, or what had happened afterward. They might conclude that the Christian faith was based entirely upon one possible interpretation of a strange and inexplicable event. 

So the Epilogue was added - fittingly, in the same hurried style as the rest of the work. It rushes through 40 days of critical events in the impatient manner of someone who is too busy changing the world to articulate his motivation. 

The Gospel of Mark is not the whole good news about Jesus. It's just the beginning. So-called scholars stumble over the ending because they didn't pay attention to Mark's clear statement of what his work was - and wasn't - in the first sentence. 

Notes on Tara VanderWoude's talk at the Refresh Conference

 Race = a social construct, shifting over time, that determines how you are perceived by others

Ethnicity = heritage, the history of your experiences, your parents, your grandparents, etc; closely connected to first language / language spoken at home; determined by birth / family history; not fluid

Culture = multiple dimensions of society; we are all born into at least one culture which shapes us, but we may chose to identify with another culture(s) as adults i.e. culture is partially chosen by an individual and partly shaped by family and experiences (partially fluid); includes religion, geography, language, history etc.

Nationality = citizenship / residency; fluid to the degree that governments allow

Ethnicity and Culture are created by God and are inherently good, although the latter is corrupted by sin in ALL cases. Race was invented by humans to justify oppression. Nationality was invented by humans to solve the problem of political organization and governmental authority (i.e. under which ultimate earthly authority does someone reside?).

 Globally, there are more ethnic and/or religious conflicts than racial ones. The concept of Race - grouping ethnicities and/or cultures into superior and inferior categories - originated in Europe and is not widely found outside of the Western world, although the caste system in India has some of the same features. Islam divides the entire world into two camps: the Dar al-Islam, which is in submission to Allah, and the Dar al-___ which is at war with Muslims and Allah. The former Troubles in Northern Ireland, although purportedly religious, was an ethnically-driven conflict over a political question: whether their country should be part of the Republic of Ireland, as preferred by the historically Catholic Irish, or part of the UK as preferred by the historically Presbyterian Scots.   

 

One ongoing debate in the African-American community is whether it is more important to fight the concept of Race or to celebrate their Ethnicity and Culture. To an outside who hasn't learned to distinguish these categories, many statements and actions can appear contradictory. But in reality, they are complementary. One can decry the false construct of Race, while celebrating how God made you and embracing the African-American culture.

Barack Obama is not ethnically African-American: his father was a Kenyan immigrant who ultimately returned to Kenya, while his mother was a White woman from Kansas. But racially, he is perceived as Black, and he has consciously chosen - at least since his baptism and profession of faith at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago - to identify (although not exclusively) with African-American culture. 

Similarly, my son Judah-Jakori can be proud of his birthmother and his ancestors, can rejoice in who God made him to be and how he looks, and can embrace African-American culture, while rejecting the notion the belongs in a rigidly-walled box marked "Black" while I belong in a much larger and thinner-walled box marked "White."

How we gonna pay? 20 years of RENT

Shortly after meeting my then-girlfriend's parents on Long Island, I went with her to my first genuine on-Broadway show. RENT was her favorite musical and she made it clear that I needed to like it. I would not have chosen to see it on my own, but I was willing to like anything if it got me closer to her. Additionally, it intrigued me: if a woman this extraordinary loved it, there had to be a reason.

The energy was infectious, the music was exactly my style, and the acting was great. But appreciation is not the same as love. I wasn't connecting with any of the characters. I was even less Bohemian then than I am now. I couldn't fathom not being able to pay my rent, much less having AIDS or being in love with a drag queen.

During the intermission, I had an epiphany: Jesus would have loved these people. And they would have loved Him. From then on, I loved them too.

For The Lady's 35th birthday, we saw the "20th anniversary" tour (the show opened in 1996 but was set in 1999). I knew she would love it, but I had been listening to Hamilton for the 3rd straight time. And with the AIDS crisis past (in America), and alternative lifestyles mainstreamed, would RENT hold up after 20 years? Or would it seem stale and dated, like so much protest music from the '60s?

First, the performance at the Nederlander Theatre in Chicago. The set was scarcely changed from the original, right down to the deliberate placement of the "orchestra" (a 5-piece rock band) on the stage and only partly obscured. Because if there are no instruments on stage, it's not a rock concert. One appearance of a cell phone, but otherwise the characters rely on a pay phone (do those even exist anymore?) and a tape-recorded answering machine (I don't think those exist anymore). These details kept the production firmly anchored in 1999. 

RENT is nothing if not high-energy, and from the opening number it did not disappoint. If Danny Kornfeld wasn't Anthony Rapp, I couldn't tell. Kaleb Wells' Roger was less punkish and more of a brooding grunge rocker, constantly hanging his head and turning halfway away from the audience. David Merino did what I never thought possible: made Angel even more flaming than in the original; at times he sounded out-of-breath but it seemed fitting. As the father of a Ethiopian daugther, I was thrilled to see Joanne portrayed by Ethiopian actress Jasmine Easler. Aaron Harrington brought Collins to life with dreadlocks and a voice at least an octave deeper than Jesse Martin. 

My one criticism? Mimi was always a Latina. That doesn't necessarily preclude her from being black - thank you, Renee Elise Goldberry! - but how many Latinas do you know with shaved heads? As an exotic dancer, Mimi has to fit men's conceptions of beauty; as Roger's girlfriend, she's the most mainstream female character in the show. I have zero credibility in criticizing how Skyler Volpe wears her hair, but she's playing a character and it just didn't work.

Second, the relevance. For a musical that celebrates bohemians, it at times seems to be preaching to them. Their redemption comes not in their nonconformity, which is a given, but in learning to love.  The lonely tortured artist is not a hero. And it is Angel, the flamboyant street-drumming drag queen, who teaches them this. Angel's philosophy is summarized in the entrance song, "Today 4 U (Tomorrow 4 Me)." In a world where everyone is struggling to survive, Angel puts others first. Among people ashamed of having AIDS and afraid to love, Angel models vulnerability and encourages others to make the most of their remaining days. Few things are more Biblical than an unlikely messenger speaking the truth.

The fact that AIDS is now effectively treatable takes the edge off an edgy production and turns Angel's death into historical drama. But songs like, "Will I?" and "I Should Tell You" never explicitly mention AIDS.  The contemporary normalcy of the gay and lesbian characters mirrors the contemporary normalcy of rock music on Broadway. RENT permanently changed its genre in the same way that Hamilton is doing now: utilizing a new musical form because it is the best way to tell a story.

Conversely, Angel seems to prefigure today's transgender moment. I won't put words into the mouth of someone who died 23 years ago, but I can't imagine Angel being part of any political movement. Angel would just tell us to love one another.  

Unlike the 2005 film, the stage musical takes place against a persistent backdrop of homelessness. In the only interaction between the main characters and a homeless person, the latter dismisses the former as self-serving hypocrites with nothing to offer. But with eviction on the table, the artists are never more than one rent check away from being homeless themselves. 

At the height of the first tech boom, under a proudly-tolerant baby-boomer President, Jonathan Larson foresaw gentrification, growing class divides, the heroin epidemic, and the loneliness and isolation of modern society. Unemployment is now at a 50-year-low, yet our nation is being rent apart.

Third, the personal dimension. In the 12 years since that show in New York, we got married, traveled the world, suffered a string of losses and setbacks, and ended up with 6 children. My career has been a case study in frustration, our house is too small and our children's needs are too large, and most of our dreams have undergone numerous revisions. The only things we have an abundance of are friends, children, and special needs. 

After 20 years, the bottom line is the same: measure your life in love.

The Perils of an Unfinished Job

God said, "You must drive them out completely” (Exodus 34:11-12, Numbers 33:51-55, Deuteronomy 9:3). But they didn't listen - and neither have we. 

It's always struck me as a harsh criticism. Yet one thing for which God repeatedly (see the Book of Joshua and Book of Judges) takes Israel to task is their failure to completely drive out the original Canaanite inhabitants of the promised land. As if it wasn't enough to invade, conquer, and "mostly" drive them out. As if this wasn't already one of the most disturbing concepts in the Bible. 

The Canaanites were probably similar in appearance to the Hebrews. Their culture would not have felt utterly foreign and they spoke related (Semitic) languages. A number of them even ended up in Jesus' family tree. To be a Canaanite was not so much a matter of race or ethnicity, but of ideology and allegiance. 

This was a culture in which child sacrifice was routine, in which sex slavery was a part of religious worship, in which there was no concept of justice - only the strong dominating the weak. It was a society so thoroughly rotten, so far gone, that it could not be saved. Individuals could flee it, and anyone could join the people of God no matter where they were from - unlike Trump's America, ancient Israel was a nation of open borders in which anyone could join or leave - but Canaan was irredeemable. Thus, the command to finish off that gangrenous society.

But the people of God failed. They tired of fighting, and the enemy seemed contained. They wanted peace and prosperity. So they didn't finish the job. And over time, the vile oppression of Canaanite society seeped into Israel and corrupted their entire nation - from the government, to the temple, to the home. 

We also, in this country, have failed to finish the job. As Theon Hill said in a Christianity Today essay, "The Centuries-Old Habits of the Heart," 

At key moments, Christians have advocated for the abolition of slavery, death of Jim Crow, and the end of mass incarceration, but the commitment to equality has consistently languished over time. Our lack of sustained commitment to biblical justice keeps the soil of racism and white supremacy fertile for the James Fields Jrs and Dylann Roofs of American culture to grow into domestic terrorists. ... We paint a picture of gradual progress on racial fronts since the Emancipation Proclamation but fail to acknowledge that the Compromise of 1877 injected new life in white supremacy, giving racists an unparalleled opportunity to execute violence against people of color for decades.

White Christians repeatedly walked off the job before it was done. And just like a patient who fails to finish their course of prescribed antibiotics, each time the pathogen of racism mutated into a new form and returned virulently. That's why we are in the situation that we are in today: generation after generation, we failed to complete the task before us.

As a Christian who happens to be a white American, I own this. None of my ancestors (or my wife's) ever even lived in a slave state, but we inherited this unfinished job.

After years of dealing with a recurring sin in my life, I went to see a Christian counselor. I told him, "I thought this would just get better with time. But instead of going away, it's getting worse! That's why I'm here."

His response? "Of course it got worse. That's what sin does. We're never stagnant, we're always moving in some direction."

We thought racism would just get better on its own. But instead, in reaction to a rapidly diversifying country, it is getting worse. I used to take refuge in demographic statistics, reassuring myself that in 20 years this nation will look more like my children and less like me. Now I realize that was naive. Because the response of racist people to growing diversity is not gradual acceptance, but rage.

I genuinely hope that this generation will finish the job and completely drive out white supremacy. May we dispense with the nostalgia and the national mythologizing and the self-justification, give no quarter to evil, and kill the dragon of racism - once and for all. 

The Little Things

Never take a baby to a rock concert.

I assume this will be obvious to most readers, but apparently it wasn't to The Lady, or to me. In our defense, it was Billy Joel. (If you've ever headbanged to "Piano Man," you can stop reading now). 

My wife's favorite performer was playing Wrigley Field. Just because we had given birth to a little girl 4 months before, didn't mean we would skip out on the chance to see her fellow Lawn Guylander in concert. So in August of 2015, while our oldest 4 children were with a babysitter, we drove into the city for our first date since our daughters had come home from India.

A few minutes into Gavin DeGraw's hard-rocking opening act, we realized two things. First, Little Town was not fully appreciating DeGraw's pop/rock catalog. And second, if we kept her in the stadium, with her delicate little ears, she might never appreciate the genius of U2. Or Stryper. So for the remainder of the concert - Billy Joel was only slightly lower in volume - we took turns sitting in the bleachers with my sister-in-law, and wandering around the outer levels of the Friendly Confines.

Of course, the sight of a man with a baby at a rock concert spawned plenty of comments. "First, Billy Joel concert, huh?" was the most common. I usually just smiled and nodded; in hindsight I should have said, "Yes, but we took her to see Pearl Jam last week." 

But a few people - at least 5 of them - walked up to me, fawned over Little Town, asked me all about her and my family, and told me about their families. They even asked to hold her. None of them pointed out that I shouldn't have brought her in the first place (which I'm sure took some restraint). None of them knew, upon approaching me, that we had also adopted 4 children. Many of them were there because they were working at Wrigley Field that night. 

All of them were Black women.

I still don't know exactly what to make of that fact – except that one thing my international experience has taught me, is that it is often the little spontaneous things that reveal the most about people and their culture.

Key Questions Facing My Generation

1. How can a culturally diverse people agree on how to organize society?

2. How can a religiously diverse people live with our deepest differences?

3. How can a racially-diverse people live together despite the on-going effect of past injustice?

4. How can we protect what and whom we love, without resorting to fear and/or excessive government power?

5. How can we value our individual stories, yet remain connected to each other?

6. How can we be ourselves without wrecking ourselves?

7. How can we be intellectually consistent without killing our souls?

8. How can we protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us?

9. How can we provide uplift to the bottom 30% whom Charles Murray describes in "Coming Apart" - those who are trapped more by their own choices than by structural injustice?

Much Ado About Nothing

One of the lessons of history - particularly recent history - is that an an extraordinary amount of time, money, and emotion are expended on things that are eventually useless. The Church is not immune from this.  Here are some of the fads we've encountered that have added absolutely nothing to our life.

Home Births

None of our children were born in our home. I wasn't born in my parents' home - or so I'm told, my memory of the event is a bit foggy. Our Ethiopian and Indian daughters may have been born at home, but there's no way to know, nor could we even conjecture what difference it may have made. There are no long-term studies on the benefits to anyone of home births. But this we know: if it wasn't for a hospital and well-trained MDs, both my wife and our infant daughter would be dead. Just like the 50,000 women who die every year in the state of Bihar, India, during or as a result of birthing... nearly all of whom give birth at home. 

Anti-Vaccination

No medical innovation has saved more lives or prevented more suffering than vaccines. They do not cause autism and they will not make your children gay. There are simply no benefits to non-vaccination, except the smug pride that comes from feeling more pure than everyone else. On the other hand, if enough people refuse vaccination we will have outbreaks of these diseases again - affecting not only those who chose exposure, but those with unwittingly compromised immune systems. Everyone in our family is vaccinated. We certainly did not adopt 3 daughters from impoverished countries only to refuse them medical care in the USA. 

Organic Food

As a chemical engineer, when I hear the word "organic" I think "carbon-containing" - which describes all food. I'm also aware that Friedrich Wohler overturned vitalism in 1828 by synthesizing urea, thus proving that there was no difference between "natural" and "synthetic" molecules. GMOs have been widely feared and yet widely consumed for decades without a shred of evidence that they are harmful, and they have greatly increased crop yields. Herbicides, insecticides and synthetic fertilizer have fed the world even as global population pushes towards 8 billion. Organic food is a luxury product for those who can afford it. Since we've spent all of our money adopting 4 children, we can't afford it. And since there is no evidence that it makes people healthier, we don't want it.

Veganism

The Lady is a pesceterian who, at the time of this writing, eats meat to ensure that her breastmilk has sufficient nutrients. I will eat anything except for peppermint, walnuts, and dogs. The Lady's desire to not eat meat grows from her love of animals, and there is some Biblical basis for the notion that humans were not designed to be meat-eaters. But vegetarianism and veganism do not, on the whole, make people better human beings or create a better society. They certainly haven't done much to improve conditions in India.

Attachment Parenting

Our children are fully attached to us - even the daughters we adopted only 7 months ago from India. Our baby frequently sleeps with us because it's convenient, but we can't wait for her to sleep on her own. It's natural for babies to attach to their parents; it's not something that can only be achieved with great effort. No one faces greater challenges in attachment than adoptive parents - yet very few practice "attachment parenting." What we have found useful is Karyn Purvis' and David Cross' The Connected Child and Trust-Based Relational Intervention(R), which are research-based approaches to healing the trauma of poor attachment due to abuse or abandonment.

Christian Movies

The worst movie I've ever seen was made by a church. In the wake of its (surprising?) success, churches and Hollywood studies began churning out scores of cheaply-made movies that pander to their audience's worst heresies, prejudices, and ignorances. I've seen only 2 "Christian movies" since The Passion of the Christ, and neither did anything to bolster my faith. They didn't even make me feel good for 90 minutes. There's only one reason these films are called "Christian": without the name of Christ attached to them as an involuntary endorsement, no one would watch them.

Scripted Evangelism

From "The Four Spiritual Laws" to "The Way of the Master," there has been a long-running attempt to reduce the proclamation of the gospel to an impersonal, rapidly scalable formula.   Evangelism is about introducing a human - an individual with a story, with their own existing beliefs and valid questions, with hopes and fears and desires - to the divine person of Jesus Christ. Trying to follow a one-size-fits-all script turns the whole endeavor into a cross between a sales pitch and an amateur theater production. Dave Barry was right, "People who want to share their religious beliefs with you almost never want you to share your beliefs with them. " The best openings I have ever had for sharing the gospel resulting from listening to others, or offering a unique perspective on an in-process conversation. 

Rapture Fever

I don't know when Jesus will return. Neither do you. Neither does anyone else. All attempts to connect present day events with any Biblical prophecies of any sort have resulted in a 100.00% failure rate. And note that Jesus coming back - something in which all Christians believe - is most definitely not the same thing as us leaving (something in which only a minority of Christians believe). When my Lord does return, I hope that he will find me hard at work instead of watching the clock.

Fear of Debt

Some friends gave us one of Dave Ramsey's books. It did help our finances, though not by as much as promised - we sold it on eBay for $17. We borrowed money to buy our house, to buy our land for expansion, to buy our new van, to complete all 4 of our adoptions and even to finance our adoption that failed (by which we enabled our son's birthmother to choose life for her daughter). I don't for a moment question or regret any of these decisions. Every dollar of interest that we have paid and will pay is worth it. Don't borrow money if it's not necessary, but if you need to in order to accomplish your goals or fulfill that to which what God has called you, then do it. It's not a moral issue.

Breastfeeding Forever

We couldn't breastfeed our son, whom we adopted at birth. Queen may have been breastfed, but we can't know. Pearl and Star probably were breastfed. We are breastfeeding our baby daughter, because the science is unambiguous that breastfeeding is best for babies, but we will stop long before she reaches puberty. God is a good Father who is aware of all of this, and all of our children will be okay. Jesus can still save you even if you weren't breastfed. And there is absolutely no good reason to breastfeed a 12-year-old, or even a 6-year-old, other than a woman's obsession with her own milk-making ability.

Courtship

My wife and I dated for 6 months, got engaged, and got married 9 months later. I wouldn't change a single aspect of the way we did things. She was an independent adult who had been to nearly 20 countries, was working full-time and in graduate school, and her father (an agnostic Jew) was 900 miles away. We did begin our relationship with the mutual agreement that if either of us could not see it moving towards marriage, we would break up. But if sitting together in church was equivalent to getting engaged, we never would have gotten to know each other. Joshua Harris' book and the anti-dating movement it spawned added nothing to our dating, our engagement, or our marriage.

The Elusive Prize: The Pro-Life Movement at 43

In my prior post, I explored the phenomenon of the pro-life movement - stronger than ever 43 years after Roe v. Wade. Equally extraordinary, however, is the merely incremental progress it has made in all that time. Despite all the energy, all the political intensity, all the ink spilled and all the money expended, why hasn't the pro-life movement achieved more?

1) We've hitched our wagon to an elephant. That is, the Republican Party. (I say this as someone who has yet to vote for a Democrat). Consider the debate over the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"): several pro-life Democrats, who fought hard to exclude abortion from the bill, ultimately voted for it based upon Barack Obama's promise that federal funding of abortion would be excluded by executive order. The pro-life movement promptly turned upon those congressmen for "betraying" their principles. In the ensuing efforts - largely successful - to vote these legislators out, many pro-life organizations referred to the bill as "the government take-over of health care," thus showing their true colors: regardless of whether abortion coverage was included or excluded, they simply didn't like anything resembling socialized medicine. What does that have to do with being pro-life?

Some of the most left-wing individuals I have met expressed deep ambivalence over abortion, if not outright opposition. Pro-lifers need to decide: are we truly committed to ending abortion above all else and building whatever coalition is necessary to do it? Is it actually more important than taxes, gun rights, Obamacare, foreign policy, the national debt, or any other issue?

National elections rarely turn upon controversial social issues; politicians avoid them and voters often have the economy or national security on their minds. To the degree that the pro-life movement is restricted to one political party, it's fortunes will rise and fall based upon the winds of the economy.

2) We have failed to confront racism. It's been argued that abortion perpetuates racism: 35% of abortions are performed on African-Americans, even though they represent only 12% of the population. This is consistent with the expressed desires of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. But the converse is also true: racism perpetuates abortion. Sometimes it seems as if Americans aren't sure if they want that many Black and Hispanic children around. Witness, for example, Donald Trump's desire to deport millions of Hispanic children with American citizenship because of how their parents came here. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who identified as pro-life, thought it was a great idea. But why deport them, when you can abort them?

When economist Steven Levitt claimed in Freakonomics that abortion reduces crime by eliminating minority children, pro-life conservatives called him out for racism. But they have been extremely reluctant to face down the demon of racism itself, or the structural injustices that drive so many Black women to the abortion clinic when there seems to be no other choice. And concern for the lives of Black children seems to evaporate about the time those children grow up and face police brutality.

As the Apostle John stated, "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1 John 4:20). Similarly, how can we claim to love the unborn children whom we have not seen, if we do not love the Mexican immigrants in our neighborhood whom we have seen? When we fail to confront the dehumanizing language used to describe Hispanic immigrants, we are silently supporting the dehumanization of their unborn. Along with the political decisions noted above, this failure has prevented ethnic groups who are overwhelmingly pro-life in their views from avidly supporting the movement.

3) We don't acknowledge miscarriage as a death. The only credible argument that pro-choicers have made against the personhood of the unborn is that we do not hold a funeral when a woman miscarries. In fact, the typical response to miscarriage - even in the church - reflects the abortion views of mainstream American society. We acknowledge a loss of some sort, but not the loss of a human being. My wife and I suffered 5 miscarriages; few people acted as if anyone had died. 

The experiences of our friends have confirmed this. Millions of women (and men) carry this unresolved pain. Yet the most healing thing for us was to hold a funeral. To do so is the only advice I ever give to anyone who has miscarried. There is no simpler, more compassionate, less-controversial, inexpensive, and more effective way to build a culture of life than to genuinely grieve with those who have lost unborn children and to acknowledge that loss as the death of a human being.

That's what it will take to finally slay the dragon of abortion: support pro-life Democrats, love our Black and Hispanic neighbors who are already born (as well as those in the womb), and grieve miscarriages. The end of this evil is in sight - but only if we are willing to do what it takes to win.

Alive and Kicking: the Pro-Life Movement at 43

This should be over by now. We should have packed our bags and gone home. Yet here we are, 43 years after Roe v. Wade - which was supposed to settle the matter - and the pro-life movement is stronger than ever. 

Normally, even the most controversial decisions are eventually accepted as law, and people adjust to the new reality. For a Supreme Court decision, even a controversial one, to remain so deeply unpopular and divisive for so long is unprecedented. For example, Brown v. Board of Education - which struck down school segregation in 1954 - was almost completely accepted within a few years, and the last vestiges of resistance flamed out after the failed presidential run of George Wallace in 1968. By 1996, it wasn't even an issue; no major political candidate even suggested the Court had been wrong. (It didn't hurt that the decision had been unanimous).

So why won't this issue go away? What accounts for the remarkable persistence, and even growth, of the pro-life movement? 

Subversion of the democratic process. Roe v. Wade stepped into a vigorous debate raging through the legislatures of nearly every state, and attempted to cut it off. Today, the United States is one of only 4 countries that allows abortion at any time for any reason; the others are Canada, China, and North Korea. Yet 55% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in most circumstances, and 68% think it should be at least somewhat restricted. As a committed pro-lifer myself, I readily admit that if our laws simply included reasonable restrictions on abortion that reflected the desires of the majority of the American public, the pro-life movement would probably fizzle out. The extraordinary and persistent discrepancy between the will of the people and actual law is the driving force that fuels the abortion debate.

Science. With 3-dimensional real-time ultrasound, we can see babies in the womb, and they don't look like blobs of tissue. They look like babies. As medicine progresses, the viability limit of pre-term infants continues to be pushed back further and further. And it is inescapable that, biologically speaking, life begins at conception. As more Americans learn genetics in their high school biology class, fewer can claim (as Barack Obama famously did) that the question of when life begins is "above my pay grade."

Pro-lifers have more babies. Never underestimate the significance of the obvious. It is easier to pass on your beliefs when you have children, than when you kill your offspring. 

Engagement with women in need. Women who contemplate abortion are not stupid. They know they are being forced into it - which doesn't sound like much of a "choice" - and usually by a man who has abandoned them. As John Rankin observes, abortion is the greatest enabler of male chauvinism. And the difference between an abortion clinic that tries to sell you something and demands cash upfront, and a non-profit resource center that listens and gives you information - and never asks for a dime - is obvious. Every time pro-life volunteers help someone choose life, they gain two converts: a grateful mother, and a little boy or girl who otherwise wouldn't have made it into this world. 

A gradual approach. In contrast to pro-abortion extremism, pro-lifers have recently pushed for such sensible policies as requiring abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at hospitals and to be inspected regularly, only letting physicians perform abortions, ending the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion, allowing parents to have a say in whether their teenage daughter gets an abortion, and requiring women to be fully informed of the development of their baby and the risks of the procedure. These common sense policies have contributed to the closure of 53 abortion facilities in 2015 alone.

When undercover videos that showed executives of Planned Parenthood (the nation's largest abortion provider) selling baby body parts, even long-standing pro-choicers re-examined their beliefs. Bill Clinton famously said that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" - but then decided that 1 out of 3 ain't bad. Are we approaching a tipping point - where abortion remains barely legal (and more safe) but will become truly rare?

There are reasons for hope. And also reasons for pessimism...

Pro-Life Quiz

 A multiple-choice test, for those who are pro-life:

A woman comes to the pregnancy counseling center where you are volunteering. She is Mexican, her visa expired last year, her boyfriend abandoned her, and she is 7 months pregnant. What do you do?

A) Advise her to have an abortion, to prevent the birth of an "anchor baby."

B) Report her to immigration and hope she is deported before giving birth. Surely she and her baby will be fine on the streets of Juarez or Tijuana.

C) Help her through the pregnancy, pretending to care for her and her baby's well-being, then arrange for her to be arrested as she leaves the hospital with her newborn infant. Unfortunately, her child cannot be deported, so they are both held indefinitely in a prison-like detention facility.

D) Help her to choose life, and continue to help her and her baby after birth.