The Modesty Revolution is the 4th Wave of Feminism

At the 2008 VH1 music awards, singer Jordin Sparks challenged show host Russell Brand on his ridicule of promise rings, rings that signify a pledge to remain sexually pure until marriage. Standing up to the lies of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism, Sparks is one of many young women demanding a change in perspective. For them, the spirit of feminism is about opportunity and freedom, not rights at the expense of dignity and self-respect. This is the essence of what author Wendy Shalit calls The Good Girl Revolution.

Shalit's book, by the same title, documents story after story of young women who are tired of the sexual exhibitionism that defines contemporary feminism. They understand the backwards logic of this in that it cancels out the work of the early feminists who wanted to be taken seriously as intellectual equals instead of merely objects of sexual gratification.

The Girlcotters are a group of young women known for their objection to the Abercrombie & Fitch t-shirts for girls that say "who needs brains when you have these." A young group of feminists, Shalit spends many pages telling their story, leading up to their invitation to be guests at a NOW conference. Here is what one of the girls had to say about the conference:

We went to the NOW conference last week, and I support equality and would never like to be controlled by a man, but the NOW conference was more like a brainwashing feminist summit than anything else. They had this artistic performance that was so much about sex and how much all men suck; it really made me feel sick...Those three days were awfully confusing for me...I mean, we got the Women of Action award for what we've done, but...I think we've been misunderstood. Everyone thinks that we are so feminist, but, frankly, most of us are not that radical. We just want to be on par with men...I thought that they were very reasonable, middle-of-the-road like me, but I guess I was somewhat mistaken. (page 235)

The Girlcotters are evidence of NOW conferences hard at work to exert their influence on young women (where is the church????). It's exciting to know that this young woman could think for herself, that she could be confident and retain her self-respect when clearly NOW was going to be no help in that regard.

What Shalit points out in numerous ways in GGR is that 2nd and 3rd wave feminists cannot accommodate today's young feminists who embrace modesty as a way to value themselves. The feminists of previous generations hold that promoting modesty is a sell-out to patriarchy, but I can't understand how young women giving themselves over entirely without emotional or commitment safety is of any benefit to woman.

Desiring fair and equal treatment between men and women is a noble pursuit, but women have deceived themselves into thinking that being bad, engaging in casual sex and and other forms of exhibitionism puts them on par with men. In fact, it accomplishes quite the opposite and the evidence is that sexism is still a serious problem in our culture. I believe we can place the blame on women who have made it easy for men to not take any of us seriously.

Relationship with Jesus vs. List of Rules: An Unfair False Dichotomy

Have you ever heard or read the statement that the Christian faith isn't a list of rules to be followed, it's a relationship with Jesus? I've been hearing it a lot recently and I think it deserves a bit more nuance than what it seems to be receiving.

Where we begin is in understanding what exactly Christianity is. It is the one true religion. It is a system of thought based on the activity of the Triune godhead throughout history. It is the story of creation, fall, redemption, and consumation. It is about Jesus, God incarnate, who satisfied the demand of justice by paying the price for our sins. Christianity is the story of love of the Creator for his creation, and creation's love in return.

What Christianity is not is merely a set of do's and don'ts that provide a framework for salvation. Our faith is a gift from God, not something we receive for good behavior. We don't find our election dependent upon anything we do, and our salvation is not maintained by certain acts of obedience. But does this mean that "do's and don'ts" aren't a part of living our our faith? This is where I take issue with casually stating that Christianity isn't about following a list of rules, because in fact, the Christian life is all about loving God so much that we seek to reflect his goodness in all areas of our life with loving acts of obedience. By de-emphasizing rules, we over-emphasize an easy-believism that says it doesn't matter what one does from day to day, as long as they love God and are sincere. This doesn't seem dangerous? To say that Christianity isn't about a list of rules is to create a straw man argument. But for the younger people and younger believers who hears this, what they really hears is that we need not struggle with the ethical issues of our day.

As we prepare members of the community of faith to live in this world, we find that we are preparing them to encounter another set of moral precepts. Sripture tells us to avoid any resemblance of evil and to live our life in such a way that we bring glory to God. So how is it that we can have a relationship with Christ without our faith having a relationship to every day do's and don'ts? It is impossible to pursue a biblical faith--our relationship with God--without thinking Christianly about our every day activities. When we encounter dilemmas in life that the Bible speaks nothing about specifically, we have to reflect on biblical principles to determine the next step. But to say bluntly that Christianity isn't about a list of rules undermines a significant amount of scripture that emphasizes obedience and the pursuit of sinlessness. Perhaps, it over emphasizes a positional perfection over an ongoing sanctification. I think we need to use more care in how we communite this "relationship with God" that is becoming more and more abstract as we move further and further away from discussing ethics and morality among the community of believers.

Christian Charm: Loving God with the Heart, Good Posture, and a Clear Complexion

I know now I'm not crazy and that I've understood and perceived matters correctly--this book affirms it. Ministry to young women is in trouble. My friend Karen introduced me last night to a little booklet called the Christian Charm Notebook. Her copy is from 1972, but you can--shockingly--still purchase your own copy on Amazon and Christianbook.com. I am greatly disturbed by the fact that it is still available. So if you're looking for a book to help you grow young women who love God with their heart, soul, and mind, then this book isn't for you. Not a single mention of the life of the mind is to be found in it.

The book is full of a lot of advice on posture, hair styles, and manners. Not bad things to know about I guess. It begins by describing the inherent beauty of being born again, contrasted with the unattractiveness of unbelief, utilizing storm clouds, sunshine and heart-shaped faces to depict this distinction. Unfortunately, it all goes downhill from there, because what it accomplishes is equating godliness with physical attractiveness, aka Christian Charm. In lesson 1, the student is encouraged to consider her inward appearance:

I want to be lovely and beautiful within, so that I will please God. I realize that I cannot change my heart merely by self-effort. I realize that I must allow God to enter my life and do His transforming work within me.

And then, she is encouraged to consider her outward appearance:

I want to be attractive and charming, so that I will please others. I realize that this will not come about through wishful dreaming. I realize that I must work toward that goal diligently and steadfastly.

So then the students are asked to fill out of things they would like to change inside and out. Remember that the goal is to please others--when did it become ok for women to be objectified...by the church?!?

You probably think that this book can only get better. Trust me, it doesn't. Lesson 6, page 31 is titled Femininity--My 'Crowning Glory,' stating that to be truly feminine

• See that you look like a girl--not a boy! (1 Cor. 11:15; Deut 22:5)
  
• Don't usurp the role of the male (1 Tim 2:12-13; 1 Pet 3:7)
  
• Cultivate a quiet, gentle spirit (1 Pet 3:4; Titus 3:2)
  
• Value your chastity (Prov 31:10; 1 Cor 6:19; 1 Tim 5:22)

The next page then provides a chart that shows those things that destroy femininity, and those things that increase it. Some on that list described as destroying femininity include "a bulky, flabby figure," "a dead-pan face," "a slouching posture," a "raspy, gravelly voice," "mannish attire," and "pessimism." Some that increase femininity include "a trim, disciplined body," "dainty, pretty clothing," "a lovely, graceful walk,"a queen-like posture," "modest self-confidence," and "ladylike reserve." For women of all ages who haven't been groomed for beauty pagents, this material could be devastating to their walk with Christ. If my spirituality is measured by the cleanliness of my cuticles (yes, page 35) then we have serious problems.

Some would immediately look at this book and just chuck it aside, regarding it as outdated. In fact, a review at Amazon said just that. "This is a sadly outdated book...a waste of money." I want to suggest that this book was NEVER dated. When it was first published in 1967, it was irrelevant. In 1950, it wasn't appropriate for girls. And in 1900 it was still a shameful attempt to box up femininity. This book affirms so many destructive behaviors that cause many young women to become obsessive, and then self-destructive when they learn how hard it is to please everyone else. Yes, a woman should care about her appearance, but any more than a man? If she has short hair, is she any less loved by God?

This books claim to fame is that it "exalts TRUE FEMININITY--modesty, purity and honor, rather than a bold outward display!" The problem is, it fails to counter culture's obsession with appearance in that it actually adopts similar standards. Christian Charm is clear that they are obsessed by appearance and equate it to a certain level of spiritual maturity. But there is truly nothing modest about this, and it will destroy the esteem and faith of so many young women exposed to it.

Women's Rights: Defined by Who?

Political commentators, popular feminists, and many writers in the blogosphere are pressing the issue of unfettered reproductive freedom as a fundamental, agreed upon right for all women and that anyone who disagrees with their views can not be pro-woman or an advocate for women's rights. The problem is, we don't all accept abortion and infanticide as a fundamental right for women, we see those as a violation of fundamental human rights, acts against human dignity.

No doubt inequalities exist between men and women throughout the world, and we can speak together against the atrocities occurring in the Middle East and other parts of the world against women in the name of family honor. But there is nothing in the core of our humanity that even implies that killing the unborn is a good thing, let alone a right for anyone. There is neither pride nor fulfillment in the destruction of our own kind, yet it is believed to be a universally understood human right.

Women's rights ought to be only those things that build character and bring the opportunity for peace and fulfillment to women's lives, the ability to pursue happiness without doing harm to others. Right now, abortion is legal, and as a result it is inferred as a fundamental right, but what is legal is not always moral or good. Once it was the case the slavery was legal, or that it was acceptable to discriminate on the basis of race. Appealing to the laws of the land is not the best argument for women's rights, and neither is the radical, seared conscious of those who promote abortion as a woman's fundamental right. I have little hope for a society that grounds women's rights in the willing and active violation of human rights.

Gllian Parrillo, the chair of NOW's pac, stated

We recognize the importance of having women's rights supporters at every level but, like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women's rights.

Reproductive inequality may have been the thrust of 2nd wave feminism, but the pursuit of this these so-called rights has tipped the scales and prevented fathers of the unborn to keep their human rights intact. There is nothing right about these "women's rights" and the term is in need of some serious redefinition.

Men's and women's rights should not differ in any significant way, but perhaps if our laws were tougher and enforcement less lenient, women might enjoy a life of less physical vulnerability and violation. We should understand women's rights as something more decent and beautiful in juxtaposition to that which is proclaimed by extreme feminism.

Feminism's Fatalities

I commute to work everyday by train. I see lots of people of all ages and ethnicities. Its fun to take the same route each day and connect with other regular riders.

Today, I saw a young woman in her early 20's who stood out not because of her striking beauty, but because of the tee-shirt she so proudly modeled for each of us to appreciate. On the shirt, it stated "I kiss better than I drive." Immediately I was overcome with a sense of frustration...is this what feminism has been fighting for? The freedom to be stupid? Granted, it was just a tee shirt, but there is nothing about it that inspires this girl to greater things--or keeps men from objectifying her. If feminism is teaching women that equality is the logical equivalent to self-deprecating stupidity, its time to take over the feminist cause.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Obama: No Longer 'Above My Pay Grade'

On the way home from work I received an interesting email on my blackberry. From Obama's campaign manager, I was informed that I am one of the "most extreme" people ever to be seen in America because of my view on the nature of human life. Apparently it's no longer above his pay grade, he's quite clear here that big people have more rights than little people. I wonder if that makes him a 'size-ist.'

The issues of life and human dignity are now front and center again and the next 9 weeks are crucial on the political front on the issue of protecting human life. Obama should be held accountable for avoiding the question of human rights for the unborn and not understanding Bush's position on embryonic stem cell research at the Rick Warren discussion.

Here is what the email stated:

He [McCain] doesn't want Americans to notice that the Republican platform is the most extreme we've ever seen -- opposing stem cell research, denying a woman's right to choose no matter what the circumstance, and continuing to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq. 

To that, I ask with the greatest of profundity I can muster...huh? Of conservatives--some of which Obama is trying to court--the letter explains what makes us "most extreme." I have included appropriate responses which reveal where the extremism actually rests.

They've come out against the life-saving possibilities of stem cell research. 

• Conservatives want to save lives and are driven to compassion by an understanding of human dignity that transcends the pragmatism of liberalism. 
  
• We stand against any research that demands the death of human life at the earliest stage and the exploitation of young women from whom eggs are required in order to pursue embryonic stem cell research. 
  
• Conservatives fully support non-embryonic forms of stem cell research, note the recent news in the area of induced pluripotent stem cells.
  
• Thus far, the "life-saving possibilities" are just that, possibilities...aka HYPE. There is no good science to back up such political pandering.
• The above suggestion by the Obama campaign is dishonest in that it lacks of specificity. Perhaps they didn't get the press releases about the different areas of stem cell research.
  

And they make zero exceptions for a woman's right to choose -- even in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. 

• Conservatives who understand the inherent dignity of all persons at all stages recognize the dignity and value of life as a first order principle. Any "rights" that exist can only be derivative of this higher view of life. Without it, "rights" have no foundation and are stipulated only by the winds of the day.
  
• For those of us who are prolife in every situation also recognize the difficult but rare cases. When a woman's life is truly at risk, and not from low self esteem or financial considerations, but when she may actually die, realistic steps are pursued by even the "most extreme" prolife individuals.
  
• Sadly for those who have been victims of rape and incest, once again, we point to the inherent dignity of the unborn child. It is not her fault that the world in which she was conceived has become overly sexualized and disrespectful of the dignity inherent to each of us. We will continue to fail as a society to protect women and children from these great harms if we can't even recognize each person's worth.
  
• Promoting the destruction of the smallest people perpetuates the problems stated above.

The "women's right to choose" is not a human right, it is a legal right. And as we know, bad laws are often repealed. It is my hope that Sarah Palin will bring to Washington D.C. a fresh perspective and contagious zeal for the dignity of all persons. It is my "most extreme" wish that she will inspire life to be granted to the 80-90% of Down's Syndrome babies who are currently being aborted by the women emotionally manipulated into being a "good mom" and sparing their children from a "life of suffering."

Obama is clear on what he believes about when human rights are conferred to people, and it isn't before they are born. 

Evangelical Women...Leaders?

In a response to Sally Quinn, a journalist at Newsweek and at the Washington Post, I supplied the following brief commentary about the evangelical perspective on Sarah Palin as VP. There is much more to add and I hope for the opportunity to say more:

I am a conservative evangelical woman who eagerly supports the Palin nomination, yet also believes only men are to hold lead pastor positions in the church. The difference? The church is not the same as the workplace. Women hold positions of authority in the workplace, something Scripture does not speak against. So if a woman can be a manager at Burger King, certainly she can be a VP.

The issue about womens roles in the home is a bit more fluid. In the Palin marriage, obviously there is some agreement on who does what. The same is true for my own home. That doesn't mean children/family do not come first for Sarah Palin. If the implication is that she cannot be putting her children/family first in her political ambitions, we are forced to say the same thing about husbands and fathers who pursue careers and provide for the home.

I hope I've adequately responded to your request to hear from evangelical women. Please feel free to contact me with further questions.

--Sarah Flashing, womenfaithculture.org

(Find Quinn's blogpost and comments here: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/09/sarah_palins_priorities.html)
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Where Women's Ministry Meets Youth Ministry

I've been reading The Good Girl Revolution over the weekend and will be posting a review of it in the coming days. Due to all the issues that young people face today, having to contend with an overly sexualized society and made to feel bad about being good, it's no wonder there is so much depression and despair among our youth. But I can't help but to probe a bit deeper into the disconnect between those who should be our role models and those who actually are--if this is a core issue with regard to this dilemma. In fact, the problem is not just within pop culture where young people admire the the Paris Hilton's and Brittany Spears' for their trendy clothes and rebellious spirit, the problem may also exist within the church. In what I'm about to say in no way suggests that the evangelical community is perpetuating the problem of sexualization, it's a different problem but is at its foundation fundamentally the same...a lack of appropriate role models.

Let me first begin by saying that I understand and value the existence of powerful youth ministries, and I'm familiar with many leaders in this area who are doing marvelous work. But....yes, there's a but. I can't help but wonder if the existence of youth ministry is in some way preventing the older women from having a Titus 2 influence on the younger women in the church. And this is a 2 way street...maybe the older women just aren't interested in influencing the younger generation. That's a problem.

I've attended a lot of women's ministry events over the years, and only a few have had a focus on the older women relating to the much younger women. We spend a lot of time talking about how we need to bridge the generational gaps, but often we end up not pursuing anything with the much younger women not involved in women's ministry. The excuse is that they are involved in youth ministry. It's not our job. They don't think we're cool. We're too old. We do things differently. Change how we do women's ministry? I think not. These are some of that attitudes, conscious or unconscious, that impact our inability to reach the younger women in the church.

For the biblically instituted ministry between women to occur, access needs to be granted and coordinated within the local church. Younger women (teens, high school, college) should not be viewed as aliens to the women's ministry, as too immature to be involved. No, the women's ministry should view their role as equipping young women for successful, godly living in all areas and spheres of life. From dating to homemaking, cultural issues to biblical studies, older women need to be actively influencing other women, cultivating an environment where positive and significant role models are readily found.

With this view of ministry in mind, women's ministry had to change. No longer can it be exclusively about the social activities and daytime bible studies. Engaging the young women means engaging their world, knowing everything about it and being ready to give an answer to them for the hope we have in Christ. It's about knowing theology and engaging cultural understandings of God and spirituality. It's about knowing the self...the sinful nature and our need for a savior, and how man seeks continuously to be autonomous from God's sovereign hand. In other words, women's ministry has to broaden her understanding in order to broaded her audience. Leadership teams need to invite younger, godly women to help bridge the generational gaps (intellectually/functionally) and youth ministry needs to encourage the development of young women in the context of women's ministry. Some churches might even consider a youth women's leader who is also a part of the women's leadership team. The bottom line is, if women's ministry wants to continue having a real impact on the lives of women into the future, it must consider new avenues of action.

This is a topic I often speak about. Should you have any interest in this message being communicated to your women's ministry, please contact me to arrange for a time. sarahflashing@gmail.com

Sarah Palin: Hope, Change, and a Role Model to Christian Women

I was hoping for Huckabee, I was expecting Pawlenty or Romney. Pleasantly suprised, I am so excited about McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin for Vice President.

The choice of Gov. Palin as McCain's running mate brings conservative values and government ethics reform--something Senator Obama fails to address of his corrupt home state of Illinois--to the forefront of this election cycle.

Wife to Todd and mother to 5 children, including one with Down's Syndrome who Gov. Palin chose not to abort, is an inspiration to women everywhere, but particularly to women in the evangelical community who aspire to leadership but have few role models. In addition to her work throughout this election, I encourage Palin to reach out to young women who want to know how to be a Christian and how to be an effective leader without compromising ethics and integrity. Gov. Palin has broken through the glass ceiling in the sense of being called to the role of Vice President, but she makes it possible for women in the evangelical community to recognize that one need not be a secular feminist to aspire to such possibilities.

Obama's Big Give

Did Oprah write Barak's speech?? Perhaps I'm not old enough to recall the promises of previous presidential candidates, but the crowd was acting like Barak "big pockets" Obama was making all their dreams come true. The laundry list went on and on and on and then it hit me....Obama's Big Give. This campaign is turning into the greatest mass manipulation in the history of humanity and the greatest show of arrogance I've personally witnessed. Sadly, the talking points of "dignity and respect" that have so permeated this DNC were lost in his expressed desire to "reduce unwanted pregnancies." That's political-talk for avoiding the subject of abortion.

Women's Leadership Conference--Oct 18, 2008

If you're in the Chicago area, you want to plan to attend the 1 day conference for women's leaders--in church, culture, or the marketplace. It's a conference for all ages and designed to accommodate your busy schedule. Find the details here.

Who are the conference speakers?
Session 1
From Dial Ups to Smart Phones: Women's Ministry Then & Now
Felecia Thompson, Trinity Christian College, Palos Hts IL

Session 2
Kingdom Writing: How Your Words Serve Heavenly Purposes
Caryn Rivadeneira, Christianity Today: Gifted for Leadership

Session 3
The Caris Approach: The Third Voice
Angie Weszley, Caris Pregnancy Clinics

To register or to obtain more info, email wm@convergemidamerica.org

The Church--Reaching in or Reaching Out?

This weekend I was involved in a training equipping me to teach young women about the pitfalls of sliding into bad relationships without thoughtful, decisive contemplation. For example, cohabitation and casual sex will lead to constraints such as isolation from family, unplanned pregnancy, and a lack of advancement in goals, all of which will make it difficult to get out and get into healthier relationships where there is physical, emotional, and commitment safety.

I'm so excited about incorporating this educational component into my existing ministry because I have such a heart for seeing young women succeed in life. But this also seems like the type of ministry that churches could offer to educate the community. Young women are not likely to attend church if they are stranded in difficult relationships and have difficulty moving forward. The need to reach out is huge, both to talk with young women not yet in such relationships and to those already in them.

This work is often left to parachurch ministries like my own, but unless a ministry is functioning as an agent of the church, they aren't being delivered to the church. Young women like these are expected to find their own way (obviously there is hope that there are other Christians in there lives).

The church bears the message of the gospel, and it preaches the gospel. But how far is its reach? Is the church "going out" or is the church's reach only an arm's length? I believe we should be seeing the church's fingerprint on the community, involved in every possible way to assist in the broader development of people for the sake of the gospel. This will not happen if the church is waiting for unbelievers to find them.

Obama Determines Embryos Worthy of Destruction, Not a Pay Grade Issue

Obama supports relaxing federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. He voted for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which was vetoed by President Bush. The bill would have allowed federal funding to be used for research on stem cell lines obtained from discarded human embryos originally created for fertility treatments.

It isn't above his pay grade to determine that embryos are worthy of destruction. This week will prove to be decisive in his campaign in that his inability to understand the issues has become apparent. There is no change or hope in this, this is politics as usual.

Most People are Single-Issue Voters

Prolifers, myself included, are often accused of being single-issue voters. I think its generally true for everyone that there is a particular issue that causes you to lean a certain direction. If you homeschool your kids your issue might be vouchers or protections for homeschoolers, likely a conservative candidate. If you support abortion rights, chances are you aren't voting for any prolife candidate. If you are anti-war, you aren't going to vote for a candidate who is a respected veteran. If you think universal health care is a high priority, chances are your vote will go to a democrat. We all have many issues we're concerned about, but one or 2 in particular will be what drives us.

I believe there is nothing more fundamentally important than the sanctity of life and human dignity, for it is those two that undergird every other good piece of legislation. I can care about other issues, but my priorities begin with respecting life. For instance, I can't imagine supporting someone with a great plan for the economy if they support and encourage the death of millions more unborn children. If we were promised that poverty in the US would be greatly diminished, yet they upheld a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn son or daughter, I could not give him or her my vote. If a candidate could provide substantive evidence that he had a clear shot at peace in the middle east, yet would persist in embryo-destructive research, the ordering of priorities would necessitate I vote for the prolife candidate.

Are economics more important than the lives of the unborn?
Is the concern about poverty a greater concern than the concern for the life or death of others?

Without a proper respect for life at every stage, we cannot create a society--a world--where a great economy or world peace can truly exist. Human dignity needs to be the basis for real change, or there can be no change at all.

Obama: No 'Change' or 'Hope' for the Unborn

During the August 17th conversation between Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren and the presidential candidates, Obama & McCain, the cultural crisis of abortion was given significant attention.

Warren asked both candidates, pointing out that 40 million abortions have occurred since Roe v Wade, "a what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"

McCain: "at conception."
Obama: "Well...i think...whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or uh, a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, uh, ya know, is, is uh above my pay grade."

Clearly, Obama doesn't believe that a child should have any human rights until birth--and even then that's been called into question. To be generous, he probably believes that life does begin at conception, but like secular feminists, he avoids the question of what is life and when does life begin and when does this person have rights and focuses instead on what are believed to be the rights of the woman.

Obama persists,

...But but but let me speak more generally about the issue of abortion...I am pro- choice, I believe in Roe v. Wade and I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro- abortion, but because ultimately I don't believe women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or family members.

Here Obama is simply naive because I don't believe we can account for 40 million abortions as the result of 40 million introspective women and families. In fact, Planned Parenthood isn't interested in women wrestling with this decision or else they would be in full support of the facilities that educate women about the alternatives. Crisis pregnancy centers provide women with an understanding of the life they are carrying and communicate options such as adoption or continuing the pregnancy and raising the child. Planned Parenthood's existence depends upon large numbers of abortions while hiding their history of promoting abortion as a matter of societal cleansing.

Obama continues,

So for me, the goal right now should be and I believe this is where we can find common ground, and by the way [I've now inserted this into the democratic party platform (unclear)], is how do we reduce the number of abortions? Because the fact is that, even though we've had a president who is opposed to abortion the last 8 years, abortions have not gone down....

Interestingly, the Guttmacher Institute says otherwise. In January 2008, it was reported that the abortion rate had dropped to a 30 year low. Accurate or not, it's clear that Obama doesn't even know what his pro-choice colleagues are saying on the matter.

Obama doesn't want to enter into theological or scientific discussion on when life begins and when a child has human rights because he doesn't feel qualified, yet he's willing to take a position on the issue without doing the research. He prefers to settle on the issue by an appeal to women's rights. How is it that he knows a woman's rights ought to trump those of the unborn? He really expects Americans to believe that someone as learned as himself can't study this issue and come to an understanding. But on the otherhand, how often do we hear politicians admit that they don't have the answers? When Joe Carter and I testified before the Illinois State Legislature on embryonic stem cell research, it was clear we were dealing with clueless politicians who not only did not know what they were talking about, but didn't know what they didn't know. Obama clearly doesn't know what he needs to know and demonstrates a lack of integrity by his unwillingness to pursue these answers. Politics as usual. Where's the change in that?

Hannity, Politics, and Theology

One of the greatest problems plaguing humanity today is the belief that it does not matter what one believes, so long as you are a good person. Along with that, matters of faith have come to be viewed as matters of feeling and experience, not a matter of the intellect--rejecting that absolute, knowable truth exists.

The last few moments of Hannity and Colmes last night made clear to me that Sean needs some theological mentors in his life. Yes, I know he has some training within the RCC, but any theologically-astute person that might have heard him last night now knows that he probably ought to leave the work of theology to the professionals. In his effort to make nice to Oprah, he openly embraced Eckhart Tolle's book, A New Earth. Now as a Roman Catholic, he likely has a diminished view of protestant theologies anyway, but even his own theology embraces absolutes that are rejected by Tolle.

Since so much of the current political showdown has revolved around theological concepts, it concerns me that Sean, in his prominence, could cause the theological-right to lose credibility (what little it may have) because of his haphazard understanding of things. Will someone step up to mentor him in areas of theology?
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Taking a Bite...

Tomorrow evening I will resume my blogging ritual from the inspiring location of New York City. I'm hoping to run into Bill O'Reilly so he can add to my vocabulary and make Flash Point more interesting. We'll see. Stay tuned!

Is Dim Economy Good for Biotech Industry?

CNN reported yesterday that the dim economy is probably a primary reason for a recent increase in women wanting to sell their eggs and the upsurge in calls to fertility clinics. Cited was one young woman named Michelle who has 2 kids and in need for a way to pay for college. Like Michelle, many women, for whatever reason, are living paycheck to paycheck. Selling their eggs may provide temporary financial freedom, but it may also be the cause of serious health problems.

Right now, the biotech industry, in its pursuit to conduct embryo-destructive research (ESCR), is plagued by 2 problems, a lack of funding and a lack of eggs. And even though recent progress has been made though iPC's, embryonic stem cell research is still considered (for some reason) the "gold standard" or the "holy grail." Women like Michelle who find themselves vulnerable to this economy are easy prey for the biotech industry as it is unclear whether there are protections in place that prohibit fertility clinics from obtaining eggs to transfer to research facilities. The ban on payment for eggs in states where it exists for biotech firms ought to apply to fertility clinics as well, whether or not the science is speculative.

Speaker of the House not Entirely Mum on Faith in the Public Square

In an online discussion on August 6, Nancy Pelosi discussed her new book, Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters, with the listeners of Book World Live. As was written in the Washington Post, the book is about "the women who have inspired her in her personal and professional lives, and about the lessons she wants to pass on to the women in her own family as well as around the country."

One of the participants in the online interview inquired about the role faith has "clear[ly]" played in her life. To this, Pelosi replies:

My faith has always been central to my public service. Growing up in Baltimore, we were raised in a devoutly Catholic family and taught that we had a responsibility to other people and that we must always honor the spark of divinity in each person.

When I became Speaker, I quoted St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of San Francisco: "preach the Bible; sometimes use words." I try to follow that guidance in my work - to remember that we are all God's children and we have a responsibility to each other and to our planet - God's creation.

I'm not quite sure what it is about Pelosi that makes it "clear" to this individual that faith plays an important role in her life, and I'm a bit confused about this devout Catholicism she seems to have experienced as a child. "Responsibility to other people," especially as a devoted Roman Catholic, includes a responsibility to the unborn, something Pro-Choice Pelosi lacks in her worldview.

What are we to make of Pelosi bringing her faith into the public square? Of course, she is suggesting in this quote that she utilizes the words of Assisi to justify an inexplicit use of religious language. But this is, in and of itself, a religious argument for a certain religious language and mission. Simply because she or any other liberal doesn't quote the Bible chapter and verse does not make them secular--secularism truly is a myth. As well, what is most clear is that from her own words she is functioning according to a religious worldview. We may not appreciate its contents and how it works itself out, but she has made it impossible for herself to argue against religious worldviews making themself apparent in the public square.

Do They Know it Came from the Outlet Store? The Ethics of Worship and Shopping

Today I was listening to Alistair Begg talk about women and their adornments. (1 Timothy 2:9) While its one thing to dress "nice" for church, he suggested it is no place to "dress to the nines." Of course there is a bit of relativity in this, but he was trying to make the principled point that worship is about attending ourselves to God and not doing or wearing anything that would be a distraction. He spoke primarily of over dressing for the occasion or dressing in a way that only our husbands should see and appreciate.

I frequent many websites and blogs of womens speakers and one in particular grabbed my attention recently, Begg's sermon bringing it back to my mind. Her focus in the particular post I was reading was advice on how to buy expensive label clothing without the cost. These would be the labels that are sewn in to the clothing and sold in Saks Fifth Avenue and elite boutiques, where a pair of sandals cost as much as my car payment.

At first, I thought it was cool advice...scour Goodwill, look for damaged items in the stores (to repair yourself) and shop the outlets. How exciting it is to look and feel as if you spent a million dollars on yourself! Think again.

What is the testimony of the million-dollar-look? While it may have literally cost you only pennies to own, it can cost you a lot more. The motive in obtaining expensive labels at discount prices is to give the impression that you spent a lot of money and that your outward appearance is worth such an expenditure. Is that really the impression we want to give? Granted, there are casual items that can be purchased, even at Saks, but today's image-driven culture knows exactly how much was on the original price tag.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Join a Movement: Christian Women Bloggers Network

We talk about many things: parenting, philosophy, cooking, theology, music, pop culture, Scripture, and much more. But in the spirit of Dorothy Sayers, we may differ in a great many ways, but we find similarities as human and in the experience of womanhood.

As Christian women bloggers, join the new network that will bring us together in our sameness and our differences as we connect in the blogosphere and face to face. Be watching for a network gathering in the not so distant future!

The "Desperate" Women of Evangelicalism

Housewives we all are not, but according to Stephen Arterburn, well-know Christian counselor and founder of the Women of Faith conference movement, we are a desperate, needy bunch.

In an interview posted by Michael Paulson of the Boston Globe (July 25, 2008) in the Articles of Faith blog, Arterburn was asked if the Women of Faith conferences serve as method of evangelism. He replied, "I call it an inspirational conference. We're trying to inspire women that are in big trouble to hang on. We try to inspire them to live the life that God intended them to live."

Does the fact that around 400,000 women each year attend these conferences provide validity to his assertion that these women are in "big trouble?" Or perhaps this is one of the most dominant movements within the evangelical community that vasts amounts of women have access to.

Whatever motivates women to attend, it is clear that within the subculture of women's ministry, women have been convinced that they are in "big trouble." Motivational and self-help books dominate the women's section in Christian bookstores, women's ministries focus in on her need for encouragement and support, and if I were to take a survey, I'm confident that counseling programs would represent the bulk of advanced degrees held by women's ministry leaders.

It might be that women are in constant need of these self-help resources (books, conferences, etc.) because they are actually in need of something deeper will take them through the difficult times. The therapeutic culture of the church functions such that a solid theology is secondary to addressing the day to day issues we face. In other words, knowing God becomes a response to our "big trouble" instead of preparation for loving God and living in general. When relationships are pursued primarily for what one can get out of it, the relationship suffers.

Though well intentioned, I am concerned that Arterburn's comment and this therapeutic culture of women's ministry perpetuates an attitude of helplessness among Christian women. We ought to envision a ministry that develops women in such a way that their spiritual maturity, their relationship with God, is her ultimate resource in times of need. An anemic women's ministry will always need to be therapeutic. A theologically healthy ministry will produce disciples who naturally replicate and find their needs met at the feet of Jesus, and naturally among one another as Titus 2 models. This isn't to devalue counseling as I know how important it is, but the ministry to women in the church must first be Cross-centered. Knowing God makes it possible for women to help themselves.

Blog Talk: Living the Cross Centered Life

Tonite at church is week 3 of our book discussion group, reading Mahaney's "Living the Cross Centered Life." The last couple of weeks have been very busy, having had a loss in our family. So this is my first post on the book since introducing it a few weeks ago.

On page 99, Mahaney writes,

"You're being laid off at work. The test came back...you've got cancer. You're baby-I'm sorry, he's dead. It's a fallen world, and therefore we will all suffer. So we must prepare, because the ideal time to be educated about suffering is never in the midst of it. We need to be trained prior to suffering, so that we may be fully sustained in suffering."

Preventive care is an area where the church needs to develop more of a vision. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that ministries exist to support those who hurt during their time of pain. But being reactionary only is insufficient. We live in a world of suffering, and that is no cliche. Part of discipleship is helping Believers to navigate this world in all of its complexities.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

NARAL on the Secular/Religious Divide

Yesterday I mentioned in a post that fragmented thinking "has taught people to believe that certain matters are to be addressed by their doctors and certain matters are to be addressed by their pastors." In other words, an error often made within the Christian community is the split between the "spiritual" and everything else. Obviously, Christians aren't alone in this regard, perhaps they are taking cues from NARAL?

On NARAL.org, it states: "If you are facing an unintended pregnancy, it is important that you talk about your feelings and emotions with someone you trust, be that a family member, a close friend or a member of the clergy. It is also important that you consult a health care professional to discuss your options."

Did you catch that? You can talk about your feelings and emotions with your clergy--not the truth, but your feelings and emotions. The role of clergy in this circumstance is purely therapeutic where the role of the health care professional is about the facts, the "options." This fact/feeling divide is grounded in assumptions about the nature of religion, that it has nothing to contribute to the decision at hand. By relegating religious leaders to the domain of emotions, it deems them irrelevant to any discussion related to the fate of the pregnant woman and the unborn child. As well, it assumes that abortion is primarily a medical decision and that there are no spiritual dimensions to the situation. They have determined, as an organization focused on "health care," that philosophical/theological reflection has no place in discussing "the options."

It also needs to be pointed out that they believe in the myth of the purely secular, that they and abortion providers have no worldview commitments.

So you're wondering why this is news. It isn't to me, but for some, it needs to be clarified that the worldview being expressed here has a view of religion as fiction, or something created by culture. For them, life begins only at birth because that is when a person begins to be enculturated. The meaning of life isn't found in anything metaphysical, but in the influence of culture who has created meaning for itself. Until birth, there is no meaning, rendering preborn life meaningless.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Staking a Claim: Women, Theology, & Bioethics

Dorothy Sayers, theologian, lecturer, author of detective fiction, and friend to C.S. Lewis, responded to the question of what is a “woman’s point of view” as it pertains to literature and finance. She said “…don’t be silly. You might as well ask what is the female angle on an equilateral triangle.”[1] The point to be taken from this exchange is that for those things which are a matter of basic fact, there is only one perspective and that is a human perspective. As it pertains to other matters, Sayers continues,

“…I prefer to think that women are human and differ in opinion like other human beings…you can not ask for ‘the woman’s point of view,’ but only for the woman’s special knowledge…’”[2]

Women today have differing points of view in matters of bioethics, yet the same experience of womanhood, though always with some exceptions. But the most dominate expression of this experience, this “special knowledge,” is not from the voice of evangelical women who, as theologians, can provide meaning and communicate hope, but from secular feminism. This is not to suggest that there are no evangelical women engaging in theological dialogue, but as it pertains to being an influential, prophetic voice in bioethics—in the academy, church, and in popular culture—few women address bioethical matters in this way. A cross-centered evangelical bioethic offered through the theological voice and experience of women can serve as an apologetic for a Christian worldview, helping to put to rest the suspicion and charges of female oppression by evangelicalism and evangelical bioethics that are often made by secular feminism, charges that view human autonomy as the highest value. In society and within the community of evangelical bioethics, woman as theologian offers a unique and fresh perspective to all levels of discussion, from academic scholarship and education to more public activist roles.

Secular Feminist Bioethics
Women’s issues, especially those related to women’s health and bioethics including abortion, pregnancy, contraception, and reproductive technologies have by default, come under the domain of secular feminism in popular culture. For years, since the second wave of feminism leading to Roe v. Wade until now, these women’s issues have been addressed primarily by secular feminist voices, and by specifically feminist bioethics. Academic journals like The International Journal to Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, blogs like the Women’s Bioethics Project, and popular organizations like NOW and the Feminist Majority exist to develop the next generation in the academy and in popular culture. The website of Women’s Bioethics Project states

Women’s health concerns have always been at the core of the Women’s Bioethics Project’s work. Moving beyond narrow conceptions of women’s health, we will be focusing on issues such as aging, women’s participation in medical research, the impact of traditional care giving roles on women’s lives, and end-of-life decision making. We have a series of initiatives planned to help bring these issues to the attention of the media, increase women’s involvement, and impact public policy.

It is clear that the focus women’s issues is expanding beyond what has been traditionally conceived of as important to women—contraception, abortion rights, infertility, reproductive technologies, and so on. And while feminist bioethics are expanding, with the persuasive power of mythical neutrality, evangelical women as theological bioethicists have yet to speak prominently in the theological academy, church, and in culture to these issues. With all of these voices speaking to women of all ages, and with women eagerly listening, it has to be asked, where are the theological voices of evangelical women? In there book, Living on the Boundaries: Evangelical Women, Feminism, and the Theological Academy, Pohl and Creegan ask similarly, “where are the good women?”[3] The gender discussions within evangelical circles are no doubt a contributing factor to the scarcity of evangelical women as theological bioethicists. But whether complementarian or egalitarian as it relates to women’s roles in the church and family, there is ample support in Scripture for women to be a strong voice in the academy, church and culture without concern for compromising conservative views of gender roles.

Staking a Claim Among Women
One might wonder why theologically-informed female voices need to be available as prominent voices in the church, academy and culture. There are no new metaphysical truths to be uncovered, we have a grasp on what the bible teaches on human dignity and the great commandment to love our neighbor, so why does the gender of the messenger have any relevance? Aren’t the prominent, sound voices of evangelical men in bioethics enough? I am especially thankful for all those I have and continue to learn from in the field, but I also see the gap of influence of women on other women – and on men, who, as a member of the human race, experiences life a bit differently. The way to answer the question about the importance of women’s voices is to see the women who have sought women’s voices due to their “special knowledge,” their experience. The female evangelical theologian in bioethics can offer a fresh and unique perspective, not because she offers new knowledge on the basis of her womanhood, but because she identifies with the same joys and pains of half of the people in our culture. The previously mentioned organizations have a great deal of influence in our culture not because they force their message on women or anyone else, but because women want to hear from them. Women are listening to these women, and these women come from all parts of society including the church. Even further, the fragmentation of faith and reason has led to further splits in our thinking, and quite noticeably between health and reproduction and our spirituality. Concerns about women’s health in the evangelical church often receives limited preemptive attention because this fragmentation has taught people to believe that certain matters are to be addressed by their doctors and certain matters are to be addressed by their pastors.

Crucial to the future of evangelical bioethics is the proactive willingness to develop theologically informed women bioethicists for work in the seminary, in the church, and in culture. Women continue to dominate church membership—60% as recently reported by Barna—and continue to enter into higher education in increasing numbers. Evangelical women who desire theological training find themselves in strange territory, one stating “I guess I’ll be too liberal for most evangelical institutions and too conservative for most mainline schools.”[4]

The Scriptures contain numerous stories of women’s experiences as it relates to matters of reproduction and even end of life scenarios. There are obviously profound theological implications of these stories—the barrenness of Hannah and Sarah, the end-of-life grief of Mary and Martha, sisters to Lazarus—as well, there are practical lessons to be communicated to women in our world today. God cares about the details and he is not uninvolved in our lives. For evangelical women in theology today, the task is to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ by taking ownership of these bioethical issues that have thus far been dominated by secular feminism.

The scope of this discussion is focused on the value of theologically-informed women’s voices for the sake of women, though it does not preclude the importance of her influence on men. But in terms of God’s calling on the ministry to women, I believe we can find direction for this work in Titus 2.

Typically viewed as instruction for how older women are to mentor younger women in keeping the home, I believe we can with all integrity see the broader implications of this passage in our contemporary culture. Titus 2:3-5 states:

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Bioethical issues never operate in a vacuum, and a decision—whether related to reproductive technologies or end of life questions—will always involve members of one’s own family. For the woman as theologian and bioethicist, with her special knowledge as woman, daughter, and perhaps as wife and mother, has the opportunity to teach “what is good” to women in the academy, church, and culture. But we must be willing to take our place in culture and no longer be willing for women’s issues to be owned by the voice of secular feminism. Through this, we may see the new trends develop in society at large in how we view human nature, life, the unborn, and the disabled. Ultimately, then, women as theological bioethicists have one more way to advance God’s kingdom to his glory. WFC

---

[1] Are Women Human? Dorothy Sayers Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (November 15, 2005) p. 41

[2] Ibid, p. 43

[3] Living on the Boundaries: Evangelical Women, Feminism And the Theological Academy. InterVarsity Press, June 2006. Page 31

[4] Ibid, 41.

LIVE BLOGCAST: Health Care & the Common Good: Dr. Edmund Pellegrino (Final Thoughts)

All the dimensions of politics and the health care system are designed to care for the individual. Health is a desirable end, medical care is a need.

Should religion be engaged in the dialectical discourse? As Pellegrino discusses this I'm reminded of the works of H. Tristram Engelhardt discussing the role of religion in the public square and the notion of agreement among "enemies."

Autonomy started as a negative right but has become from a right of neglect to a right to demand treatment to the extent of micromanagement at the bedside. While wanting to preserve the autonomy of the patient, we also need to consider the autonomy of the health professional.

In clinical ethics, there need to be absolutes. Without them, morality will be left to the courts.
Augustine says 'an unjust law is no law.' Today conscience clauses are under threat and the value-free doctor is the most desirable.

Pellegrino very interestingly recommends bedside clinical ethics education. It takes a socratic approach, takes it out of the abstract and into reality. It seems this approach brings the clinician into a more intimate relationship with the patient.

"Inane thinking" about the hippocratic oath that pervades bioethics today. Pellegrino says that the hippocratic oath/ethos are not the whole of medical ethics. It is a statement of morality.

LIVE BLOGCAST: Health Care & the Common Good: Dr. Peter Lawler

Peter Augustine Lawler is Dana Professor and Chair of the Department of Government and International Studies at Berry College. He teaches courses in political philosophy and American politics and has won several awards from Berry for doing so.

A truly progressive society would subordinate technological process to personal progress.

John Locke - "My body is my property"
Autonomy trumps in our culture.

Locke - In an individualistic society, the only hold the older people have on the young is money.

Immediate crisis in health care is productivity over care giving.

Care should be given in the most personal way possible, knowing that each human being is more than a human being with interests.

LIVE BLOGCAST: Health Care & the Common Good: Solutions (Dean Clancy - Continued)

Question:
What about illegal immigrants and health care?
Response: Federal mandate that any hospital that takes Medicare must care for anyone who enters ER.

Question:
Would you put a cap on medical malpractice suits?
Response: Would all caps be just? More consideration must be given to the victims of medical malfeasance.

LIVE BLOGCAST: Health Care & the Common Good: Solutions (Dean Clancy - Continued)

Obama's Health Care Plan
1. Mandate employer coverage
Subsidize covereage or through payroll tax
2. Expand public coverage
Create a private "Medicare" option to compete with private plans
Would cost 30% less than other insurers and attract 40 million enrollees
Expand Medicaid and SCHIP eligibility
140-150 million people, or about half the US population would be on Medicare or Medicaid
3. Regulate private insurance
Define a minimum basic benefit package
Create a federal health care watchdog called the Exchange.
Mandate coverage of children
Regulate insurers' premiums and profits.

McCain's Health Care Plan
1. Create a voucher-like system for private insurance
Eliminate tax exclusion ($150 billion per year)
Create a refundable health insurance tax credit of $2500 for an individual, $5000 for a family
2. Enhance price competition by permitting purchase of health insurance across state lines
3. Create a Guaranteed Access Plan subsidy for people with pre0existing conditions
Assistance based on income level
Impose "reasonable limits on premiums"
4. Expand Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)

Differences
Obama would grow public programs and control costs through greater regulation and administered pricing
McCain would grow the indivudual market and control costs through greater competition among insurers

Similarities
Both plans would bring more cost control to the system
Both plans claim to build on the existing system
Bot plans claim to promote affordability and choice
Both plans would almost certainly have the effect of greatly shrinking or eliminating the employer-based system.

Jim Capretta's Four-Point Plan
Cap tax exclulsion, create limited tax credit
Give states regulatory flexibility, with state "exchanges"
Convert Medicare into a form of defined contribution
Implement incrementally

Dean Clancy Additions
Completely relieve states of Medicaid spending burden
Combine Medicare and Medicaid into a single federal program based on poverty and disability rather than age. No more Medicare benefits for millionaires and billionaires.

LIVE BLOGCAST: Health Care & the Common Good: Solutions (Dean Clancy)

The Common Good
Definitions:
1. The good of the whole community
2. The highest good for each of us
3. Communal virtue and happiness, built upon the virtue and happiness of individuals, families, towns, etc.

Levels
1. First order questions (what is right or just?)
2. Second order questions, what should be done?
3. Both sets of questions require debate, deliberation and participation by citizens.

Dean will get into Obama and McCain's health care proposals at some point into the discussion, be sure to check back for more details on that.

Problems in health care
1. Rising costs and coverage gaps
2. Changing roles and declining professionalism of caregivers
3. Ethical quandaries arising from science and technology
4. Cultural and political problems

Clancy points out that medical inflation must end and that government's share is about 1/2 and growing.

LIVE BLOGCAST: Ancillary Care Perspective: Deadly Denial of Dental Care (Case Study)

Moderator: Dr. Claretta Dupree

Panelists: Eileen Clark, Pat Emery, James Grear, Rochelle Moore, Barbara White

Overall health requires good oral health. In what way can society provide more access to dental care. Where does the moral obligation to be concerned with the common good come into play? Is there a professional obligation or does it land squarely in the domain of Christian values.

This has been an enlightening discussion on the topic of dental health, leading to more worldview questions. Christians don't have the corner on benevolence, but the Christian worldview makes sense of the good, gives it meaning.

If we can't get our community leaders and key people actively involved in advocating for those in need, how can we help? It isn't just about Christians, advocacy needs to be a community solution. And the solution can't always be about working harder, but worker smarter in as much as existing systems permit, though recognizing shifts must eventually occur in the existing systems.

LIVE BLOGCAST: Health Care in the United States: Strengths, Weaknesses, and the Way Forward (James C. Capretta, Ethics and Public Policy Center)

Ethics & Public Policy Center.

US health care is employment based. Employer participation protects private sector orientation and innovation.

If you get down to it, what's happening is the ability to organize care for the patient is difficult.

Pushing health care down to the state regulatory level is crucial.

LIVE BLOGCAST: Professionalism in Peril, Dr. Gene Rudd

When we lose sight of our core values, we risk moral meltdown in health care.

Professional adultery-medicine has its mistresses. More physicians now are employees rather than partners in private practice. Do those institution share our moral obligations? Are patients merely customers?

Autonomy-We have given it such priority that it comes without warnings. In a relativistic society we have a moral obligation to communicate the "thou shall not's."

Transition from covenant to contract - a move from moral obligation to legal obligation. Trust is an essential part of health care, but trust is eroding.

Dr. Gene Rudd is from the Christian Medical & Dental Association and provided a very insightful plenary talk on professionalism in health care and what that means from the perspective of our Judeo-Christian tradition.

LIVE BLOGCAST: Patient Perspective (Clinical Ethics): "Common Good" Case for Today

Moderator: Robert Orr, MD
Panel: Sam Casey, JD; John Dunlop, MD; Pat Emery, MSN, RN; Daniel McConchie, MA; and Pastor Keith Plummer, PhD (Cand)

Clinical ethics looks at the patient with the obligations of beneficence and compassion.

Case: Peter is 10 3/4 years old. 2 months - severe cardiomyopathy. 7 months received heart transplant. 27 months, severe rejection episode with cardiac arrest and hypoxic brain damage. Now he has markedly diminished renal function. Transplant? sever coronoary artery disease. Re-transplant?

KP - Are there other children?
RO - Mom is single, no siblings

PE - What does Mom want?
RO - let's assume she will want to pursue these things?

DM - What is the prospect for longterm dialysis?
RO - Covered by medicaid,

JD - Other issues with new organs?
RO - Kidney's might quit earlier than heart, likely not a combined transplant. Each transplant has a high chance for success.

SC - if successful, what is the longterm prognosis?
RO - Rest of body seems to be functioning well. Nothing in particular anticipating to take his life in the forseeable future.

RO - Mom wanted more education to care for him. Son is in institution and she cares for him on weekends. Mom content with his level of function.

DM - Child's level of cognition?
RO - Nonverbal. First able to sit at age 4. now he can walk with assistance. Can drink from a cup but needs assistance with self-feeding. Is in diapers, doesn't speak. Tries to mimic sounds. Loves music.

PE - Mother's support system?
RO - well connected

PE - mother's level of education?
RO - high school/college

SC - Concern: child is profoundly disabled. Other child on transplant list are otherwise normal. Are their listing criteria?
RO - Criteria: Adequate, cognitive attention.

SC - does this listing violate American's with Disabilities Act?
RO - What if this child were in PVS?

SC - if the child is PVS, that doesn't mean that the AwDA doesn't apply.
RO - Allocate upon some neutral criteria? Is there discriminatory criteria that the law points out?

Other questions/comments:
Something within this child that keeps him alive.

How much would all this cost. Public money that might be spent on more otherwise healthy children?

Has he had seizures? No

What is the relationship between his suffering and what he might have to gain?
Is that appropriate given his cognitive state?

Does he recognize his mother and respond differently to other people?

Is he in crisis right now? (no)

...the discussion continues...

LIVE BLOGCAST: Health Care & the Common Good: Dr. Edmund Pellegrino (continued)

Question: Has there been any official reaction to the article by Steven Pinker on the uselessness of human dignity?

Response: (Qualified as own opinions) Not a very intellectual engagement of ideas.

Question: Systems are not the answer...?

Response: First order questions are ethical/theological. IOW, what does it take for a society to pursue the common good? It's never been defined in the public arena. So which systems are helpful with regard to their ethical content. It's about getting clarification on the ethical implications of systems.

Question: The obligations to provide health care for people in need and suffering....how far does this extend?

Response: One of the conditions would have to be that any medical treatment that we're going to use or include...is going to have to be proven as effective. But are we committed to health care as a common good as an ethical concern or economic concern? Health care cannot be a commodity and the marketplace has no heart. We give it a heart by thinking about our obligations.

LIVE BLOGCAST: Health Care & the Common Good: Dr. Edmund Pellegrino (continued)

Mark 1:34 And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. And he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

"We have one virtue, that is the virtue of charity." Dr. Edmund Pellegrino

"With ethics alone you'll neither satisfy God nor fulfill your intrinsic possibilities. God is the Holy One. Goodness is one of the names of him whose essence is inexpressible. And he desires not only obedience to the commands of the 'abstract good,' but also your personal affection. More, he wants you to risk love and and the new existence that springs from it. Only in love is genuine fulfillment of the ethical possible." The Lord by Romano Guardini
First order question of a good society, obligations to see that people have what they need.

The notion that we are interconnected as human beings, we have responsibilities to each other. What happens to one happens to the rest of us. Whenever we can do something to recognize that we are members of a conjoined society, that is why the the common good is so crucially important.

Closing statement: Do we want to be passive bystanders? Do we not want to contribute to the relief of those who suffer? Is the picture we give....do we want to be seen as doing the Pontius Pilate act and not taking responsibility for others? What kind of society do we want to be?

LIVE BLOGCAST: Health Care & the Common Good: Dr. Edmund Pellegrino (continued)

All human beings have an inherent dignity that comes from the fact that they have been created equally. Agreed upon by the United Nations. The common good does not discriminate because we are all human beings.

What are some conditions for the common good? Everyone needs them, and someone needs to provide them. These are some elements

1. Security
2. Privacy
3. Education
4. Tolerance
5. Interaction
6. Freedom
7. Health
8. Peace
9. Medical care
10. Interaction

Objections to health care as the common good: why should we care for those who don't care for themselves? We must allow for the flourishing of every human being.

Can we be part of the human community if we are denied health care as a common good?
Benevolence is more important to a good society than autonomy. Not helping the sick undermines the kind of society we want to be (Adam Smith)

The function of a society as a whole is to preserve the above elements for a human being to flourish as a human being.

LIVE BLOGCAST: Health Care & the Common Good: Dr. Edmund Pellegrino

Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, Dr. Pellegrino begins the conference with thoughts on the state of health care in the U.S. The debate about health care ethics in America has gone on for a long time and for the most part it has been argued in terms of economics, finance and practicalities - all important. But Pellegrino suggests that maybe these questions are secondary to other ethical matters. What obligations do we have to the ill? What does a good society owe to it's citizens? How do we judge among the programs available that we are meeting society's needs? How do we determine that we are a good society in this regard?

Health care for the common good, what does it mean? Many people move from reason to emotion in addressing this question. Pellegrino goes through 3 theories, Aristotelean, Liberal, and Communitarian perspectives on the common good.

Live Blogging: CBHD Bioethics Conference

Beginning tomorrow night, I'll be live blogging the 15th ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON BIOETHICS at Trinity International University. The Conference, Health Care & the Common Good, will feature speakers Edmund Pellegrino, MD, Robert Orr, MD, Claretta Dupree, PhD, Peter Lawler, PhD, and others.

Bioethics & the Family

Many will remember July 12, 2008 as the day that Tony Snow and Bobby Murcer died. Each of them popular for their careers had also endured long battles with cancer. Most likely, no will remember -- or even know -- that on this same day my dad, Fred Brendemuehl, also died. He was 82.

Every person is created in the image of God and has dignity. As I watch my dad take each breath I was happy that he was alive, knowing that soon his breathing would probably become more labored and living more difficult. It was unclear to me if he knew we were there with him, we tried to let him know. I think I saw him smile once. But during his suffering he never lacked dignity.

I've always known the practical implications of bioethics, I never expected for them to present themselves these last few days. The "palliative care" team at the UW hospital was eager to take things to the next phase. The desire to keep dad comfortable during his last days or hours was overshadowed by those who simply believed in ending the life of the sufferer. On day 2, withdrawal of nutrition and hydration was brought to my family as an immanent option. In all fairness, a feeding tube had not yet been inserted, but the palliative care team made no efforts to educate my family on the rationale for their recommendations. Reflecting back on those moments, I recall these 3 professional women speaking in a soft tone with compassionate words of kindness, discussing the ways they could possibly make dad comfortable should he be in any pain. Moving from his comfort to his death was without segue, and in my opinion, the height of arrogance.

I also know that my dad's advance directive was signed by him on July 8, 2008. This is 4 days before he died and during the time he was having neurological difficulties. I'm not suggesting he never thought about the circumstances of his death before this time, I know he did. But I'm unsure how much he actually understood about "tube feedings" which was indicated on the advance directive as something he did not want if found to be terminally ill.

Overall, I believe my dad was well cared for in the hospital and I think he felt the love of his family around him. But it is even more clear to me that bioethical decision making happens to every day people, it is not just a topic for the halls of academia.

Hearing Her: Evangelical Women's Voices in Bioethics

When we think about women's voices speaking to any particular issue in society, it's easy to assume those voices belong to secular feminism and not evangelical theology. This isn't to suggest that there are no evangelical women theologians involved in important areas like bioethics, but the numbers are low and have little bearing on what is referred to as "women' issues." This is a topic I will be speaking about next week at CBHD's summer bioethics conference.

Part of the problem is internal. Evangelicalism doesn't provide much space for the female theologian as she is almost always relegated exclusively to matters of the home (if she is married).. The debates over roles in the church and family limit the likelihood that a woman would enter into the theological academy, and as a result her voice is silent and she has little influence on other women in church and culture.

Feminists and other women's rights activists have a significant voice in public debate largely due to the fact that the Christian community is viewed as being oppressive of women, something that is not entirely true. But the absence of female voices can feed into that generalization.

Grounded in a theology committed to a historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture, evangelical women can bring a voice of faith, reason and experience to bioethics issues. The experienced joy of womanhood within the framework of a Christian worldview is an invaluable resource for the church in ministry to women in church and society at large.

Elevating Theological Reflection in Women's Ministry

The stated mission if the Foundation for Women of Faith in Culture is to play a role in the spiritual growth of Christian women through biblical, theological, and worldview education. Implicit in this is the belief that the Scriptures are God's revelation to man and that it is God's desire for us to understand what is communicated therein.

Now obviously, there are are debates about the meaning of some of that which is contained in Scripture, and these differences logically lead to denominationalism. We may not like denominations, but as we search the scriptures and are convinced of their meaning, it makes no sense that we would reside in a setting that is unwelcoming of certain held beliefs. Some of the more minor issues that are often a source of division include the frequency of communion and the style of worship. More significant issues might include the form of government espoused by a church, the manifestation of certain spiritual gifts, the involvement of women in the congregation, and the meaning of baptism. While I don't believe any person's salvation is hinged on what they believe about any of these issues (with the exception of baptism), we must not reduce theological reflection to the latest "hot" theological topic that has no real significance. Nor should we be left to assume that we can't possibly get to the truth on theological issues simply because thoughtful people differ. The message that is sent is twofold: 1) it is impossible to get to the truth of complicated biblical passages and 2) the truth of those passages doesn't ultimately make that much of a difference.

Helping women to think theologically is my life's passion because I know personally how knowing God, his relationship to his creation, and how he functions in the world makes sense out of my own life. Knowing that nothing is outside of God's control gives me great comfort when life presents great difficulties, and knowing that I am saved because God prepared my heart to understand the things of the spirit (1 Cor. 2:14) leaves me in complete awe of his absolute power. The fact is, every time we do Bible study and reflect on its teachings, we are doing theology. And there are no limits to what we can reflect on in Scripture and occasionally we bump into areas of theology that require a bit more intellectual elbow grease than we are accustomed to using. Unfortunately, a recent teaching by Beth Moore and her series on Romans only seems to intimidate and discourage women from the process of doing theology in hopes of locating truth, though to her credit, she says she hopes women will study the issues of systematic theology on their own. You can listen to the audio for yourself here.

The following are comments transcribed from the audio on the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. It refers to whichever theological box one might espouse:

...we will be tempted in every class we’re in, every sermon we hear….everything’s got to fit into it because it’s so important it’s going to be how the heart of salvation expresses itself in the hearts of man….we’ll hear everything according to this. I beg you not to do it....I beg us not to decide what we really think and make everything have to line up with that. I beg you like I begged myself that you and I are going to have to go into this with some kind of openness.

Beth Moore's assumption is that if you think systematically, your tendency is going to be to fit new found beliefs into a given system rather than allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves. That may be a danger for some people, but there is also the element of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, and if we see a contradiction in Scripture--not a paradox--then we have to search out other areas of Scripture to help make sense out of things.

Beth suggests at one point that as it pertains to the Calvinist/Arminian debate, she would like to be free to put her own doctrinal points together, thus creating another system.

I don’t want to be in either one, I want to pick and choose….I want to mix and match my own. And still we come up with our own thing. There is all manner of modification of Calvinism. I want you to hear in Arminianism….a real leaning of mine….Arminians believe that God’s omniscient foreknowledge is the basis of unconditional election. I want to believe that how God makes his choices is because of what he knows.

Another area I'd like to focus your attention on has to do with Jacobus Arminius and his relationship with Beza. She states:

One reason we have so much debate is because both of these schools of thought can be found in Protestantism. That’s our deal, we can’t agree on anything… It’s absolutely exhausting. A dutch pastor, his teacher Theodore Beza was John Calvin’s chosen…he was his chosen, his hand-picked successor. Beza was Arminius’ teacher… but he could not accept that God was the author of sin...he could not go there. Mainline hyper-calvinistic thought still has to come back there, does not mean, let me be clear-God is absolutely sinless, but saying he is still the originator of it, and the author of it..

The above transcription from the audio deserves to be heard as I admit, the punctuation may cause some inflection to go missing. Be sure to listen to it on your own. But I am concerned that her teaching on the Calvinist/Arminian debate moved into the area of hypercalvinism without explanation, creating a logical fallacy. This is entirely unhelpful to the listener who lacks familiarity with theology, or only has minimal understanding of this timeless debate. And as it relates to the problem of evil and God's sovereignty, her discussion irresponsibility lacks the precision required to effectively discuss these matters.

Beth has a large audience of women paying close attention to her teachings of Scripture, reflecting with her theologically and integrating into life the truths they are discovering together. I hope this particular presentation of Romans 9 causes women to pursue a greater understanding of God--doing theology--than was encouraged by this particular message. She said it would be good for her listeners to search these matters out on their own, but she spoke in a way that communicated it ultimately didn't matter that much, that it would be incredibly exhausting and one could go for years without really knowing anything at all. She concluded her discussion with the following quote by A.W. Tozer which she says she quotes "many times":

God will not hold us responsible to understand the mysteries of election, predestination and the divine sovereignty. The best and safest way to deal with these truths is to raise our eyes to God and in deepest reverence say, "O Lord, Thou knowest." Those things belong to the deep and mysterious Profound of God's omniscience. Prying into them may make theologians, but it will never make saints. link

True enough that there are areas of Scripture which will never make complete sense given our incomplete knowledge, but our willingness to live and love mystery is not a concession to doing theology, it is part of the process. We don't entirely understand election, predestination, and divine sovereignty, but we know from Scripture that they are true. Women in the church need not avoid theology, we need to engage it. As mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters, there are people in our life who need to hear from us on the truths contained in Scripture. By conceding to the idea that we can't get to any truth, we leave ourselves enslaved to an immature faith.