Books

Mine Eyes Have Seen the Gory

Two historians tell why Christian thought went AWOL during the civil war.

sansara / Getty Images

Historians have a formidable task when they try to explain why something happened. The task becomes even harder when they ask why something did not happen. Undaunted, Mark Noll and Harry Stout take this more difficult tack in their new books on the Civil War: Why did American Christians not think more deeply or act more ethically as the country faced bloody sectional conflict?

This type of history first requires demonstrating that the non-event could and should have occurred. Both authors identify moral voices crying in the wilderness—Abraham Lincoln (though he could be hard-hearted as well as humble), a few circumspect pastors and journalists, even Union Gen. George McClellan (Stout does not ascribe his infamous reticence to incompetence but to observance of the rules of limited war). Noll also brings in the never before studied perspectives of Europeans, Catholic and Protestant, who more clearly saw the flaws in American thinking about slavery, warfare, theology, and biblical interpretation. Stout cites the centuries-old Christian tradition of just-war theory.

Theology Lost the War

Next, "why not" history must prove that the expected development did not, in fact, occur. Here, Noll and Stout contend with a long tradition that celebrates the revivals in North and South during the war, extols the Christian virtues of selected generals, and uncritically lauds Lincoln's prophetic vision. Widespread willingness to go easy on the North also complicates matters.

Neither Noll nor Stout would deny that emancipation constitutes a moral trump card, but this noble act—undertaken only in the middle of the conflict, as Lincoln sought to muster support for a transition to total war—does not atone for what both authors consider the North's many other sins.

Noll locates those other sins in the realm of theology. He finds that, despite the profound questions raised by the war, Christian thought mainly tracked in the ruts laid down in previous decades. Religious speakers on all sides shot proof texts at each other while nuanced Christian thinking on race and economics failed to gain an audience. Northern abolitionists receive special criticism because they were the group most apt to let their convictions overrule inconvenient Bible passages. Nobody won the conflict Noll describes; Scripture and sound theology lost.

Stout acknowledges that "the right side won" the war but finds much to criticize in the way both sides waged their campaigns. He amasses evidence from sermons, the religious and secular presses, public and private statements by political leaders, songs, personal correspondence, and battlefield practices to paint a dismal picture of growing bloodlust and self-righteousness. It was as if every sector of society competed to valorize its own cause and vilify the enemy. In this grim competition, sadly, the clergy often won.

The Infantry of Patriotism

Only after demonstrating that what should have happened did not can the authors turn to the question of why. For Noll, Civil War partisans were simply too American and too evangelical in their insistence that biblical texts and common sense made all truth clear to everyone. This narrow epistemology offered no way to arbitrate conflicting interpretations or to question such "common sense" ideas as white supremacy. Thus, the pervasive biblicism and egalitarian spirit that created the country also created the conflict.

Stout's answer is both more distressing and less satisfying. He pinpoints Civil War Christians' moral blindness not in their cultural milieu but in the war itself. As casualties mounted, cries for revenge and a throbbing need to justify staggering costs drowned out the whisper of conscience. By the end of 1862, Stout writes, "The infantry of patriotism, reinforced with the artillery of mounting hatred, rendered both sides mindless killing machines bent on destruction." And the war would last over two more years.

Stout's conclusion is unsettling. If 19th-century warmongers' faults lay not in their context but in themselves, then one has to wonder whether every society—despite or because of its piety—is prone to the same grisly excesses. But another concern also arises. Stout has allowed his subjects' faults to subsume their selves. In demonstrating how participation in total war dehumanized Civil War Americans, Stout dehumanizes them further, depicting their actions as morally inexplicable.

Perhaps this danger frets any high-stakes moral history. The risk is lower for Noll, because he limits his critique to elites. Stout, by contrast, indicts an entire generation. And despite his valiant introductory attempt to separate "moral as ethically weighted" from "moral as ethically correct," he reflexively holds discourse of the first type to the standard of the second. Stout argues persuasively that the enormity of the war, as well as the general shallowness of thinking about it, requires condemnation, and he backs up his judgment amply. Still, one cannot help feeling that even the immoral deserve gentler handling.

Elesha Coffman is a doctoral student at Duke University and a senior editor of Christian History & Biography.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

The Civil War as a Theological Crisis and Upon the Altar of the Nation is available from Amazon.com and other book retailers.

More information about Upon the Altar of the Nation is available from Viking Press.

More information about The Civil War as a Theological Crisis is available from The University of North Carolina Press.

A webcast of Mark Noll discussing the Bible in American public life, including much discussion of the Civil War is available from the Library of Congress.

Christian History & Biography devoted an issue to The Untold Story of Christianity & the Civil War.

More articles from Books & Culture on the Civil War are available from booksandculture.com.

For book lovers, our 2006 CT book awards are available online, along with our book awards for 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, and 1997, as well as our Books of the Twentieth Century. For other coverage or reviews, see our Books archive and the weekly Books & Culture Corner.

Ideas

The AIDS Team

Principled collaboration by churches is urgently needed to help defeat HIV.

Fifteen-year-old Isaiah Gakuyo from rural Kenya may become the Ryan White of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Ryan White was a hemophiliac exposed to HIV in the 1980s before donated blood was fully screened. The Kokomo, Indiana, teenager famously testified before Congress about his battle against discrimination. “Even at church, people would not shake my hand,” he said two years before his death in 1990.

Gakuyo’s tragic life story of losing both parents to AIDS, being infected with HIV, and living in deep poverty is only exceeded by the senseless act of his destitute uncle and guardian this past spring. The uncle killed his nephew in a fit of frustration and rage.

“We are all angry at the uncle, but how many of us tried to help him when he was taking care of the boy?” asked Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan activist, according to the Los Angeles Times. Decimated by HIV, Africans are desperate for family-friendly care. Weeks after the killing, Kenyans demonstrated with posters that read, “I Am Positive. Don’t Hate Me.”

Since the first HIV/AIDS case in 1981, we all have come a long way. But HIV has moved faster. Every year for the past 25 years, the death toll has been higher and the case load greater than the year before.

Stop the Trash Talk

Millions of people at risk of HIV infection fall through the best government safety nets, and that’s where Christians acting locally and thinking globally have a leadership role to play. This relational pandemic calls for a morally attentive, relational response. Christians should incarnate the many comparative advantages churches have over secular agencies.

Last year, nine influential Christians worked with the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies to map out how congregations may contribute to the HIV/AIDS fight. Their 76-page report is a stunning achievement based on field research in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

They conclude: “Christian congregations must more effectively provide what they are specially or even uniquely positioned to contribute, and they must also cultivate better connections with groups Christian and secular that work at national or international levels.”

But Christian activists and secular elites are pouring too much effort into fighting each other over HIV prevention.

Faith-based programs frequently face a hostile reception from Western medical experts. There is overheated rhetoric on both sides. Wouldn’t it be better to gather persuasive, reliable evidence of results rather than trash-talking each other?

Principled collaboration provides another way. At its heart is a commitment to define shared interests. The most self-evident shared interest concerns saving lives.

It took years of effort, but finally life-saving, anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs are increasingly available globally. Within the next year, about 3 million people should be on ARVs. Creating, financing, and maintaining drug distribution is a strength of big agencies and national governments. It’s something Christians can endorse.

Yet there are limits to collaboration. It should occur within the confines of an organization’s mission and the intent of its donors. For example, faith-based groups should not give funds to those who oppose their missions.

Quality of life and care for orphans and people living with HIV embody other shared interests. Healthy churches are unrivaled in their comparative advantage of working at the grassroots. Africans have a saying, “Not all are infected, but all are affected.” Specifically, grassroots work includes HIV testing, counseling, preventing mother-to-child transmission, paying school fees for orphans, providing food aid, treating opportunistic infections—and especially weeping with those who weep, and rejoicing with those who rejoice.

In addition, church leaders can model a theology of sexuality that affirms abstinence before marriage and faithfulness after marriage. And our most important and unique contribution remains sharing the gospel that offers forgiveness and the power to change.

Out of the Comfort Zone

Despite our many unique advantages, we cannot defeat this pandemic alone. HIV ministry often calls for out-of-the-comfort-zone teamwork that might include these types of partnerships:

  1. South and north: Christian leaders in the Global South are much more experienced with church-based HIV ministry than many of their northern counterparts.
  2. Faith-based and secular: For instance, a leading secular group, Physicians for Human Rights, aspires to find ways to partner on HIV-prevention efforts with Roman Catholics and evangelicals.
  3. Volunteers and professionals: Experts realize there are not enough pros (or enough money to pay them) to defeat HIV. When professionals train motivated Christian volunteers, effective outreach is multiplied at low cost.

In Lusaka, Zambia, Bishop Joshua H. K. Banda (Assemblies of God) has seen countless families crippled by HIV. In the Oxford report, he said, “One of the greatest challenges we face is the family of the patient. It is simply not enough just to talk to the patient alone. One has to include the whole family in the treatment plan.” Bishop Banda cites an African proverb to help make his point: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”

The HIV pandemic is far in advance of the global response. In 2004, a Lausanne panel meeting in Thailand declared that HIV/AIDS is a world evangelization issue. They said, “At the end of this century, the question will be: Where were you when this diabolical holocaust worked its course in human history?” Let’s not await 2099 to give our answer.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

More Christianity Today coverage of AIDS includes

Rift Opens Among Evangelicals on AIDS Funding | Dobson targets Global Fund, which helps Salvation Army, Youth for Christ, and World Vision. (June 2, 2006)

Speaking Out
Finally, Some Overdue Good News in the Battle Against AIDS | “Global slowing” is about as good as it gets when you’re talking about this disease. (June 1, 2006)

Close Encounters with HIV | Local churches should network in the war against the virus.—A Christianity Today editorial (Jan. 19, 2006)

Warren, Hybels Urge Churches to Wage ‘War on AIDS’ | Hundreds of evangelicals attending Disturbing Voices conference repent, refocus on outreach to outcasts. (Dec. 5, 2005)

On The Record
Why We’re Losing the War Against HIV/AIDS | Harvard’s Edward C. Green says health officials undermine abstinence and fidelity programs in Africa. (March 7, 2005)

Q&A: Deborah Dortzbach | The international director of HIV/AIDS programs at World Relief talks on our progress, and regress, with AIDS. (Aug. 16, 2004)

Cry, the Beloved Continent | Don’t let AIDS steal African children’s future. (March 04, 2004)

Confronting Moral Horror | It’s a witness even the most jaded find impressive. (Feb. 04, 2004)

As Complicated as ABC | Condoms and abstinence can both play a role in AIDS prevention. (Feb. 04, 2004)

Beyond Condoms | To alleviate AIDS, we must sharpen our moral vision. (June 10, 2003)

A Strategy for Progress | Unless prevention of HIV/AIDS becomes a clear priority, things are only going to get worse. (May 2, 2003)

Civics for Gay Activists | We may see more die from HIV/AIDS because gay activists are intolerant. (April 10, 2003)

ABC vs. HIV | Christians back abstinence-fidelity plan against deadly virus. (March 10, 2003)

Books

The Moral Imagination

Morality and religion from Edmund Burke to Lionel Trilling.

Here distinguished historian Gertrude Himmelfarb displays her usual lucidity and good sense. Her range is considerable, encompassing expected figures—Edmund Burke, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Benjamin Disraeli, and John Stuart Mill, for example—but also extending to a superb appreciation of the neglected novelist (and statesman) John Buchan.

THE MORALIMAGINATION:FromEdmund BurketoLionel Trillingby Gertrude HimmelfarbIvan R. Dee288 pp.; $26.00

There’s a theme running just beneath the surface of these essays that can only be fully grasped over the span of the whole book, concerning the relationship between the “moral imagination” and the claims of revealed religion. On the one hand, Himmelfarb expresses sympathy for religion under the sign of tradition. On the other hand, she finds David Hume’s “fear of the practical ‘dangers’ of religion” quite reasonable. After all, Hume “was close enough to the Puritan experience, and a witness in his own day of the Methodist revival … , to feel a lively sense of the power of religion, of the passion it might evoke and the divisive effect it might have upon society and the polity.”

The primness of this is telling. Methodist enthusiasm! Ghastly stuff. Reminds you of those dreadful … evangelicals.

Ah, well. Read on. You’ll not be bored in the company of this penetrating intelligence.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

The Moral Imagination is available from Amazon.com and other book retailers.

More information is available from the publisher, Ivan R. Dee.

For book lovers, our 2006 CT book awards are available online, along with our book awards for 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, and 1997, as well as our Books of the Twentieth Century. For other coverage or reviews, see our Books archive and the weekly Books & Culture Corner.

Pharmacists with No Plan B

Freedom of conscience and ‘reproductive rights’ clash at the local drugstore.

On July 6, 2002, Neil Noesen found himself on the front line of the culture wars. Less than three days after taking a job as a pharmacist at a Kmart in Menomonie, Wisconsin, he received a refill request from University of Wisconsin-Stout student Amanda Renz for the contraceptive Loestrin.

Noesen, a devout Catholic, had always refused to dispense birth control. For six years previous, he had been willing to refer patients seeking contraception to another pharmacist, but a recent trip to Calcutta—where he realized anew that health care is about helping the suffering—had convicted him that this was wrong. “Finally, my conscience caught up to me,” Noesen told CT. “I couldn’t do it anymore. I felt like I was being used by the system, that I was becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution.”

Now back home in Wisconsin, he faced the first real test of his new policy. He told Renz he could not provide Loestrin.

The store’s head pharmacist, who knew Noesen’s concerns, had agreed to personally fill such prescriptions, but he was out of town for the weekend. Renz asked where else she could get the prescription filled. Noesen declined to tell her. Renz went to the local Wal-Mart, but when the pharmacist there attempted to transfer her prescription over the phone, Noesen refused.

The resulting deadlock put Noesen’s name in newspapers around the country and brought the case to the attention of the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing (DRL). Though Noesen had violated no state law or administrative code, DRL’s Pharmacy Examining Board looked into the matter. They found that Noesen was within his rights when he refused to fill the prescription, but that he had not served the public in a “minimally competent manner,” because no procedure was in place to ensure that patients could fill prescriptions to which he objected.

On April 13, 2004, an administrative law judge agreed. She ruled that Noesen must take six credit hours of ethics courses and pay the full costs of the proceedings against him—around $20,000. Noesen’s principled stand cost him dearly.

A Contested Right

Noesen’s case is not an isolated incident. Since 2004, pharmacist refusals have made headlines across the country—and have often spurred local governments into action. In Denton, Texas, three pharmacists were fired from Eckerd after refusing to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a rape victim. Gene Herr told the Associated Press that he “went in the back room and briefly prayed about it” and decided that he could not in good conscience provide the pills, which he believes can cause an abortion. Similar refusals have been reported in Georgia, Alabama, New Hampshire, Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin.

Some states have already acted to limit such refusals. In response to reports that some Chicago pharmacists were refusing to fill certain prescriptions, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed an emergency rule in early 2005 that ordered pharmacies to dispense drugs in a timely manner—no transfers or referrals allowed. Blagojevich argued that the state’s Health Care Right of Conscience Act does not cover pharmacists. He later moved to make the rule permanent, saying there should be “No delays. No hassles. No lectures” (CT, June 2005, p. 29).

In 2005 alone, state legislatures considered more than 20 bills aimed at sorting out the situation. Some would force pharmacists to dispense all legal prescriptions, while others would allow pharmacists to refuse for any reason of conscience and prevent employers from taking action against them. Arkansas, South Dakota, Mississippi, and Georgia already have laws that give pharmacists the right to refuse, and many other states will decide one way or another in the next year.

The issue has exploded during the last five years, in part because of the recent availability of emergency contraception (EC). Both Preven (approved in 1998) and Plan B (1999) can be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. If properly used, they are more than 70 percent effective at preventing pregnancy. Though all forms of contraception raise ethical issues for Catholic pharmacists, EC raises the ante for Protestant pro-lifers as well, because some claim that the drug is an abortifacient.

“For pro-life pharmacists, this is a real bright line in the sand,” David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, told CT. “There’s a difference between dispensing EC and a birth-control pill.”

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice—a group that represents Episcopalians, Presbyterians (PCUSA), Conservative and Reform Judaism, United Methodists, and Unitarians, among others—argues that EC is little more than a potent birth-control pill of the kind that Christian women take routinely. It works the same way and contains the same ingredients as birth control (unlike the abortion pill, RU-486, which is not available in pharmacies), so it should pose no moral problems for pharmacists. The Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, the group’s president, told CT, “People need to understand: The medical fact is that neither birth-control pills nor emergency contraception—a concentrated dose of these same birth-control pills—cause an abortion.”

Defining Terms

So is this simply a case of some pro-life Christians refusing to look at the science? Not quite. As with many aspects of the abortion debate, defining terms is critical.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) defines conception (and therefore pregnancy) as beginning at the moment of implantation. “Conception is implantation,” says ACOG, and therefore EC cannot, by definition, cause an abortion—even if it affects a fertilized egg. But, as Karen Brauer of Pharmacists for Life International told CT, “Our issue has to do with human life, not their definition of pregnancy.” In her view, human life begins the moment that an egg is fertilized.

This difference in emphasis is crucial. According to its maker, Plan B “prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg. Plan B may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus.” Though EC will do nothing to stop the growth of a developing fetus, it has the potential to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. To many pro-life pharmacists, this makes it an abortion-inducing drug, and its presence in the neighborhood pharmacy has caused them to fight for their right not to dispense it.

Their refusal got the attention of NARAL Pro-Choice America, which launched a campaign in March 2005 to pressure pharmacies and legislators. NARAL president Nancy Keenan said, “In 2005, it is appalling that women do not know whether their prescriptions will be filled. Pharmacies have no right to override a decision made by a woman and her doctor.”

This move brought publicity to the debate about whether pharmacists should have the right to refuse any drug to any patient at any time. Most states passed “conscience clauses” years ago, but these were generally targeted at individual physicians, approved in the years following Roe v. Wade to allow doctors to opt out of performing abortions. The position of pharmacists has been more ambiguous. Few states have laws explicitly granting them the same conscience protection that doctors have.

Polls show that pharmacists want to be treated like true health care professionals, not automated pill dispensers. More than two-thirds of them want freedom to refuse to fill prescriptions, Glenn Kessler of HCD Research told CT.

The American Pharmacists Association, which represents more than 50,000 pharmacists across the country, has adopted a policy that supports a pharmacist “stepping away” from but not hindering a transaction. The association says that it “recognizes the individual pharmacist’s right to exercise conscientious refusal and supports the establishment of systems to ensure [the] patient’s access to legally prescribed therapy without compromising the pharmacist’s right of conscientious refusal.”

This right of refusal can take several forms. If at least two pharmacists are available, the one who objects may simply hand the prescription to the colleague. Or the pharmacist may refer the patient to another pharmacy.

Not all pharmacy chains find this an acceptable solution, however. Eckerd, CVS, and Kmart all have policies allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions, but only when another pharmacist is available. When pharmacists work alone, they are generally expected to fill all prescriptions.

Fighting Words

Target, by contrast, allows its pharmacists to “refuse and refer” a patient to another pharmacy. This stand has earned Target the wrath of Planned Parenthood, which organized a nationwide protest against the retailer last December.

Though “refuse and refer” sounds moderate, it satisfies neither groups like Planned Parenthood nor some pro-life pharmacists. To Brauer, an Indiana pharmacist, giving a referral is like saying, “I don’t kill people, but I can send you to a specific person who does.”

Brauer believes that EC and some forms of birth control can cause abortions, and she was fired from a Kmart pharmacy in 1996 for telling a patient that the store was out of birth control (it was not). She went on to found Pharmacists for Life International, a group that represents about 1,500 members. The group’s rhetoric is angry; members call their opponents names such as “Klan Parenthood” and “Slobodan Blagojevich,” and they are on a mission to stop the work of “abortoholics” in this country.

Brauer’s group can be uncompromising, but it’s not the only one dishing out tough talk. On the other side, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice argues that Christians working in public professions have no right to bring their views into the workplace. Those who want to do so should find a new job. “The pharmacist has a professional responsibility to fill prescriptions accurately and according to established standards, not to advocate personal or political views while on the job,” says Veazey. “If the pharmacy is dispensing products the pharmacist objects to, then he or she should not be working there.”

The public tends to side with Veazey. A 2005 poll by HCD Research found that 73 percent of Americans believe pharmacists should be required to fill all prescriptions despite religious objections. Responses of Catholics (70 percent) and Protestants (68 percent) were not much different from the general population, and among Orthodox Christians, the majority still sided with the patient (55 percent).

Advocates who oppose conscience clauses for pharmacists worry about the slippery slope. “Are we going to let the pharmacist ask for a marriage license?” Frances Kissling, head of Catholics for a Free Choice, told CT. “Are we going to allow them to deny prenatal vitamins to unmarried women because they shouldn’t have gotten pregnant? How far does the right of conscience go?”

The discussion often comes down to one of rights: the right of pharmacists not to do something that violates their consciences versus the right of patients to obtain legally prescribed medications. Steve Aden, a lawyer at the Center for Law and Religious Freedom, has represented several pharmacists, including Noesen. Aden told CT that most pro-life pharmacists are not out to deny legal medications to anyone—they simply don’t want to be forced to dispense them personally.

“In every case that I’ve ever heard of,” he said, “a woman can get access to her contraceptive medication by alternative means if for some reason the nearest pharmacy doesn’t have a pharmacist on duty who will dispense it.”

Indeed, Amanda Renz, the young woman in search of Loestrin, got the contraceptive two days later and missed only a single dose.

But Kissling finds this scenario unacceptable. “I cannot in good conscience say that a woman who has been raped should shop around,” she said, “before she finds [a pharmacy] that actually will fill the prescription.”

Such overt refusals happen infrequently, especially when it comes to EC. Ron Stephens, a pharmacist who serves in the Illinois General Assembly, said Plan B is the least prescribed medication in the state. “I own parts of two pharmacies in downstate Illinois,” he told CT. “We fill hundreds of thousands of prescriptions a year, and we’ve not seen one for the morning-after pill.”

Kissling, however, said that’s because many women don’t know about EC.

Legislators Stepping In

Legislators at every level are attempting to settle the dispute. While bills introduced at the state level have varied widely, a consensus appears to be emerging within the federal government. Both the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act (S.809) and the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (S.677) were introduced in 2005, and both take the same approach: They allow a pharmacist to refuse a prescription but make sure that another pharmacist can fill it. Everyone from John Kerry, D-Mass, to Rick Santorum, R-Penn, supports such legislation, but nothing has yet been passed. Until a federal bill is in place, both women and their pharmacists will remain uncertain about their rights and responsibilities.

Dilemmas like Noesen’s will only multiply in the coming years. The last few decades have brought abortion, euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, and contraception. Newer technologies such as cloning and stem-cell research present similar challenges.

But this year, the main event is in the local pharmacy, and the outcome will define conscience rights in the public sphere for years to come. That’s a prescription for battle.

Nate Anderson is a writer living in Wheaton, Illinois.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Also posted today is:

sidebar
Law or Free Market? | Pursuing morality in a pluralist society.

sidebar
The Noesen Saga | Counting the cost of refusing a prescription.

News elsewhere about pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions includes:

Pharmacy refusals lead to complaint | Group says women were improperly denied emergency contraception. (Albany Times Union, N.Y., Aug 16, 2006)

Druggists refuse to give out pill | Some pharmacists disagree on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions. (USA Today, Nov. 8, 2004)

Pharmacists’ rights at front of new debate | Because of beliefs, some refuse to fill birth control prescriptions (Washington Post, March 28, 2005)

Ill. pharmacies required to fill prescriptions for birth control | Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich (D) issued an emergency rule Friday that requires pharmacies to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives without delay, after a growing number of complaints nationwide that some pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control pills and the “morning-after” pill. (Washington Post, April 2, 2005)

Are Pharmacists Right To Choose? | Debate over letting them refuse to provide birth control pills (CBS News, March 29, 2005)

Pharmacists ‘denying birth control’ | The latest religious voice to emerge in US society is that of the pharmacist. (BBC, April 10, 2005)

Other articles on birth control include:

A Hard Pill to Swallow | How the tiny tablet upset my soul. (Nov. 8, 2005)

Other CT articles on reproduction and birth control include:

Has Natural Birth Control Been Proved Impossible? | Don’t believe the media reports, cautions the author of Birth Control for Christians. (July 15, 2003)

Make Love and Babies | The contraceptive mentality says children are something to be avoided. We’re not buying it. (Nov. 9, 2001)

‘Be Fruitful and Multiply’ | Is this a command, or a blessing? By Raymond C. Van Leeuwen (Nov. 9, 2001)

Souls on Ice | The costs of in vitro fertilization are moral and spiritual—not just financial (June 24, 2003)

400K and Counting | Christians recoil at explosive growth of frozen human embryos (June 24, 2003)

Charity Defies California Law on Contraception | Court to decide if state can require Catholic ministries to pay for birth control (June 25, 2002)

Hannah’s Sisters | At a Washington Assembly of God, prayers for fertility are answered (Mar. 21, 2002)

Books & Culture Corner: More Sex, Fewer Children | Mixed messages on condoms, contraception, and fertility. By John Wilson (Sept. 10, 2001)

No Room in the Womb? | Couples with high-risk pregnancies face the ‘selective reduction’ dilemma (dec. 10, 1999)

How to Make a Person | New reproductive technologies raise difficult moral issues. (Jan. 6, 1997)

Mourning the Morning-After Pill | A Christianity Today Editorial (Apr. 7, 1997)

Theology

Law or Free Market?

Pursuing morality in a pluralist society.

The pharmacist debate raises broader questions about how individuals with conflicting moral beliefs interact in a pluralistic society. What standards should be mandated by government, and what should be worked out by communities? What role should Christians play in the public sphere?

“In a pluralistic society you tolerate a lot of things you don’t agree with, but at the same time you need to be a voice for change,” says David Stevens of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. “The Bible tells us very clearly to protect life, widows, orphans, all those who cannot defend themselves. Therefore, we have an obligation to speak out as a voice of righteousness in our culture.”

Dr. Rob Vischer, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas, notes that while some Christians “are a little skeptical about this whole pluralism thing,” pluralism does have an upside. He argues that in the current debate over conscience in health care, Christians need to be careful about seeking legislative remedies.

“The state either is going to elevate the pharmacist as all-powerful in terms of their moral decisions, where there’s no consequence for what they do,” he says, “or, if that view loses, the state is going to say that the pharmacist is also irrelevant—you just do what the prescription says.” In either case, the battle becomes a political one.

Vischer believes that leaving the issue up to market forces is the best method for maintaining pluralism. Buyers will vote with their feet, he says; in this way, pharmacy chains might better represent the cultural makeup of America.

Stevens disagrees, seeing a legitimate role for legal challenges. In fact, he would like to see current court cases on the subject go even further.

“I would think the wisest strategy would be for Christian pharmacists and their allies to pursue legal channels till all options have been exhausted,” he says. “With the recent changes in the Supreme Court, I would endeavor to get the issue of right of conscience before that body, which is the final arbitrator of constitutional interpretation and application.”

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Also posted today is:

Pharmacists with no Plan B | Freedom of conscience and ‘reproductive rights’ clash at the local drugstore.

sidebar
The Noesen Saga | Counting the cost of refusing a prescription.

News elsewhere about pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions includes:

Pharmacy refusals lead to complaint | Group says women were improperly denied emergency contraception. (Albany Times Union, N.Y., Aug 16, 2006)

Druggists refuse to give out pill | Some pharmacists disagree on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions. (USA Today, Nov. 8, 2004)

Pharmacists’ rights at front of new debate | Because of beliefs, some refuse to fill birth control prescriptions (Washington Post, March 28, 2005)

Ill. pharmacies required to fill prescriptions for birth control | Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich (D) issued an emergency rule Friday that requires pharmacies to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives without delay, after a growing number of complaints nationwide that some pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control pills and the “morning-after” pill. (Washington Post, April 2, 2005)

Are Pharmacists Right To Choose? | Debate over letting them refuse to provide birth control pills (CBS News, March 29, 2005)

Pharmacists ‘denying birth control’ | The latest religious voice to emerge in US society is that of the pharmacist. (BBC, April 10, 2005)

Other articles on birth control include:

A Hard Pill to Swallow | How the tiny tablet upset my soul. (Nov. 8, 2005)

Other CT articles on reproduction and birth control include:

Has Natural Birth Control Been Proved Impossible? | Don’t believe the media reports, cautions the author of Birth Control for Christians. (July 15, 2003)

Make Love and Babies | The contraceptive mentality says children are something to be avoided. We’re not buying it. (Nov. 9, 2001)

‘Be Fruitful and Multiply’ | Is this a command, or a blessing? By Raymond C. Van Leeuwen (Nov. 9, 2001)

Souls on Ice | The costs of in vitro fertilization are moral and spiritual—not just financial (June 24, 2003)

400K and Counting | Christians recoil at explosive growth of frozen human embryos (June 24, 2003)

Charity Defies California Law on Contraception | Court to decide if state can require Catholic ministries to pay for birth control (June 25, 2002)

Hannah’s Sisters | At a Washington Assembly of God, prayers for fertility are answered (Mar. 21, 2002)

Books & Culture Corner: More Sex, Fewer Children | Mixed messages on condoms, contraception, and fertility. By John Wilson (Sept. 10, 2001)

No Room in the Womb? | Couples with high-risk pregnancies face the ‘selective reduction’ dilemma (dec. 10, 1999)

How to Make a Person | New reproductive technologies raise difficult moral issues. (Jan. 6, 1997)

Mourning the Morning-After Pill | A Christianity Today Editorial (Apr. 7, 1997)

The Noesen Saga

Counting the cost of refusing a prescription.

Neil Noesen thought he had done everything right. Wisconsin had no explicit law or policy on the books to cover such a situation, but he had notified his employer in writing about his objections. “I took the exact language that was written by an attorney from one of the pending bills in the state of Wisconsin, which stated what participation is,” he says. “It is not to aid, abet, assist, or encourage in any way—but it did not include the word transfer, so the prosecution got me on a technicality.”

That was only the beginning. After Wisconsin decided against him for refusing to fill an emergency contraceptive prescription or transfer it to another pharmacist, Noesen moved to Minnesota. He took a job as a pharmacist with Snyder’s, which fired him after two weeks when he again refused to fill certain prescriptions. Noesen claimed that an injustice was being committed and refused to leave the grounds when asked, a move that only managed to get him arrested for trespassing and disorderly conduct.

Back in Wisconsin, on June 27, 2005, the Pharmacy Examining Board considered Noesen’s petition for more time to pay the $20,000 he owed for the earlier judgment against him. Despite his claim that he was “not in a position to pay the full amount of the costs,” Noesen’s appeal was denied. Unable to pay the bill, his fine now accrues interest of 12 percent a year.

A month later, on July 26, Noesen was arrested again, this time at a Wal-Mart in Onalaska, Wisconsin, where he had once more refused to fill birth-control prescriptions. Management asked him to leave the store after the incident, and he was eventually arrested for disorderly conduct. To add to his troubles, the court issued a warrant for his arrest on a charge of bail jumping when he did not show up for an October 18 hearing. He had been under the impression that he could make an appearance by telephone.

The original case was appealed and eventually tried before Wisconsin circuit judge James Babler. Babler ruled on February 3, 2006, in favor of the Pharmacy Examining Board. In June, a district court judge dismissed Noesen’s claim that Wal-Mart had violated his religious freedom.

Noesen says that he did not enter medicine to become a crusader, but to “take care of people who are sick and suffering, who are dying and need medication for a valid therapeutic reason.” Worried that he is unable to practice his trade in the United States, he now considers leaving the country. An offer from a hospital in Kampala, Uganda, sounds promising.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Also posted today is:

Pharmacists with no Plan B | Freedom of conscience and ‘reproductive rights’ clash at the local drugstore.

sidebar
Law or Free Market? | Pursuing morality in a pluralist society.

News elsewhere about pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions includes:

Pharmacy refusals lead to complaint | Group says women were improperly denied emergency contraception. (Albany Times Union, N.Y., Aug 16, 2006)

Druggists refuse to give out pill | Some pharmacists disagree on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions. (USA Today, Nov. 8, 2004)

Pharmacists’ rights at front of new debate | Because of beliefs, some refuse to fill birth control prescriptions (Washington Post, March 28, 2005)

Ill. pharmacies required to fill prescriptions for birth control | Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich (D) issued an emergency rule Friday that requires pharmacies to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives without delay, after a growing number of complaints nationwide that some pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control pills and the “morning-after” pill. (Washington Post, April 2, 2005)

Are Pharmacists Right To Choose? | Debate over letting them refuse to provide birth control pills (CBS News, March 29, 2005)

Pharmacists ‘denying birth control’ | The latest religious voice to emerge in US society is that of the pharmacist. (BBC, April 10, 2005)

Other articles on birth control include:

A Hard Pill to Swallow | How the tiny tablet upset my soul. (Nov. 8, 2005)

Other CT articles on reproduction and birth control include:

Has Natural Birth Control Been Proved Impossible? | Don’t believe the media reports, cautions the author of Birth Control for Christians. (July 15, 2003)

Make Love and Babies | The contraceptive mentality says children are something to be avoided. We’re not buying it. (Nov. 9, 2001)

‘Be Fruitful and Multiply’ | Is this a command, or a blessing? By Raymond C. Van Leeuwen (Nov. 9, 2001)

Souls on Ice | The costs of in vitro fertilization are moral and spiritual—not just financial (June 24, 2003)

400K and Counting | Christians recoil at explosive growth of frozen human embryos (June 24, 2003)

Charity Defies California Law on Contraception | Court to decide if state can require Catholic ministries to pay for birth control (June 25, 2002)

Hannah’s Sisters | At a Washington Assembly of God, prayers for fertility are answered (Mar. 21, 2002)

Books & Culture Corner: More Sex, Fewer Children | Mixed messages on condoms, contraception, and fertility. By John Wilson (Sept. 10, 2001)

No Room in the Womb? | Couples with high-risk pregnancies face the ‘selective reduction’ dilemma (dec. 10, 1999)

How to Make a Person | New reproductive technologies raise difficult moral issues. (Jan. 6, 1997)

Mourning the Morning-After Pill | A Christianity Today Editorial (Apr. 7, 1997)

Books

Jesus from East to West

Ravi Zacharias defends Christianity using the narrative of his life.

This is a frank, endearing story of a respected apologist and evangelical statesman’s life. But it is no mere autobiography. Zacharias warns that the Eastern mind evaluates an idea in light of the ancestry, social setting, and familial reputation of the conveyor. In other works, Zacharias defends Christianity apart from his own context, so this offering provides an evangelistic tool for those with Eastern predilections.

WALKING FROMEAST TO WEST:God in theShadowsby Ravi ZachariaswithR. S. B. SawyerZondervan240 pp.; $19.99

Moreover, the book starkly contrasts the real implications of rejecting or accepting the lordship of Jesus. Nothing short of meaning in life is at stake, and Walking from East to West exposes the silliness of much popular religious pluralism by underscoring the gravity of worldview selection.

Finally, the subtitle, God in the Shadows, is pervasively illustrated. Zacharias’s life story requires a God who was always there, sometimes in the shadows, intervening at crucial moments and being the merciful Abba for whom Ravi hungered.

This is storytelling in the fashion of C. S. Lewis: rational argumentation expressed in narrative. Read Walking from East to West and give thanks for Zacharias and the God who resides in the shadows.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

More about Ravi Zacharias is available from his ministry’s website.

Walking from East to West is available from Christianbook.com and other book retailers.

More information is available from Zondervan.

For book lovers, our 2006 CT book awards are available online, along with our book awards for 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, and 1997, as well as our Books of the Twentieth Century. For other coverage or reviews, see our Books archive and the weekly Books & Culture Corner.

Church Life

Our Transnational Anthem

‘O say can you see … ‘ a church where many cultures work together in Christ?

For 500 years, immigration has shaped the culture of North America. Recently, and not for the first time, the arrival of a generation of immigrants has sparked national debate. Fortunately, an increasing number of Christian leaders are working to bridge cultural differences. Many of these leaders have been nurtured by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, an evangelical organization that has gone farther than most in living out the biblical example of interracial partnership on America’s university campuses. Orlando Crespo, a second-generation Puerto Rican American who is director of InterVarsity’s LaFe ministry with Hispanic students, exemplifies this commitment to both ethnic distinctiveness and multiethnic partnership, themes he explored in his 2003 book, Being Latino in Christ. Because multiethnic reconciliation is all too rare in mainstream culture and in the church, and because it is so evidently crucial to the flourishing of the common good in the United States’ third century, Crespo is an ideal person to respond to our big question: How can followers of Christ be a counterculture for the common good?

In April 2006, a British producer named Adam Kidron launched a musical volley into the heated American debate over ethnicity and immigration: a new Spanish-language version of the national anthem called Nuestro Himno. The song’s release provoked condemnation from conservative commentators and a disavowal from President Bush—even though his first presidential campaign frequently featured Spanish-language versions of the anthem. “I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English,” he said, according to The New York Times. “And they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English.”

What do Christians have to contribute to debates like these? The Spanish word himno can be translated as anthem, but it also can be translated as hymn. Is there a uniquely Christian perspective—a Christian hymn, nuestro himno—that could serve the common good of a uniquely multiethnic society like America? As the child of Puerto Rican immigrants and as a child of God in Christ, I’ve become convinced the answer is yes.

God’s Creative Intent

At the core of a biblical understanding of ethnicity is the question of whether ethnicity—the specific and diverse human traditions of culture and language—is a regrettable mistake, an inconsequential accident, or a result of God’s creative intent. In recent years, Christians have begun to recover the biblical emphasis on culture. They have looked at the so-called cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28—”fill the earth and subdue it”—and asked whether it could have ever been fulfilled without the accompanying cultural diversity.

As Richard Mouw writes in When the Kings Come Marching In, “God intended from the beginning that human beings would ‘fill the earth’ with the processes, patterns, and products of cultural formation.” Kinship groupings would inevitably form as the human race grew in number, along with varying cultural traditions. On the vast earth, with its varied climates and conditions, cultural diversity would flourish naturally, allowing humanity to fulfill God’s intent in a variety of ways.

Yet very quickly in Genesis human culture becomes distorted by the Fall. Instead of “filling the earth,” people huddle in Babel, where they hatch the plan of building a tower so as not to be “scattered over the face of the whole earth.” But this attempt to seek human unity at the expense of filling the earth draws God’s intervention. The resulting profusion of languages has often been seen as purely judgment, but it is also grace—the provision of a way to return to God’s original plan.

As Randy Woodley writes in his book Living in Color, God’s intervention at Babel “merely sped up the process of developing the various ethnic groups.” To underscore the point, when the Holy Spirit comes upon the first Christians, the miracle is not that they speak the same language—rather, those gathered at Pentecost each hear the mighty works of God being declared in their own language. The barrier to human communication imposed by God at Babel is removed at Pentecost, but the glorious diversity of human culture is blessed.

When Christians seek to be “colorblind”—a word that suggests that ethnic distinctions are ultimately irrelevant—they unknowingly imitate the tower-builders’ fear of diversity. In practice, colorblindness usually means persons from minority cultures allow their cultural distinctiveness to become invisible, while persons from the majority culture expect others to adapt to their culture. A colorblind church is unable to appreciate the amazing cultural diversity to which God brings salvation: “You are worthy to take the scroll and break its seals and open it,” the elders sing to the Lamb. “For you were killed, and your blood has ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9, NLT).

If God begins with a cultural mandate for us to fill the earth, doing so by means of the rich diversity of ethnicities and cultures, and if Scripture ends with all ethnic groups worshiping God, then living a vibrant ethnic life in the here and now is something deeply blessed by God. What are the practical steps we can take toward a life that blesses and affirms cultural diversity?

The Courage to Be Different

For many of us who are ethnic minorities, the first step is having the courage to live out the fullness of our ethnic identity. When I was 7 years old, my family became the first Puerto Ricans to move into a white neighborhood. We endured taunting from the family directly across the street, as well as racial insults based on our Latino heritage. It was all too easy to learn the lesson that being Puerto Rican was dirty and unacceptable. Bigotry and racism left an indelible mark on my soul.

But as I studied Scripture, I observed God working through the ethnicities and cultures of prominent figures like Moses (a tri-cultural person, Hebrew-Egyptian-Midianite!), Mordecai and Esther (Persian Israelites), and Paul (a Jewish Roman citizen). For each of them, their ethnic identity was central to God’s plan for the deliverance of his people. If any of them had chosen to simply assimilate to the dominant culture, they would have missed God’s deepest purposes for them. I began to believe that God could have a purpose for my ethnic identity—that my Latino identity was not an accident or a mistake, but a gift.

I discovered when I had trouble praying in English, my heart language of Spanish helped me overcome spiritual stagnation. The Latino value of fiesta—celebrating life even in the midst of pain—helped me hold onto my faith in difficult times. The closeness of my Puerto Rican family gave me a window into the love of my Father in heaven. I started to see that my bilingual abilities gave me opportunities for ministry, especially among second-generation Latino youth, who were trying to straddle two very different cultural worlds.

As I grew in confidence in my ethnic identity, I was able to bring elements of my Latino culture, like our great capacity for hospitality, into the work of the predominantly white organization where I served in ministry.

Five years ago, I left a job I very much loved, co-directing InterVarsity Christian Fellowship’s ministry in New York City, to take on a role that had never existed before—as the first national director of LaFe, InterVarsity’s Latino ministry. This decision has brought out gifts in me, and in others in our organization, that would not have been discovered otherwise. In five years, we have grown from 19 Latino campus ministers to 45 across the country. Of the 32,000 students InterVarsity works with in the U.S., 913 are Latino, a 21 percent increase over the last five years.

The Courage to Be White

Whites, too, have something to contribute to a uniquely Christian approach to ethnic identity. In InterVarsity, we are learning that it is not enough for our ethnic minority campus ministers to see their ethnicity as a blessing. It is also vital that our white campus ministers live out of the beauty and strengths of their ethnicity. The first step for them is simply to recognize that they have a God-given ethnic identity—that being white is not just neutral or “normal,” but a particular cultural heritage that can be redeemed and used for good.

White identity is invisible until it engages actively with other cultures and discovers what other cultures are reacting to and why. So it is essential for whites to enter into real relationships and partnerships with non-whites, even to the point of feeling out of place.

As our white staff have pursued such partnerships, they have developed a new and deeper sense of their white identity and a greater commitment to stay engaged in difficult issues of race. They are also being set free from a common affliction of whites who have become aware of the history of white privilege in America: immobilization by shame, guilt, or apathy.

One result of this process in InterVarsity has been Paula Harris and Doug Schaupp’s book, Being White: Finding Our Place in a Multiethnic World. Paula and Doug identify some of the unique gifts and values of white culture, including the inherent worth of the individual, the importance of self-determination, and the commitment to take risks and solve problems.

The Courage to Work Together

In Living in Color, Randy Woodley, a Native American, gives a powerful account of what cultural partnerships can accomplish in addressing social issues. The state of Montana wanted, in the interests of safety and economic growth, to expand Highway 93, which ran through beautiful land in the Flathead Indian Reservation. The Salish and Kootenai tribes, however, were concerned that such an expansion would destroy wildlife, bring in new development, and eventually lead to unsustainable population growth.

As these two ethnic groups worked with the majority culture, they created a plan. They would build a four-lane highway that would respect the land and its inhabitants, following the natural contours of the land and including 42 wildlife crossings under and over the highway. In the end, not only did this design honor the tribes’ concern for respect for land and animals, it actually made the highway safer, furthering the state’s original purpose.

The two Native American tribes sought to protect the land, while the Montana Department of Transportation, representing white culture, placed great value on safety and economic growth (by expanding job opportunities through tourism). The priorities of each culture ended up serving the common good of the others.

Nuestro Himno

Can the church, with its unique reach into nearly every “tribe and language and people and nation” represented in the United States, become a model of this kind of partnership? What might our song, nuestro himno, contribute to vexed questions about ethnicity in America?

In the case of the national anthem, Christians could begin by observing that Pentecost affirms the value of every culture and language. So when Latino citizens sing the national anthem in Spanish, we understand that they are embracing their bicultural and bilingual American Latino identity. They are singing about the nation they love in the language that resonates in their soul.

At the same time, Latino Christians understand that the national anthem is an important cultural icon in its original language—a key part of white American culture. No translation of our treasured anthem should be a replacement for it. So we could well agree with President Bush that every citizen, including Latino citizens, should also be able to sing the national anthem in English.

Finally, we might recognize that the national anthem is translated into myriad tongues every day. It is impossible for someone dominant in a language other than English not to translate a song like the national anthem in his or her head. Furthermore, the national anthem has already been translated into Spanish a number of times during the past hundred years, and until recently, this was not politically controversial. The question for our time might become who should do an official translation that would do justice to the original text but also free an important group of citizens to hear and sing the text’s original meaning in their own language.

A Vital Purpose

Whatever happens with the national anthem, my hope is that the church in America will embrace its ethnic diversity as a vital part of humanity that can be redeemed for the purposes of God. If we do, we can offer something special to the wider world.

We are beginning to understand that racial healing is one purpose of the church, tearing down the walls that still separate us as brothers and sisters in Christ. May Jesus’ prayer to the Father for us be answered in our generation: “I pray … that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe … that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (John 17:20-23). That, indeed, is nuestro himno.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Previous Christianity Today articles from the Christian Vision Project include:

A New Kind of Urban Christian | As the city goes, so goes the culture. (June 9, 2006)

The Conservative Humanist | Those who are pro-life and pro-family should have no problem being pro-human. (April 21, 2006)

Loving the Storm-Drenched | We can no more change the culture than we can the weather. Fortunately, we’ve got more important things to do. By Frederica Mathewes-Green (March 3, 2006)

Habits of Highly Effective Justice Workers | Should we protest the system or invest in a life? Yes. By Rodolpho Carrasco (Feb. 3, 2006)

How the Kingdom Comes | The church becomes countercultural by sinking its roots ever deeper into God’s heavenly gifts. By Michael S. Horton (Jan. 13, 2006)

Inside CT
Better Than a Cigar | Introducing the Christian Vision Project. By David Neff (Jan. 13, 2006)

More CVP articles from our sister publications are available on ChristianVisionProject.com.

Christianity Today’s April 2005 cover story declared All Churches Should Be Multiracial.

Ideas

Leveling the Investment Field

Why has it been so hard for organizations to treat Israel like any other state?

The following editorial appears in the August 2006 issue of Christianity Today. It has not been updated since July 10, and events in the Middle East have progressed significantly since then.

At this writing, the Israeli government and the “house divided against itself” that tries to represent the Palestinian people are locked in a lose-lose struggle. Israel responded to missile attacks and a kidnapping with a major incursion into the Gaza Strip, resulting in more than 50 civilian deaths. Hamas is eagerly capitalizing on the resulting resentment.

But as just one hot spot on a globe full of brush fires, Israel has attracted far more than its share of criticism. American churches have not hesitated to pile on. A 2004 report from the Institute on Religion and Democracy showed that mainline Protestants criticized Israel for human-rights abuses at a rate far exceeding most other nations. Only the United States came close to Israel’s infamy in this activist universe.

Strangely, repressive Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria received no criticism at all. The IRD study asked “whether anti-Jewish animus may play some role in the churches’ skewed human-rights advocacy.”

But two events this summer suggest that Israel and the Jewish community are starting to get more respect.

First, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) changed its 2004 action calling for “phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel.” By an overwhelming vote, it created a substitute policy that urged the denomination to be sure that its financial investments “as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits” and to look for “positive outcomes.” Thus, the PC(USA) moved from being punitive toward one side to being constructive toward both parties. It also apologized for having caused hurt and misunderstanding.

The American Jewish community applauded the action, while Presbyterian leadership immediately began to spin the story. But the assembly’s unwillingness to entertain any amendments to the recommendation and its overwhelming vote (483 to 28) demonstrated a clear rejection of the discriminatory attitudes embedded in the 2004 action.

A second event also gave Israel some long-overdue respect. The International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent finally welcomed into membership their counterpart organization in Israel (the Magen David Adom—the MDA or Red Star of David). The formal excuse for keeping the Israeli rescue and first-aid organization out of the international network was a 1929 policy that limited the number of symbols. On the battlefield and in other emergencies, quick recognition of the Red Cross and Red Crescent increases safety and expedites cooperation. But everyone knew that adding a Red Star of David to the approved list was not going to throw a disaster response into confusion. For the past 50 years, the American Red Cross has recognized the sheer prejudice behind excluding the MDA, and for the past six years, the American group has protested the exclusion by withholding $45 million in dues from the international organization.

Last year, a new symbol was approved (the “Red Crystal”) which the MDA can use with or without its Star of David when engaged in international operations. That paved the way for this year’s formal welcome. Sadly, Muslim nations fought it to the end.

Fighting prejudice is what these two events were really about. Presbyterian divestment from Caterpillar or Motorola would not have hurt either company significantly. The MDA will not see huge changes in its emergency response operations. But the Jewish community knows intimately the power of prejudice, and Christians and all good citizens have a responsibility to fight it where they find it.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Our full coverage of the Israel-Lebanon conflict is available on our site.

See our past coverage of the Israel-Palestine fight, Iran, and Lebanon.

Weblog commented on the Presbyterian decision and the 2004 IRD report on churches’ condemnation of Israel.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has more information about the new Red Crystal symbol.

Marriage Matters

Debate rages even after Senate and House reject federal amendment.

The House voted 236-187 earlier this month to reject a proposed amendment to the constitution that would limit marriage to heterosexual couples. In June, the Senate rejected the amendment, falling 11 votes short of the 60 needed to end debate and bring it to a yes-or-no decision. Religious conservatives promise to continue their efforts.

“On these constitutional amendments, you don’t get a good amount of support except over time,” said Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., who sponsored the amendment.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney wrote senators, urging them to pass the amendment. “Although the full impact of same-sex marriage may not be measured for decades or generations,” Romney said, “we are beginning to see the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state’s social experiment.” Catholic Charities stopped its adoption program because the state required them to place children in homosexual homes. Parents complained when a second-grade teacher read aloud a story in which a prince marries another prince, rather than a princess. The superintendent responded that the school was “teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal.”

Jonathan Rauch, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, said states that choose to legalize gay marriage will necessarily pressure their schools to define marriage broadly. “But if it’s only legal in three or four states,” he said, “then that is where we’ll see the conflict. I don’t think it will be a huge deal.”

Rauch, who supports gay marriage, said proponents of the federal marriage amendment are exaggerating the threat to other states. “Assuming the federal amendment doesn’t ever get shaken loose, then what you see is exactly what we have,” he said. “Gay marriage has been legal for more than two years, and you aren’t seeing massive confusion.”

Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, is not so sure that other states will be protected from having to acknowledge same-sex marriages from Massachusetts. If that happens, she believes charities that oppose homosexual unions would be treated with the same stigma as institutions that sponsor racism. As a result, religious schools and missions could lose their tax-exempt status, she said.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

News elsewhere includes:

Same sex marriage ban fails to pass House | Opponent say vote will impact midterm elections (Associated Press, July 18, 2006)

House G.O.P. lacks votes for amendment banning gay marriage | House Republicans failed Tuesday in an effort to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, part of a proposed “values agenda” that they hope will rally voters in midterm elections in November. (New York Times, July 18, 2006)

House rejects amendment to ban same-sex marriage | Critics call the vote an election-year game; supporters say it puts lawmakers on record. (Los Angeles Times, July 19, 2006)

The president’s recent radio address discussing the issue is available from the White House.

Our full coverage of marriage in American and same-sex marriage are available on our site.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube