I stared at the test, willing the pink lines not to appear. I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t be pregnant again. It was too hard. I couldn’t bear the thought of another miscarriage, and I was terrified of what another birth would do to my already broken body. As the results became clear, and relief washed over me, one thought burned in my brain- “so this is what this feels like.”
I knew that if the test had been positive I would have dealt with it. I would have been cautiously happy and hopeful that this time would be different (and by God’s grace less than a year later we did have a second baby, without my fears coming to fruition.) But that day, for the first time, I understood what it felt like.
That day I thought back to the year I spent sitting in my car for an hour, every weekday, outside the only clinic that performed abortions in my area, praying for the women and their babies walking through those doors to be saved. I remembered asking God to give me eyes to see them and heart to love them the way He does. He was faithful and, as is often the case, it was suffering that finally opened my eyes and heart. I finally understood the fear, the desperation, the feeling of having no good choices. The worry that if I told anyone, they wouldn’t understand. The feelings of shame at my relief and my lack of faith in God to be good in all things, and of loneliness in my struggle finally made me see. I could finally understand what could drive a girl to the doors of the abortion clinic, to think she had no other choices. I finally knew that sometimes even though what is right and true is clear, it is also incredibly scary.
A year later, I told my doctor, confessed my fears and my shame, while we listened to a tiny heartbeat. She cared for me with expertise and experience of her own loss and worries. I’d never had a female doctor before, never trusted I would be heard with compassion and respect. In fact, in the past I had often been dismissed by doctors. It was what I expected. Thank God for her. Thank God that there was a woman in the room. It made all the difference for me.
There have been so many times that I have needed a woman in the room. That so many of us have wished for a woman in the room. Not that a man cannot be a wise and kind advocate—I have so many brothers, friends who I trust to care for me and for others. But expertise and shared experience, authority and understanding, respect and representation—those things are hard for women to believe in when there are none of us in the room.
We have been excluded from so many rooms so often and for so long.
We’ve listened to men talk about us, rather than to us. We’ve wondered if we will ever be seen or heard.
We’ve often been afraid often to tell the whole truth- our desperation, our guilt and shame, our loneliness. Even our dreams and aspirations. We’ve been defensive or deferred to share our struggles and our stories after so many men had dismissed them, dismissed us.
We’ve made quiet, desperate decisions, with no good choices and with no one in the room we can be sure will understand.
We’ve been misled and manipulated. Some have come to believe that the only thing that gives us opportunity is dismembering our own children, or that the only thing that gives us value is birthing them.
232 years with no women in the room has, in part, led us to use women and their children as political cudgels to wield against one another.
This time, I chose a woman in the room. And I wept.
I wept as I waited in line to vote, the familiar feeling of no good choices welling up in me and spilling out behind my sunglasses and mask.
No choice to protect the unborn with my vote without enabling and endorsing the dehumanization of refugees and women and whole nationalities of image-bearers.
No choice to protect immigrants, to provide more economic, medical, and social services for desperate women and families with my vote without enabling, funding, and propagating the abortion of image-bearers. No good choices. Only tears.
I wept. And I hoped.
I hoped that by breaking this glass ceiling and opening this door, one day there would be another woman in the room. In the same way that Justice Ginsberg paved the way for women like me, including Justice Barrett, I hoped and prayed that Vice President Harris would lead to more women like me in the room.
I hoped and prayed that somewhere was a young woman, watching someone who looks like her stand where no woman has stood, and see a place for herself. A young woman who is volunteering at her local crisis pregnancy center or teaching English classes to refugees. A young woman who is running for school board to advocate for the special needs children she adopted. A young woman who is working for prison reform during law school. A young woman who knows now that there is no room where she cannot walk through the door, fighting for women and their children alike, with gentle compassion and fierce protection.
I wept watching Vice President Harris being sworn in. I had a lot of conflicting emotions- elation and sadness, pride and trepidation. How I feel about my vote, about our first female national officeholder, about our country, all of it, is complicated. It should be complicated.
Vice President Harris is complicated. No one is just one thing. She is full of contradictions. So am I. And so are all of us in a world where there are often no good choices, where joy and sorrow are mingled together inextricably, no matter which box we check or who sits in the White House.
As citizens of an already Kingdom in a not yet world, upholding even the straightforward Truth that all humans are precious image-bearers of God is often complicated and messy in political practice. We do our best to make the right choices when sometimes no choices are fully righteous. I’m not sure that I did make the right choice. A lot of people chose differently. That’s ok. It’s complicated.
It would be easier to pretend it’s always simple, that we can pick a side and be done. But fighting for every human life is a multi-front battle for hearts and minds and policies and people. We have to be willing, at the least, to have complicated conversations, with everyone’s voice heard, every cost counted, every wound bandaged up.
It will be difficult. We will agree and disagree, be inspired and be disappointed. Often all at the same time.
So for now, I hold hope together with my grief. For now, I work every day to make the those choices I finally understand less desperate for as many women as possible, whatever the Supreme Court may say. For now, I lean into honesty, while working with all who will join me to give help and dignity to all image-bearers. And for now I look forward to the day that there will be women (and men) in every room who are compassionately, consistently, and completely pro-life.
_________
Emily serves and lives in Norman, Oklahoma. You can follower her on twitter at @hoopersnook
I know some of my fellow pro-life folks aren’t ready for the thoughts and vulnerability of this article, but I think it’s important to hear. You may disagree with her conclusions, but she is right that “We have to be willing, at the least, to have complicated conversations, with everyone’s voice heard, every cost counted, every wound bandaged up.”
I feel sympathy toward Emily due to her heart-rending and vulnerable story. Todd writes, “You may disagree with her conclusions…” and I do. I am intrigued by the suggestion that “we must be willing to have complicated conversations.” A great many philosophers have identified simplicity as the pathway to truth and virtue. Let us be willing to consider that our less complicated conversations may be the most rational and unclouded ones.
Hi. The writer here. My friends have advised me not to engage in the comments, which I won’t after this. But the teacher in me needs to clarify a few things. Because clarity matters. I told a story that is personal. And vulnerable. (Or it was vulnerable 10 years ago.) And that I think makes clear that I am against abortion in any circumstance- even the scary and complicated ones. I know this. I have tested and proved out my convictions with my own life and experience. That is why I told the story. Not from hurt or pain or being emotional. But because I know many, many women who have stories they can’t tell. I know because I have walked through crisis pregnancies with them. Mourned with them. Helped them find childcare (including providing it myself for free) or jobs (again, including hiring them myself). Helped them find post abortive counseling. Held them as they told stories of abuse that they’ve been afraid to say out loud. I can tell my story. And I can handle being misunderstood. They can’t. They are in your neighborhoods and churches and families. Your empathy is good. Your respect- actually listening to them instead of talking at and about them-is better. They need you to understand that they can hate abortion and spend a lifetime working against it, want it to be eradicated practically and legally, and also be glad that half of the population is no longer unrepresented in National office after 2 centuries. And they need you to acknowledge that you don’t know what you don’t know about their experiences, to stop trying to explain their own minds and lives to them. That kind of patronizing perpetuates (or proves) the myth that being pro-life is about controlling women, rather than freeing them from lies and actually saving lives. My decision and my argument were not based on my feelings, and honestly it’s hard to believe some of these things would be said about a male author with my same education and ministry experience (which kind of proves my point.) I had a lot of reasons that would have made these few paragraphs into a book. Reasons that include facts and data on abortion rates and maternal death rates, correlations between social programs and birth rates, helpless babies at the border, Covid, poverty, and a hundred other issues- not the least of… Read more »
I think it’s worth noting in this comment stream that none of the SBC Voices editorial team voted for President Biden and Vice-President Harris. This article presents the perspective of someone who came to a different conclusion. I don’t agree with the conclusion. But I appreciate the opportunity to consider the perspective.
Emily, I am really at a loss. But I will try. If I could, I would post a picture of my now 35 year old daughter and her three children. She is the one who a doc at Baptist Hospital in New Orleans (seminary) told my wife and me that the best option would be to terminate the pregnancy. See, my wife had been directed to take a med to prevent certain female issues. She didn’t know that when she started taking them that she would become pregnant. That is a no no while taking that particular med. The doc said that IF the pregnancy made it to full term, we were highly likely to face a child with severe deformities, including heart defects and limb losses. The doc said, “you should strongly consider abortion.” We didn’t. That was 1985. What a joy she has been to us. What a joy her three boys have been to us. My wife never visits blogs, but if she did visit here, she would say that there is NEVER a reason to kill the baby. There are so many joys that will be missed and there are so many options for baby to be cared for by loving people. Yes I’m a guy, but I was there every step of the way when my wife faced the tough issues. May I tell you about my African American LEO who was almost aborted back in 1993? My 13 year old niece was heading to the abortuary. Then she decided, with some loving counsel, not to take his life. He eventually was placed for adoption with a wonderful family. A family who loved him and raised him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We have connected and what a blessing this young man and his wife are to our family. I’m sorry. but no. Actually I’m not sorry. No. NEVER is it ok to aid and abet the slaughter of babies in the womb. Biden and Harris have already begun to expand baby killing via tax payer dollars. And why did this happen? Because of “mean tweets?” Because of sometimes/often crude and rude tweeting? Really? No. Kamala Harris is in no way to be celebrated. She is one of the, if not the most, ardent supporter of baby killing in all of government. You said, “No choice to protect the unborn with my… Read more »
Doug Hibbard’s comment is closed to comment. Weird. But here goes.
//When will those of us who claim that all are created in the image of God actually act like it?/
Now. My comments reflect that exactly. Babies in the womb are are created in the image of God.
These two paragraphs:
“No choice to protect the unborn with my vote without enabling and endorsing the dehumanization of refugees and women and whole nationalities of image-bearers.
No choice to protect immigrants, to provide more economic, medical, and social services for desperate women and families with my vote without enabling, funding, and propagating the abortion of image-bearers. No good choices. Only tears.”
Really hit the nail on the head, don’t they? One side in this election for the unborn; one side for the stranger, the alien, the already-born.
I didn’t make the choice in this election you made, but I see the tears. There were no good choices.
And nowhere here do I see what some will claim: that you are in favor of abortion. That’s not at all what this article reflects.
And maybe we need a little soul-searching here about why we don’t make space in the room for pro-life women? Why is it that the first woman in the room had to come from the abortion party?
When will those of us who claim that all are created in the image of God actually act like it?
I’ve had multiple sisters in Christ share similar feelings but are afraid of what would happen if they shared them. If church is going to truly be a community, we must be a safe place to share these kinds of thoughts and have the tough conversations (this is one of many). A church cannot rightly call itself a family if we secretly look down on people who disagree with us or are afraid to discuss hot-button issues because we have a legitimate fear of being rejected. Emily speaks here for a lot of conservative women who are not safe to share these kinds of thoughts because we only see things as a black and white binary choice. It’s not
It’s easier to make everything a binary choice between two clear alternatives — the reality is that most issues and solutions are complex even when the core principles are clear.
But We all make similar choices in every election whether we realize it or not. Take for instance the value of personal character in our leaders. It was easy for pro-life evangelicals to make bold statements about the importance of character when Clinton was president? Why? Because there wasn’t a choice between the value of character and other values. But when Trump came along, evangelicals had to choose: which is more important, personal character or their position on abortion (and other issues). They couldn’t have both, so for many, the vote for or against Trump created the same sense of internal conflict Emily describes here. That’s an oversimplification because there are dozens of issues that the Christian faith speaks to on either side of the aisle and Christians are continually forced to choose between competing values since no party opens up the Bible to form their platform.
Again all due respect, character, mean tweets, etc., pale in comparison to baby killing. People don’t die due to a political candidate’s lack of character, whatever that means. And since when is a candidate’s position on baby killing NOT a character issue? Politician’s positions can lead to more deaths in the womb or less. Living or dying is way more important than how one feels treated. People can get over getting mistreated or having their feelings hurt. People can’t get over being killed in the womb.
“People don’t die due to a political candidate’s lack of character.”
The events of January 6th prove that to be a lie. And to reduce Emily’s (and others) reservations about President Trump to “mean tweets” and “hurt feelings” is sophomoric. You fail to engage with the specifics of the original post in the interest of setting up a strawman.
Brent, please read again. I very much engaged with her post. Respectfully. But do you have evidence that a particular candidate is personally responsible for deaths on January 6? And even if you think you do, do you want to compare numbers of deaths on January 6 to abortion deaths? I don’t think you want to go there.
I thought this was a site for expressing one’s views, not for character assassination.
I was merely using character as an example of how some people were conflicted. I take it you voted for Trump. If you were not at all conflicted about that, then you won’t resonate with my illustration. I get that you are a one-issue voter. Other fellow believers see other issues as just as relevant and perhaps more directly affected by one’s vote for president.
Yes I am a one issue voter. I admit that. I have never said, I think, who I voted for. In any case, character does not trump life and death.
You’ve completely missed the point. :/
Please show me how I’ve missed the point.
To Jennifer, thank you for your well thought comment. I’m in a car on my phone. I’ll reply later. Grace to you.
I think he hit the nail on the head.
When you ASSUME something, know what that makes you and me?
I was very conflicted about voting for Trump… very… but one thing that offered me not a bit of confliction was the fact that I could not vote to give power to a party that has made it it’s unifying cause to encourage, expand and ensure not only the legality of abortion (literally up until (and after) birth!) but the taxpayer funding of it.
I have said and I stand by… You can call yourself a Christian and actually be a Christian and vote Democrat in elections… But if you do so, knowingly and intentionally, for a candidate has a record of and has stated that once elected *will* advance abortion then you have rejected the pro life cause and calling yourself pro life is disingenuous.
Yes we all make voting choices. But when it literally comes to abortion we are talking literal life and death, you cannot have your cake and eat it too… You’re not pro life if you vote for people whose mission is to promote and “enshrine infanticide into law“.
Truth. You come at me with a weapon even at my old age, I have a strong chance of survival. I’m good at war. However, babies in the womb have no chance when a barbarian doctor comes at them in the mother’s womb. I absolutely agree with Les Prouty. He is right as the rain. You folks can argue with him all you desire, but he is right. Come hell or high water, he is right on this. I do feel for this dear young lady who wrote this article. However, a vote for VP Harris was no catharsis for her suffering and pain.
I pray that President Biden is as healthy as an Olympic Marathon athlete for the next four years. I pray he does not even get a runny nose. VP Harris is a barbarian at the gate only one breath away from becoming the President of the United States. My God help your children and grandchildren if she ever sits in the Big Chair.
And before you condemn me to the deeper parts of hell for saying what I will never apologize for or back down on here. I want you to know that I am praying that VP Harris becomes a true follower of Christ and very soon. I prayed the same for President Trump. I am still praying for him to embrace the biblical gospel. I also pray that those of you who think he was the Second Coming of Jesus, to think deeper than a one finger shot of bourbon in a Dixie cup. He was not. He and President Biden are about the same in character, honor, and dignity. Not much.
Thank you brother. I have at least one who is not ashamed to agree with me. Well maybe two. Steve N.
You are Right.
I agree with you 100% and I see some folks in this discussion have fallen for the left’s propaganda.
Todd, you are correct that it’s not a black and white choice. It’s a life and death choice. I speak as one who has lived it with my wife and my niece.
I’m thankful that your experience has made you passionately pro-life. Emily is as well. Just know that others see issues such as genocide that is the result of our troop withdrawals, immigrants being denied medical care, 400,000 dead from the coronavirus, etc. as life and death issues as well. I’m not saying you should change your mind. Not at all. But let’s give others the grace to weigh these multiplicity of conflicting issues and come to a different conclusion than you about how to vote.
Todd, I do give grace. It has been generously bestowed on me. I have been wrong too many times to recount here.
But, you cannot lay the responsibility of genocide on a particular politician in this case. If you try, you are backed into a corner of Biden himself. As to “denied medical care,” even if true, that is preferable to death. Baby slaughter is never ok. And voting to advance it is equally never ok.
Last, y’all are all about giving people their voices on all sides of an issue. I surely hope you all don’t silence me as some did to Katie…the first commenter.
Pastor, shouldn’t it be the goal of all Christians especially church leaders to speak the truth since that is the mandate from scripture? Isn’t the statement regarding “400,000” deaths from the COVID-19 virus untrue? In other words do you have first hand knowledge of the cause of death of the 400,000 you mention? Oh I get it, we repeat what we hear or read, but only God knows the reason someone dies. Shouldn’t we use extreme caution when spreading untrue statements? Just a thought.
Mr. Prouty, I apologize for jumping in mid-stream, but have read your full comments and the article. I resonate with the writer’s perspective about the recent election and the choices before us—as well as your personal connection to the choice of life. I was born into very high risk circumstances (not my time in utero, but the circumstances surrounding my birth and early childhood). I’ve also researched a great deal about perceptions vs. realities of how an elected official’s stance on abortion affects actual abortion rates (or not). I’m also in law school, so am mindful of a lot of nuances that get lost in how Christians bifurcate this issue at times. I responded to someone inquiring of my position on this issue earlier this week when criticized that I was speaking out against racism, but not abortion. So at the risk of having you turn against me and accuse me of also being responsible for killing babies because of my vote in the presidential election, I thought I would share here what I shared with the woman earlier this week as I think it some of the statistics and details around policy may help you to see how a pro-life Christian could vote for a pro-choice President/Vice-President as well as why some may feel led to speak up for the vulnerable communities that the Church (and definitely SBC) have failed to be clear to value. Here’s what I shared: The most recent official data shows abortions have declined each year since 2009, reflecting that there aren’t more abortions when the President is pro-choice. Nor would an overturn of Roe nationally outlaw abortion, which is why I’m passionate about the Church serving & resourcing higher-risk communities to protect the unborn. My heart groans for those lives lost & the confusion/hopelessness of the circumstances, which I can imagine given how I grew up. My tone is probably a bit more nuanced not because I’m not pro-life but because of two factors, I think. First, with a background in politics and as a law student, I’m mindful of the statutory realities that make the pro-life position an issue that’s most actualized, in my view, at the state electoral level. Second, I’ve also seen clearly at various points in my life—including many after I was saved—that the *only* time in my life when I am confident the Church would look at my life… Read more »
Jennifer, thank you for your heartfelt response. Please refer to me as Les, not Mr. Prouty. I know I’m somewhat older, but… Anyway, I do hear what you are saying. Still, recent political situations have proved that elections can and do have an effect on baby lives. Whatever one thinks of former president Trump, he undoubtedly saved baby lives via policy to stop funding for abortions. Add to that his judicial appointments and we have a future, likely, of less baby killing.
I get that his demeanor was lacking. But, less baby killing is a trade off I think we should be willing to make. As I have said, discomfort at the border, even extreme discomfort, (which was no more than a Dem president) is still less harmful than death.
Thank you for your comments. But, as a father of five and grandfather of seven, I feel as if I have every much a voice in this discussion as any woman.
Voting for a known “baby killing advocate” who seems like a nice person is not more godly (and I argue is less godly) than voting for a a less godly person who advocates for less baby killing.
I know that the powers that be here don’t like my very direct comments (baby killing and baby slaughter), but abortion is just that.
Reducing Christian objections to Trump as merely his demeanor is disingenuous and diminishes the very real concerns we should all have about many of his policies and other ways that, as Emily has rightly stated, contradict our theology that all people bear the image of God and possess full dignity and are worthy of respect and Christian love.
Todd, //diminishes the very real concerns we should all have about many of his policies//
Can you be specific about the “many of his policies” we should “all” have concerns about?
I’m not going to argue in circles with you. Emily lists several of them in her post.
Pastor, to you and all other pastors, the readers of this blog shouldn’t expect, accept or support “arguing in circles” but we should expect and demand specific scriptural references that condemn the past administration’s “policies and other ways” and are against our Christian theologies. Likewise, we should see specific scriptural support for claims that the new administration supports our Christian theologies. So many of the comments I’ve read here are seen in the secular blogs and other media. They are simply left wing or right wing, liberal or conservative talking points. I definitely expect more from our SBC pastors.
As I posted below… its not unimportant that The ERLC 2021 policy objectives match very nicely and almost perfectly Fmr. President Trump’s stance on those issues – Biden/Harris stand (proudly) against every one.
I notice that people who talk about the policies never give any examples.
In an election, we have to take one of the choices given us. There has never been a perfect candidate and never will be because they are human. Trump’s polices and actions were more Christian than the oppositions.
“By their fruits you shall know them” The fruits of Trump’s policies are more in line with Christian morality than those of the other side.
Yeah. Jesus was all about lying. Starting insurrections. Separating kids from their parents. Paying people to cover up his affairs. And dividing people over politics.
That’s in Two Corinthians isn’t it?
It was that in Art of the Deal?
Left wing talking points. Really?
You do realize you could (except the affairs) switch the names DJT and KH and still be accurate, huh?
This is a sincere, well expressed and moving personal story and explanation of a secular political choice. I will not offer any critique of the faith based/personal struggle issues raised by Emily Snook as it is not germane to a political discussion. Keeping on the secular political part of the article it is an example of why we have elections and what sways voters who relay on many sources to come to a political decision. When people of faith who were truly anti abortion bought into the Pro Choice and Pro Life language , it was the camels nose under the tent. Now the standard social justice mantra is we only care about babies until they are born, because we are not Pro Life in reality. Illegal aliens and refugees are able and do make a personal decision to come to the USA, they have a choice, a baby in the womb does not. Now the language has blurred the anti abortion issue. I do not know the age of Emily Snook but Sarah Palin ran with the very secular John McCain so recent and past history show women have always been in the room and no country in the world or in history is least racist or sexist than the USA. This is a great case for political id politics, for social justice and an opinioned piece that has a place in political discussion. Of course elections are about choices, that is what democracy is about. What about a traditional Christian couple who want to raise their family in a nation that does not promote an agenda that is direct opposition to the foundational beliefs of our nation and Western Civilization, who is their advocate? So this is a great sharing of emotion and promotion of a certain political decision. Can I be against the unlawful entry of illegal aliens into our nation and still be pro life? However to connect the dots the language and phrases used by Emily Snook boiler plate template for SBC discussions on the issues of what it means to be pro life, compassionate and strive for social justice. Kamala Harris was probably the most unqualified Presidential candidates in Dem primary, got few votes , got out early because of lack of support and was picked because of political id politics. Warren and Kobacher were better qualified women but were white women and it… Read more »
You should have gone the opposite direction and addressed her faith-based points about being conflicted since that is what her piece is about. By giving your political argument here, you are taking all the air out of the room. You belittle her by calling her article merely a “sharing of emotion” and devalue her well-reasoned and thoughtful POV by calling hers a “secular” decision or by trying to shoehorn her view into some kind of liberal identity politics or secular view of social justice.
Todd Benkert, I was trying hard not to be judgmental about the faith based issues. The majority of the piece was about politics and governmental policies. The last thing I was trying to do is to belittle an honest, sincere article that has some opinions that I do not agree with. I referenced Sarah Palin as a VP candidate who could have been the first woman in the VP room? but she and McCain lost but the choice was there. I appreciate your reply and respect your opinion but to me this is more more a political piece , explaining a voting decision based on personal experience couple with a social works based faith. Again, that is why we have different denominations and have elections. Why was Kamala Harris picked ? Use President Biden’s own words. We shall see how faith based organization navigate the next few years but I think it will be a liberal trend as we not have a seat at the table .
It’s been a rough day and so I’m going to resist the urge to step into some of these responses to discuss politics even if I do find them dismissively downplaying issues or whether or not the supposedly pro-life side would actually step up to do something substantial about abortion even if they were wielding all power. About mixed feelings regarding the first female VP and that it is Ms Harris.. ::sigh:: I have mixed feelings. I did tell my daughter on Inauguration Day that Today is the day that we get our first woman VP, that if something happened to the president, God forbid, that she would be in position to be the first woman President. (My daughter has frequently asked why we have never had a woman president.) That it is a historic day! And yet, I wished it had been someone who had similar values to what we hold. It is a moment both bitter and sweet, as was the day in general for me.. relief at having Trump out of office and regret that it had to come by having Biden in. I do feel that it is vitally important to have women “in the room”, but it has to be the right women with the right ideas. There are many men who would be much better allies to women than other women. Women can every bit push other women down as much as any man can. That said, representation is essential. Women have perspectives and experiences that men will not, and we need their wisdom. Men as well experience life in a way that women will never completely get. We need their wisdom. We have so much in common in our shared humanity, but differences to celebrate as well. As God created man and woman and told them to rule the world together, so I also think that in unity they should be making decisions. But just like since the fall we have attacked one another and been fearful of one another and tried to get the advantage over one another, we see that everywhere we look, and our politics and policies are certainly no exception. I despise seeing how women politicians on the left are treated – most especially when it comes from the mouths of my brothers and sisters in Christ. Likewise I despise to hear the comments about “just a bunch of… Read more »
So many people do not realize that there are Marys and there are Jezebels in this world. I’m tired of all the “first (whatever)” business. We need Christian people in leadership. Its the heart that matters.
There are, and I think part of the problem is quite often especially in the conservative church world, Marys are accused of being Jezebels. It’s often thrown out as a painful accusation against many godly women to put them in “their place”.
I think the firsts are important but not the most important things. And it probably is harder to recognize the importance of those firsts if you’ve not been in a place to realize that someone “like you” has not been represented, even more so when you know that lack of representation wasn’t based on sheer chance but a history of being dismissed or seen as a lower class of person.
It bothers me a lot that we can have a fellow follower of Jesus bare her soul in this forum, and all anyone takes out of it is who she voted for. And the theoretical implications of that vote. Here are facts: the abortion rate in the US has been dropping, regardless of who is in the Oval Office for 2 decades. Those in the pro-life GOP camp won’t tell you that, because it might make you vote differently. It might make you think twice before pulling the lever for a candidate who devalues life after it exits the womb. It might make you think twice about a candidate whose plans are to separate children from their parents, take away health care from poor people, and ultimately attempt to lie and connive their way back into office. Here are some truths those of you who are deriding Emily and her dilemma need to deal with. The claim of “pro-life” rings very different outside of your small echo chambers. To those who do not know Jesus, it rings false when you say you are pro-life yet vote for candidates who want to lower the quality of life for poor people, immigrants, refugees, and others who are not in the womb. It sounds, quite specifically, like a load of skubalon. And they are right. I am adamantly against abortion, but I know, from my work in the poverty sector, that the majority of women who have abortions do so out of economic desparation, fear, and hopelessness. And when we vote only for people who promise to protect babies in the womb, we just ensure that those women are going to drive hundreds of miles to an abortion clinic in another state, because those “pro-life” candidates have ripped away the support that would have enabled them to care for their child. So please, spare me the “more babies will be aborted because you voted for Biden.” There is ZERO evidence to prove that. There is a lot of evidence to disprove that notion, and I for one am sick to death of being boxed in between voting for “baby murder” and voting for candidates who could care less for the baby or the mother after the child is born. Emily’s dilemma is held by a lot of people, but particularly a lot of women, in your churches. Your failure to LISTEN rather than… Read more »
Ryan Abernathy,
Here is the deal whether you or I like it or not:
Republicans have used Abortion as a political football.
Democrats use Race as a political football.
Now, both parties are using the COVID19 Pandemic as a political football.
You are wrong to paint with a broad brush about about who is listening and who is learning. Some of us actually do understand, and I do mean understand, what this young lady is saying. We also know that a vote for VP Harris is no more a catharsis for her pain and suffering than was a vote for Trump a catharsis for anyone’s pain and suffering.
Abortion on demand could have been overturned during Papa Bush’s administration. It didn’t happen. it has not happened under anyone’s administration. It did not even get close during the Trump administration. It will certainly not end under the Biden administration. Frankly, these other comparisons of evil to abortion are poor. Abortion is the national sin of this nation. We as a nation have danced in the blood of the innocents for so long we have become immune to the stink of of it. A baby in the womb has no voice, nor does any other child for that matter. Therein is the issue. Grown men and women can stand up and speak to their own plight. A baby cannot. There’s the difference, Brother. There’s the difference.
CB-
I don’t see a vote for Harris as “catharsis for her pain.” It was the best of two bad choices in her mind.
You are right that an unborn child cannot speak for itself. Neither can a newborn. Or for that matter a two year old. Why does one in the womb matter more than one outside the womb?
They don’t. They are equally valuable. And one candidate in 2020 was a potential threat to babies in the womb. One was a proven threat to those outside of the womb.
There is NO correlation between the position on abortion in the Oval Office and the rise or fall of abortions in the US in the last two decades. They have been falling no matter who is in the White House. That means we don’t have to contort ourselves to make excuses for voting for an immoral unfit GOP candidate simply of the basis of lowering abortions. But the GOP won’t tell you that. Because if you take away abortion they don’t have much to offer.
Read my comment, Ryan.
I plainly stated, “A baby in the womb has no voice, nor does any other child for that matter. Therein is the issue”
Tell me, Brother. How many abortions are acceptable to you? It was a political movement that made abortion on demand the law of the land. A political movement could also end it.
Political movements are dependent on the outcry of the populace.
?
Also, Ryan, a vote for Harris is a vote of deconstructing a nation. Trump had no semblance of a biblical and godly character. However, the platform was much closer to a biblical worldview than is that of the current POTUS.
That’s why I voted for the guy. For you or anyone else who frequents this blog to say that the Biden-Harris ticket was a better choice from the perspective of a biblical worldview is nonsense.
The Republican ticket had one barbarian and one Christian and a platform with at least some similarity to a biblical worldview.
The Democratic ticket had two barbarians and nothing on the platform with any similarity to a biblical worldview.
Frankly, I wish Trump had backed down after his first term and holstered his ego and stated to the nation. “I am one and done. I am now going to place my support behind VP Mike Pence for President of the United States.”
But he couldn’t do that. His ego drove the good he has done into the ground. Then he just couldn’t let it go. He had to push it to the point that crazy people with small minds and no concept of right and wrong breached the Capital.
That gave the left wing crazies the ammunition they desired to drive their false narrative about conservative ideology being an enemy of freedom for humanity. Obviously, it’s working.
Also, Ryan, let’s compare apples to apples here about the primary personalities on both tickets. Do you think Trump is inferior to Biden in character, decency, and truthfulness?
Neither of them have virtue worthy of the position of POTUS. As a nation, we are reaping what we have sown. Abortion is our national sin. We kill babies. We say it is legal and right to do so. There is the difference. Thus far, it is illegal to kill a one year old child or a two year old child. There is answer to your question:
“Why does one in the womb matter more than one outside the womb?”
However, you actually ask the wrong question. Your question should be: “Why is it illegal to kill a one year old baby, but it is legal to kill a baby in the womb?”
That’s the question, Ryan. That’s the question.
Tell me, Ryan, why is it illegal for me to kill a coyote and yet, legal for me to kill a baby in the womb?
Why does PETA cry murder when I kill a coyote and Planned Parenthood cheer me on when I kill a baby in the womb?
I’ll tell you why, Ryan. It is because we have become a putrid nation in the nostrils of God and few men of God are willing to stand in the gap and say enough is enough. We have sinned against a Holy God and we must repent or be damned to destruction as a nation.
We Christians of all stripes are no better corporately than was Nero who, as the legend states, played his violin as Rome burned.
The blood of innocents stain American soil. Murder is wrong at any age, but it is especially abhorrent when committed against innocent, harmless victims
Ryan, voting for a KNOWN advocate of baby slaughter vs one who not only stated he was for babies to live, but actually did things to make that possible, was not a real choice. NEVER vote for the baby slaughter advocate. How hard is this for you?
Where does day one transgender policy fit in your definition of immoral unfitness? Definition of no more male or female? Women are under massive attack and losing rights everyday.
Women have more power today then men. People can say what they want about a man, but no one dares criticize a woman, else she will resort to tears.
Your sexism aside, your “no one dares criticize a women” is factually false.
Curtis Nester, you are not helping with comments like that. Kimberly Koonts is right as the rain. Your generalization about women and “tears” is a false concept. I know and have known women who would eat you for lunch for that comment and the only tears would be yours.
You are welcome to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. A lot of judging going on here.
“Welcome”…”entitled”…. interesting word choices.
You just proved what I said by hurling buzz words against me. You don’t know me or anything about me, yet you are judging me. I still maintain that men are criticized unmercifully, but women get a pass.
Furthermore, Curtis, if you did have one ounce of care for the women in this room – for the sister who authored this article – you would at least apologize. At the most you would apologize AND ask the moderators to remove your inappropriate comments.
I respect women and actually put good women on a pedestal. I’m tired of all the character assassination on this site. Until you know someone you have no right to judge that person. I have always shown compassion to others, especially to women. When you express opinions you must be prepared to accept criticism of that opinion and not resort to judgemental statements, or try the Censoring bit. I don’t see people according to the “group” they happen to belong to, but I see them as individuals. I have been married to the same woman for 65 years and she is my Treasure, beautiful inside and out!
Mr. Nestor,
Do you recognize that your statement:
“ but no one dares criticize a woman, else she will resort to tears” is itself a judgmental statement? And in your own advice turned around that “ When you express opinions you must be prepared to accept criticism of that opinion”.
That is what I’m seeing here is that you made a judgmental statement and now by your own acknowledgment must be prepared to accept the criticism of your opinion.
I don’t doubt that you have treated women well sometimes. And I don’t think your faulty/harmful/problematic statements are an indication that you are some terrible person. But I would ask that you reflect privately on what you have said and why there was backlash to it, and if there is any merit to what people are responding based solely on the words you chose to use.
That’s a lie, Curtis Nester. Women in general don’t get a “pass” anymore than men do when they speak their mind and convictions in public forums. However, they do get “passed” over far too often when they speak their minds and convictions in public forms and in private.
Curtis Nester, it is guys like you who bring about the kind of thoughts, opinions, and feelings that Emily Snooks revealed in her post.
While I hate that her post was convoluted and lost steam, in my opinion, when she referenced the new VP in her post, she is right about many of the things she stated otherwise.
BTW, you are the one who used one of the ultimate “buzz words” when you brought up Nazis in this comment thread.
Blatant sexism.
Curtis Nester,
You can probably assume that your comments following this one will be quickly disregarded by most of those who participate here – especially the ladies. If they aren’t, they should be. You have just revealed in a meager, two-sentence comment that you actually don’t care at all about the women in this “room” or any other room, for that matter – unless, of course, their presence in the room directly benefits you.
If this piece makes you uncomfortable, it exists, in part, because of attitudes which you have so clearly and unfortunately expressed in this comment.
You make a false assumption.I didn’t say the original article made me uncomfortable. I have compassion for all who are faced with difficulties. (John 7:24) Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”
Totally disagree…..what is missing are men who are willing to stand for truth against the onslaught of ungodly actions perpetrated against men and women.
I am hoping you had something else on your mind to convey, other than that which you actually conveyed with those seemingly sexist words. Perhaps, it was unintentional? I would like to think that is true.
Note, my comment to you has projected no judgment, assumed the best and as, one myself who offers lots of feedback here and as a result experienced lots of pushback, asked you to please prayerfully reread, reconsider and reword your post.
Thank you for considering this.
The majority of these comments on this thread are literally criticizing a woman.
Right as rain CB. God bless you brother
I appreciate the author’s bravery in posting her views in a forum where her views may not be popular. I do think it’s important to hear various viewpoints here and interact with the the ideas presented. I didn’t come to the same conclusions she did but this is typical of Christians in very difficult election choice cycles.
Some people here seem to be arguing that no one should critique or interact with the article beyond empathizing with the emotions of the writer. No article that’s posted here should be beyond critique, however. If you agree you should be able to state so. But those who disagree should be able to do so as well.
I was born with a genetic disorder, Neurofibromatosis Type 1. It is autosomal dominant, meaning I have a 50% chance to pass it on to children provided I marry a woman who has no family history of the disorder. There are a large number of people in my disorder’s community who say we should not have kids (some even advocate for sterilization), and if we do have kids, we should test them while in the womb and abort them if they have this disorder.
I have a friend who was born blind and with her husband has adopted two children born with the same condition she has. They have brought these kids to the states and they are amazing and inspirational, but some would say abort if we can test for that condition. I have another friend who adopted a child with DS. Of course we know how the left in this country feels about that.
You see, right now, I see republicans pushing for prohibitions on abortion due to genetic disorders like DS, autism, or even my NF. And who is it that is fighting this? The Democratic party, their supporters, and the judges they appoint.
For me this is very personal. The idea that people would be okay with or tolerate allowing anyone to abort a child because that child might have a genetic disorder is beyond infuriating. It is clear the democrats are even okay with people aborting because the child is “the wrong” gender. I wonder if there would be outrage if the child was born “the wrong” race?
It simply does not matter if abortions in this country are at a all time low. A single abortion is one too many. And supporting a person and/or a party that not only support, but advocate for abortions is reprehensible in my opinion.
It’s funny, when Gov. Sarah Palin was the Republican VP nominee, I did not hear or see voices imploring women to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket to bring about the first female VP. Why was she not good enough to support but yet VP Harris was, in spite of the latter’s abhorrent views on abortion (to name just one abhorrent position)?
This is the alternative to the crude mean tweeter. Behold the POTUS. https://redstate.com/streiff/2021/01/22/314896-n314896
and….
…..VPOTUS
I am empathetic, and surely it is representative of the dilemmas faced by many sincere people in our churches. I’m sure similar essays could be written about abortion, adultery, physical abuse, and addiction. The local church should have a place to hear and evaluate, in a spirit of love and edification. But SBC Voices isn’t for that kind of pastoral care; what does the team want us to find commendable here?
>A young woman who is volunteering at her local crisis pregnancy center or teaching English classes to refugees.
Kamala Harris tried to *jail* women like that. She tried to bankrupt and crush a woman who dared to embarrass Planned Parenthood. She tried to make pro-life doctors and volunteers in crisis pregnancy centers put troubled women in touch with abortionists.
> No choice … to provide more economic, medical, and social services for desperate women and families
Why would that be right? If the government will not help Group X, there is no law against any American organizing to help immigrants, providing medicine, or social services to those here and abroad. But there *is* a law that permits the butchers to stay open, that we cannot close without a pro-life government.
The name of the blog is “SBC Voices.” What the team wants you to do is to hear an SBC voice and engage with it. Emily is not an anomaly here. She is voicing in public what many SBC women are thinking (and voting) in private. In an ideal world, this blog would be a safe space for people of good faith to have these kinds of tough discussions. Readers err all the time in thinking that posting=endorsement. Rather, we post to give voice to people and provide a forum for discussing pointed and difficult issues that might otherwise not get discussed. My advice to those who disagree with Emily is to use your persuasive skills to engage. If you really don’t like her opinion, you need to realize that MANY women in the SBC share it. You will not change anyone’s mind by communicating that it is not safe to discuss issues like this. You’ll only cause people to retreat and hold on to their position in silence. I make no apologies for SBC Voices giving voice to others.
Emily is spot on when she states, ““We have to be willing, at the least, to have complicated conversations, with everyone’s voice heard, every cost counted, every wound bandaged up.”
Todd,
Probably the reason people perceive posting here as endorsement is that the Voices team most of the time seems to have the same position on everything and the articles on a subject collectively tend to lean heavy on one particular side.
On CRT, one or two anti-pieces by guest writers balanced with 20 or so supporting its limited use. One pro-Trump piece by Bart Barber a long time ago balanced with too many to count anti-Trump pieces (with this article being the latest anti-Trump piece) On SBC in house issues, they all take a pro-Greear, anti-CBN position.
Now I personally agree with the team on some things (Greear, CBN) and disagree on others (American history interpretation), while sliding into somewhat of a middle ground on others (Trump, CRT). My agreement or disagreement is not the issue. The issue is that if you heavily skew to one side on an issue that’s how posting gets perceived as endorsement.
Fair enough. From my perspective, our two most prolific writers (Dave and William) disagree on a lot of different issues. There are a handful of issues where we have general alignment, but internally we disagree on quite a lot. What we ALL have in common is the desire to cooperate with others with whom we disagree on non-essential issues and a desire to give voice to viewpoints that may not be the majority view in SBC life, but still (IMO) deserve a hearing. You can hear the other side of those issues in numerous places in the SBC blogosphere. I think we are one of the few places willing to provide a space to discuss tough issues and allow writers to treat them with the complexity and nuance that such issues require. Even if you or I disagree with Emily’s conclusions, the only way to come to any kind of unity or collective wisdom on an issue is to bring things hidden out in the open and be willing to have hard discussions with people who see things differently than we do.
Perception is reality sometimes. It might be helpful for you to maybe post some point / counter-point pieces where you do reveal some of those internal disagreements. I am glad for diverse viewpoints to be presented. Also, if you find everyone on the team in lock step on controversial issues, it’s maybe time to expand the team (there are some obvious exceptions. No racists on the team is a good policy).
I did not say “endorsement,” because I’ve seen y’all flinch before.
But you surely don’t think “a Baptist speaking” is a good reason to post for discussion. I agree this is a voice a local church should hear kindly but I disagree this is an argument that should be plucked from interpersonal relationship and broadcast for open criticism in an oped, or a sermon, or discussion blog.
It feels like this was posted on the anniversary of Roe, so that the poster could make people feel bad for criticizing a Harris voter or Emily’s reasoning in public. It feels exploitative to post something in a debate forum, and then put Emily out for the slings and arrows — so that someone else can make a point about how slings and arrows hurt.
You’ve put a vulnerable person on display, to tut-tut the critics like Leslie who don’t think her argument should be adopted by others.
Emily the person deserves our empathy at church. Emily’s public argument deserves our criticism in public debate. I think this was the wrong time and place.
Actually. I put myself out there. On purpose. To catch the slings and arrows. So others wouldn’t have to. For others who can’t, especially in their local church. For the sake a starting a conversation that I am more than capable of handling. I expected most to disagree. That’s the point. We have to be able to talk about these issues. Really talk about them. Or we will never make actual progress in eliminating abortion.Your criticism of Todd is unfair to him and disrespectful to me. I’m a grown woman, who was educated in a SBC school and has worked for multiple SBC churches and institutions my whole life. This is the forum for my voice too.
Emily Snooks, I want you to know I would fight (literally) for your right to speak here on Voices. I just want you to know that.
At the same time, I also want to state that I think a man/men somewhere in your life has/have done you harm. I make that assumption based on the content of your post. There are a lot of men in Christendom who have big mouths, but are biblical and theological dwarfs. It is our shame that many of them are Southern Baptists.
Nonetheless, it seems to me, as an old White man of whom William Thornton references down in this comment thread, that even though the new VP is a female, she, according to her own declarations, and a multitude thereof, is in diametric opposition to any semblance of a person who adheres to a biblical worldview regarding a plethora of subjects, one of which is abortion. Her position on abortion on demand is that of a barbarian, plain and simple.
I pray and ask you to pray also, that she never becomes the President of the United States.
I’d invite you to engage the content of my post, not psychoanalyze me, as I am a total stranger. I have good support that knows me in real life. My post has very little to do with who I voted for and or my story and much more to do with our inability to think through every angle of issues, or look beyond issues to the people we impact with our words, and to be able to agree about ends even if we disagree about means, to wrestle out loud with difficult issues. Because while the value and protection of the life of every child in every womb is uncomplicated, our political reality is not. I’m well aware of VP Harris’s record in abortion, it’s not the least of what I vehemently disagree with her and President Biden about. I would have much preferred he chose Amy Klobuchar or (in my dreams) Carly Fiorina or Condi. But with the options I had this time I made the choice I made. And hope for better options next time.
I made my statement based on the content of your post. I did not psychoanalyze you. I stated an opinion based strictly on your post. I have engaged your post. You are wrong about the VP. She is not a good example for either women or men of faith. She embraces the mentality of a barbarian who is only one breath away from becoming the POTUS. God help the United States if she does.
CB-
As someone who has known Emily since college and considers her a friend today I want you to know that there are a lot of good, godly men in her life. Her comments and her post aren’t a result of mistreatment but of actually being on the front lines of the abortion debate for decades. Just like you.
I understand you have a different opinion than her and than I, and I’m fine with that. And truthfully I welcome it, because we are better when we talk with each other and understand one another.
I know this is an emotional and passionate issue for you and that when you believe you are right you double down. And I love and admire that about you. But I also know you are a wise man and you know how to listen and learn even if you don’t agree with someone.
Emily is tough. She can take your critique. But your assumptions about her were not in line with your character. I will defend to the death your right to take her argument apart and pound it into dust, but I won’t stand by and let you dismiss someone’s arguments based on false assumptions about where they come from.
Ryan, I have respect for you. I want to say that up front. I shared the same of Todd Benkert with him last evening regarding this post. I realize we are sometimes at different poles on various subjects. We also agree on many subjects, systemic racism within the ranks of the SBC being one of them. However, I want you to know that I am not dismissing Emily Snooks’ post or arguments in defense of it based on false assumptions. The very fact that I have even engaged this post is evidence that I do not dismiss it. I didn’t dismiss anything. I do not know the Lady in any fashion other than her post here. In reading the post it seems apparent to me, based upon the content of the post, and my own experiences trying to help women and girls get through bad times a man or men have brought upon them, that I was reading the testimony of yet another female that some man or men in her life actually did “dismiss” her in her personhood equal to theirs and maybe even as a legitimate image bearer of God. (That happens all the time and we both know it.) I will, having had experience with you on many occasions, take your word for it that no man has treated this young Lady in an ill fashion. Now, with that being stated, I do believe she made a poor choice in presenting the new VP as an example that anyone, female or male could or should emulate. The VP is a barbarian, not just for her stand on abortion, but as one example I will venture here. Her climbing the political ladder on the backs of young Black men she over prosecuted during her tenure as a DA. The VP is a wicked chameleon who will do whatever it takes for her to reach her ungodly goals in this life. That’s evident to anyone who has taken the time to listen to her and to read her body of work in public life. She makes Donald Trump look like a choirboy in comparison and that, my Brother, is one big statement in and of itself. You better pray for the sake of your children and someday, grandchildren that she never becomes President of the United States. I don’t know if she wears Prada, but if she does, then… Read more »
Emily, I’ve made my criticisms of your argument precisely because you are an adult and you’ve posted it in a place seeking responses.
Still, you being an adult does not make me think any less that some SBCVoices voices were unfair to a fellow adult. The immediate defense by several of them is that criticism of you is proof “church is not a safe place for women” or that other Baptist churches are dysfunctional. I think it’s true at times, but not in the main. I’d like churches to be safe spaces for this kind of story, and many, I think, would disciple this kind of conversation well.
But if they thought you needed a family or church talk (even as an adult), they could have arranged a family talk or a church talk. This is a forum for criticism and debate, though, not a source of discipleship, pastoral counseling, confession, or mutual covenant. If they thought you needed to be open to criticism, they can’t now say the criticism here shows local churches lack safe spaces.
If they knew that you, as an adult, would have benefited more from the former than the latter, then I’m critical of the way they’ve treated a fellow image-bearer for the chance to ride the hobby-horse.
I am one who agrees with Emily. I am one who is glad she had the guts(and yeah it took guts, just look at the comment section). I am extremely busy with life and not able to be involved as much. I am also one who would love to ” eat Curtis Nestor for lunch”, because I think he needs to be taught a few lessons about women. But that would be for another thread and another day. It would just take up too much time, and Emily’s post has already been misread and I won’t add to the fray at this time. But Curtis it’s more than opinion with you, it’s your belief. And it’s one that has done more harm to the church of Christ than any good. Stop it.
I agree that the conversation about the act of abortion is not complicated. The question Emily and so many others wrestle with is how do we see the act of abortion itself in isolation from (a) the real trauma that women experience in crisis pregnancy and the seeming lack of any real choice and, (b) every other political issue that affects Image-bearers. There is no question that abortion is wrong. That is not the debate. The question is how far does single-issue voting take us before we go over the edge and deny the very principles we are meaning to uphold. If an unborn child is made in the image of God, so is the mother in crisis, the poor in forgotten communities, the person of color, the survivor of abuse, the immigrant seeking a better life, the prisoner on death row, etc. I get those who make the point that the “pro-life” verbiage should be reserved for the anti-abortion position. Even if we do that, it doesn’t relieve us of the burden of advocating not only for the unborn but for the born. Even if, at the end of the day, you decide that this single-issue is the trump card (NPI) that determines your vote, as believers, we MUST speak to and work for all these other issues too. Emily, as one “woman in the room”, seems to see that, but many many Christians and pastors do not. IMO, this is a conversation that is needed and worth having.
Transgender policy and elimination of male and female designations also played a role……..astonished the attack on women by this ignorance never receives similar focus …..it was never one issue.
Silence speaks volumes…..
Do I recall that Les Prouty is a Presbyterian, not a Southern Baptist? That doesn’t invalidate his opinions here but an extended comment stream on an SBC site might be reconsidered.
The OP is an opinion piece. I don’t agree with it but am sorry to see it attacked with the usual language of strident, single issue anti-abortionists.
Anti-abortion as divine permission for Christian hatred, misogyny, and racism
And here we go William. If you will send to me your email, I can reply back with a copy of my Southern Baptist ordination credentials. Just let me know.
You are “sorry to see it attacked with the usual language of strident, single issue anti-abortionists.”
Well I suppose that depends on one’s definition of “attacked.” I just offered my opinion back. And if your quoting about “vicious, harsh, hate-filled rhetoric” is aimed at me, please point out where I have done that and I will retract such remarks.
You are Southern Baptist? I’ll correct if necessary.
As I offered, I will happily send to you a photo copy of my Southern Baptist ordination certificate. As to whether or not you correct it is up to you. It’s not a big deal for me but must be a big deal for you.
Do you credential all people who comment here?
William Thornton,
I know I did not attack the young lady who wrote this post. I did strongly engage Ryan Abernathy. I did personally contact Todd Benkert about this post. I shared with him my opinions. Feel free to ask him of my personal opinions. They apply to you as well.
I don’t think anyone here who stated opposition to abortion on demand made any statements that can be considered as hatred, misogyny, or racism. That is an incorrect spin to promote here.
Also, it is a well known fact known by many people who have been involved with SBC Voices for years that Les Prouty has served the within the ranks of the SBC as well as serving in Presbyterian ministry. I don’t know of anyone who has had more hardline debates over the years with Les than have I. Yet, we agree on many things of faith also.
Therefore, I will declare again, he is right in what he has stated in this thread. You or anyone else are going to be hard put to garner adequate biblical support to prove him wrong.
To be sure, his “extended comment stream on an SBC site” is not anything out of the ordinary if one previews the history of comment threads on this blog.
He has engaged many of us in an extended comment stream many times. So, I ask you, why do you make such a challenge of him in this particular thread?
Unless I missed it, I don’t think anyone in this thread is advocating abortion. I don’t think anyone here is actually advocating voting for a pro-choice candidate. Only for a little understanding for those who came to a different conclusion than they did.
In my opinion what is being advocated is voting for a particular ticket based on the sex of the VP rather than weighing the political positions of the ticket. From what I observed in 2008 & 2012 the situation was almost the same, except the issue then was not the sex of the candidate but the race of candidate Obama. The USA has a very dim future if this becomes the prevailing factor in choosing leaders.
I think you are misreading here. The “woman in the room” is a metaphor and rhetorical device for hearing the voice of women on not only the abortion issue, but also every other issue that speaks to the Imago Dei.
I will give that I may have misread the post, for I struggled in the University in classes that involved metaphorical language, but I did manage to graduate. I will say I think the author should be the judge as to whether I misread the post. Having said that I do stick with my conclusion above that if the prevailing factor in selecting candidates is sex, race, etc rather than issues this country is in for a dim future.
Todd is right. I’d encourage you to read my pinned comment at the top.
Tony,
How many people do you really think voted for Obama because he was black, who, if the Dem candidate wasn’t black, would have voted for the Republican instead? I think Obama’s race perhaps mobilized more minorities to vote, but I seriously doubt many people crossed the aisle to vote for the black candidate.
Likewise, I doubt many people crossed the aisle to vote for the Dem ticket because there was a woman on the ticket, but rather, well, I think it’s obvious this time around why someone crossed the aisle to vote for Biden.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your statement, “I think Obama’s race perhaps mobilized more minorities to vote…” You admit that some people get excited about voting based on the race of the candidate. I never suggested people crossed the aisle to vote based on race or sex. These people I am talking about were already on the left side of the aisle and were motivated to mobilize their own side of the aisle to get more voters to the polls because Obama was black, Hillary was female, & VP candidate Harris was female. As a conservative I have voted for all races and sexes based on their degree of conservatism. The sex, skin color, and even political party affiliation are immaterial to me.
I don’t know. There was a lot of self-congratulations by Republicans over the number of new female GOPers elected. Remember the phrase “look at my African American!”
The issue that this article addresses is abortion but you have to take the Biden/Harris team as a whole for their policies. How could a born again Christian look at all of the Biden/Harris policies and still vote for them? Aside from abortion, have you read the executive order that has been signed about not discriminating against gender identity which will be the death of women’s sports? This administration totally believes that you can have any number of genders? All of this was out for the informed voter before the election. All of this is ok as long as we have a woman Vice President?
Let’s just clarify the issue: Jesus Loved the Sinner but Hated the Sin, and so should we. Show compassion, but never minimize the sin of murdering innocent babies. Before WWII too many churches gave aid and comfort to the Nazis by remaining silent and we all know the result. Our country is threatened by an evil power and many pastors don’t have the courage to speak against it. Could it be that judgement has already begun?
Well, there it is. Nazis.
If the shoe fits. It is an apt comparison.
Doesn’t fit Curtis. Take it somewhere else.
Curtis Nester,
While it is true that the state church of Germany did cow-tow to Hitler prior to WWII and afterwards, I don’t think you help this debate by throwing that hat into the ring. Some people understand what the word Nazi means and some people don’t. That’s a fact. However, in our culture, it is always an inflammatory word. So, you really help nothing by throwing it in here.
Its an apt comparison. I am 83 years old and pastored SBC churches for 60 years. I remember the days and deeds of WWII and I see the same attitudes developing in America today. As long as I have breath I will speak out against the evil that is spreading darkness across the nation I love.
Curtis Nestor,
I don’t care if you are 120 years old and fought in the Argonne Forest during WWI, and then mooned Kaiser Wilhelm II when he fled to the Netherlands. Your throwing the Nazi card into this helps nothing. It is just a fact that many people have no real understanding of what that word means and in our culture it is an inflammatory word now.
Besides, we are not facing the Nazis. Most likely even the POTUS would oppose them.
Besides, at 83, you should know to stick with the subject at hand in a debate like this and not throw hand grenades into a crowded room.
More character assassination on this site.
I read this article and was reminded of an association meeting where we were debating a resolution against abortion. It was a long debate. There were 20 women in the room and none of them spoke. I remember going hone that night wishing we had heard a woman’s perspective.
Tony Jones, it is highly possible that the reason none of the 20 women in the room spoke is because they have been programed throughout their lives by men of poor theological moorings that they are not to speak unless called upon. Most likely, it would not have mattered that the subject of your meeting was abortion or breast feeding v. bottle feeding of babies, those women most likely were conditioned not to have a public voice.
However, the fact that the current VP is a female does not negate the the fact that she promotes barbarian ideology and intends to do all in her power to superimpose her barbarism upon this nation.
I tend to agree with CB on this. Depending on the scenario I’ve seen two things happen. If it’s a larger, especially formal/official setting then women who have not been welcome to the table before will not speak up on any topic (especially a sensitive or personal topic) unless invited to do so.
And not so much applicable to this scenario, in less formal settings I’ve seen women who have joined spaces they weren’t so much welcome to before come in and derail it because they are not familiar with how things work having not been in the space before. I used to attend a conference where I would skip out on the women’s lectures to attend the other lectures where there would only be a handful of us women. And the year they eliminated the women’s section and women were in all the sections, I honestly was fearful they would banish us all the next year because some ladies were so excited to finally be able to share their thoughts they missed out on order. But fortunately they didn’t banish us after all. 🙂
Right. VPOTUS biological sex does not (and should not) give her any free pass when it relates to advancing barbarian policies she advances.
In my experience, if the matriarchs at an associational meeting were to open up, they’d be far more scathing than their husbands.
Bunch of old white men declaiming about stuff. Can’t go well for long.
William Thornton,
There’s no suggestion on your part that “old White men” are to sit in their rocking chair, eat their oatmeal and remain silent is there? You’re an old White man yourself in case you haven’t looked in the mirror lately.
There you go again. Since when is it bad to be old or white? Younger people could lean some things from Seniors.
Noah was old, Moses was old, Joshua was old, and many others. Is there an age limit for commenting on this site or are you just expressing your age bias?
Timothy and Titus were young as was the kid who fell out of the window when Paul preached him to sleep. I really don’t know how old Priscilla was when she and her husband took Apollos to task for his poor soteriology, but for sure, if she did come to tears it was most likely there was so much work to do to get the guy straightened out. Ya think?
Just raggin’ on you a little bit, Curtis. I just don’t seem to be able to go a whole day in a dead serious mood. I just have to laugh about something.
I’m familiar with Noah…Moses…Joshua. You, however, have shown yourself to be just an old sexist.
Absolutely untrue! What do you call a person who disparages old people, as you did?
Yeah William, I am late to this part of the thread….so above I exhorted Curtis to prayerfully reread, reconsider, and reword his post about tears and such.
In that post, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he intended to convey something else and did a really bad job of conveying it – after reading through much of the rest of the thread and seeing more of his comments and his doubling and tripling down… I must agree… Nester seems to be a straight up sexist.
I will just post hear that the 2021 public policy positions of the Southern Baptist religious liberty and ethics commission almost mirror exactly the priorities of the Trump administration…
Which ones of those agendas does Vice President Harris seek to advance?
I understand why my southern Baptist friends chose not to vote for Donald Trump… many of those argued that it is antithetical to everything we say we believe morally… But voting for and publicly advocating for Biden/Harris also seems antithetical to the things we say we believe and affirm public policy wise. No?
I think a question that we need to ask at this juncture is …. What is the purpose of voting? Is it advocation of public policy, or is it a moral purity statement? Is it for the greater good of others or is it for some sort of personal catharsis?
How one chooses to answer those questions comes down to a matter of personal choice and Christian freedom of conscience…
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/erlcs-public-policy-priorities-for-2021/
Yep.
CB,
If I am honest….After years and a multitude of posts and articles condemning anyone who voiced any support for Trump whatsoever as a sellout regarding Christian morality and ethics – its a little unsettling to read, from many of the same people, posts of appreciation relating to perspective followed up with calls for extending grace and listening and understanding to someone who voted for Biden/Harris.
Tarheel, as CB would say, you are right as rain. Almost universally on here Christians have been essentially called “sellouts” and betrayers of Christian values for supporting Trump. So little grace extended. But here we see we need to be nuanced and understand a Christian supporting the new king and queen of baby slaughter advocacy. And no self awareness of it.
This is an incredibly difficulty comment stream to read. I think the piece just calls for some understanding rather than explanations, however well intentioned, of how she’s wrong and we’re right.
Bill Mac, This the Lady’s post has both right and wrong in it. The understanding as to why she wrote the post should be no big leap. However, the VP Harris portion is a landmine of “incredible difficulty” to condone in even the slightest affirmation.
Emily, I sincerely appreciate your openness and honesty in posting your heart felt concerns regarding the issues you cover.
That said, I felt compelled to respond because my greatest concern regards many of the comments written in response to your commentary. It didn’t seem fair to respond to their comments without first acknowledging yours.
With that, in order to keep it short, I’ll not try to address each concern but simply summarize what seems to be three dominate themes. First, there seems to be strong support for identity politics. Second there seems to be a strong interest in social justice and last there is an element of Christian thought-Grace and prayer for the salvation of those affected by social injustice.
Moreover, it appears that the concern for those suffering from social injustice and the concern for their salvation and well being is clouded by the identity politics. Not only does the identity politics cloud the other themes it ignores all of the good done in the past four years for those suffering from social injustice. A couple of examples are – the First Step Act, Strengthening the Child Welfare System for American Children, and other economic and social programs to help the desperate families in America. I’ll not mention more examples of good because it would most likely waste time and not change minds.
It is of utmost importance that we as Christians be concerned not only about the issues you have pointed out but also with the comments made in response to you. I assume most comments come from pastors/preachers and they either agree with your themes or criticize them. With many of our churches and convention in decline it is easy to see from the comments why the decline is happening. If the preachers would preach convicting messages against sin and for repentance rather than debate social issues many of the social injustice issues would disappear. The only identity politics we should seek is that of God Fearing Christians -not just some shallow identity as “Followers of Jesus” as though he is our Facebook friend but truly Born Again Christians. My fear-illustrated by the comments here- is that it may be too late.
I think the complicated issues have to be addressed with an open mind and heart. The thing that is so remarkable to me is we have six conservative justices on the Supreme Court and three what most on Voices call liberal. We still have abortions being done every day. Every abortion that is performed here on out is done in the name of conservatism. Every conservative preacher on Voices and elsewhere who sold their soul to Trump have dirty hands in the matter. A conservative Supreme Court is a joke, all conservatives want is to take from the poor and middle class and give it to the rich. How many conservatives on the SCOTUS does it take to overturn Roe? Oh, about 13. There is God and there is politics, these two should never be in the same room. All we can do is to vote our convictions, and our convictions cannot be pushed on someone else. We must guide by love.
I find it both telling and intriguing that less than five percent of the respondents to this post are women. That speaks volumes to the veracity of what Emily is saying.
Your point may hold but I don’t think it can be made by that statistic. (Sorry). By my count at the time I did the math there were 27 respondents excluding the original author(, and 28 if you include her).
If you are a woman then by my count there are 5/27 (6/28) women respondents which would be 18.5% (21.42%). And if you are a man then 4/27 (5/28) which is 14.8% (17.9%).
I think you may be calculating based on individual responses rather than respondents?
Another consideration is who typically responds to any post on this site, and for whatever reason that has I believe been predominantly male. I’m not sure that there is any significant difference in the proportion of respondents by sex compared to other posts. That’s a whole other set of questions to figure out why there are much fewer women respondents in here in general.
Posted in Wrong place
One last thought: almost everyone has framed the discussion around abortion and Kamala Harris’s position on it or on the subject of women’s voices, etc. but another subject has been ignored.
The author posted a desire for the provision of more services to various groups. This would mean more government programs. These would be paid for by the American taxpayer. Most taxes are not paid by wealthy people but by middle class people. These services would only be paid for by tax increases on the American taxpayer. Should the church be advocating something that would require the government taking money away from the people we want to reach with the Gospel? Is there not a better way to serve the folks who need services?
Something to think about.
Scott, you bring up a good point about taxes. As I commented to someone earlier I approach the ballot box first as a conservative without considering the party affiliation of the candidates. One of the criteria I look at in candidates is their position on taxes. I am not a single issue voter (ie abortion). It is not the job of government to raise taxes in order to finance things for capable people that should be individual responsibility.
Of course we have to work with people to help them get from dependency to independence. Too many “conservatives” love to preach against government programs but don’t want to do the hard work of helping people get free from them (I am speaking in general terms, I am not saying you are that way). The church has a serious need to look at economics and government dependency from a Biblical standpoint.
By the way, we ignored this issue for too long in our struggling communities that lost factories, coal mines and other employers which made these communities ripe for the MAGA message.
There is no biblical tax policy. The religious left tries to foist this on us. The religious right does also, as you demonstrate. Vote as your political views direct you.
The specifics for each piece of legislation and programming today are not directly there but there are applicable principles and stories and proverbs that help give wisdom.
Rehoboam’s foolishness of increasing the burdens on the population is just one example.
Hogwash.
I support the bathing of hogs as they tend to smell bad. But that really has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Smell like Barbeque to me.
There aren’t applicable biblical principles, proverbs, and stories to all matters of state. It’s hogwash to think that there is one ‘biblical’ position on all legislation. But, once you’ve decided that there is then you’re just another partisan constituency to be satisfied.
But if you want to go down that road, there’s a mountain of legislation for you to announce the biblical, or Christian, position on.
Wow. Wow you read a mountain of stuff into my little comment that isn’t there.
You said “specifics for each piece of legislation and programming”. The word “each” caught you.
William, are there ANY biblical principles, in your view, which may impact how a society/government should be structured?
Yes, generally. Scott had it down to “each” specific piece or programming. That was absurd.
But William, you said, “There aren’t applicable biblical principles, proverbs, and stories to all matters of state..”
Really????? None?
“All”
I’ve re-read my comment over and over again to try to figure out what you think your reading and I can’t figure out how you are reading it as your replies don’t make any sense. You are seeing something I didn’t say.
You said “each.” Did you mean “some” or occasionally? If you don’t mean that there are biblical guidelines to all legislative matters (should the capital gains tax be 15% or 25%? Should foreign aid be extended to Morocco?).
You are still reading what I am saying incorrectly.
I will try to clarify to help out. Wisdom gained from Scripture can guide us at times in helping us discern good policy when the policies of our modern day themselves are not often found in Scripture.
Scott,
”A-Ha!” Finally, …I now see the clear parallel with how CRT/I are applied as useful tools in our contemporary cultural issues. (sarc)
Scott H., you are correct in that, though we are no longer under the civil/judicial laws of the OT, the bible has plenty to say about how societies are best run, taxes and property rights, etc. Baptist Confession 1689 on the law (paragraph 4):
“To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of modern use.
Dr. Walter Kaiser has a good article here. https://tifwe.org/resource/ownership-and-property-in-the-old-testament-economy/
It’s not exhaustive, but it’s certainly is more than “hogwash.”
I was thinking the same thing. “Hogwash” may be kind of a “whitewash” in this case.
Fanciful and fantasy to find in ot laws for Israel applicable civil laws and economic principles for modern society. But you can pick and choose for your own amusement which is what not being exhaustive means.
I asked a simple question earlier. Are you a southern Baptist? Did I miss your answer?
My previous answer yesterday, in case you missed it:
“As I offered, I will happily send to you a photo copy of my Southern Baptist ordination certificate. As to whether or not you correct it is up to you. It’s not a big deal for me but must be a big deal for you.
Do you credential all people who comment here?”
Look upstream. You will see it. Right after that CB replied to you. Anymore on that issue? Do you credential everyone here? Hmmm?
On the OT civil law, may I just say, no amusement here. Just biblical. Your mileage may vary.
Is it all that difficult to answer the question? You dodged.
Dodged? Hilarious. Tell me what you want for proof. I have offered my ordination certificate several times. You are crickets. AND, please answer, what credentialing are you requiring for others?
Come on man! What proof do you want to see? I’ve offered my ordination cert. What else do you want of me? And other commentators? Come on man!
Love the Biden phrase.
The question was, “Are you southern Baptist?” One of the other guys introduced the SBC question. Not sure why you are reluctant to answer. I haven’t tried to silence you, haven’t touched your dozens of comments. If you are in a long stream taking issue with southern Baptist writers or commenters, tell them, us, if we’re conversing with a sbcer on SBC Voices.
Simple. Straightforward.
Sorry, but I have seen no one else asking for my SBC credentials except you. I’m Southern Baptist. What proof do you desire? Spell it out. And who else are you requiring proof? Come on man!
Southern Baptist ordained. Deal with it, or silence me. Your choice.
Southern Baptist. What else do you require? Come on man.
I have offered to send to you my SBC ordination credentials. You have thus far not taken me up on that. What more can i do?
I think you, William, have been sufficiently called on the carpet for “hammering” me about this. As I have said repeatedly, I am a SBC ordained minister. Capisce?
You’re not a victim, Les.
Your current membership and attendance is at an SBC church?
My current church membership and attendance is not at an SBC church.
William, I am well aware that I’m not a victim. Just getting ahead of the implied coming “reconsideration.” Re: “That doesn’t invalidate his opinions here but an extended comment stream on an SBC site might be reconsidered.”
Thank you. That’s all I wanted to know.
You’re welcome. Settled?
Sure.
“reconsidered” I.e. by the commenter.
Come on William. Are y’all going to block me?
Getting this in lest you all shut me down or close comments,
“which is what not being exhaustive means.”
I don’t think you really understand what being biblically exhaustive means.
You seem to be “uncomprehensive” as relates to OT interpretation.
What difference does it nake?
There has been much commentary and, I think, an article or two, writtten by “uncredentialed” posters.
Is the discussion of an article extoling Kamala Harris limited only to those appropriately credentialed?
Is Les arguing a point that rums afoul of our BFM confession (or for that matter afoul of tge ERLC2021 Stated political objectives). It seems to me Les is posting more in line with these than Emily did.
Not for nothing but, I noticed that no SBC authorial credential accompanies the article that is being discussed.
Truth is, they just don’t want me to comment. Truth hurts the narrative. So truth is they will eventually silence me.
It’s truth now? You could say that you were ordained as a Southern Baptist but…
William who else are you requiring SBC credentials for? I’m ordained SBC.
William Thornton,
Les was ordained as a Southern Baptist minister. Many of us have known that for years. He was also involved in Presbyterian ministries. I also think some people who frequent this blog have been Methodists. You once had a guy who constantly commented and posted here named Chris. . . . , who later confessed he was actually an atheist. Before, he ever openly confessed that, I messaged Dave Miller and told him that it is obvious Chris was not a Christian, he had never been born again. Chris continued to comment and post for a long time after that.
So, why really are you hammering on Les? Do you desire to discredit him because he does not cow-tow to the direction Voices is going lately when political or semi-political articles are posted? What’s the deal, William?
Let me ask this in a more direct manner. Does SBC Voices intend to revoke Les Prouty’s ordination as a Southern Baptist minister of the gospel because he disagrees with the general populace of the administrators of SBC Voices.
If that is your intention, this is no longer a blog that should be called SBC Voices.
Not that I’m aware of and I have no say in that. Current church status was what I was interested in. Don’t know why that would be difficult. It’s not hammering in any sense to ask that question on a blog called SBC Voices.
William, had you asked it once and received his answer to the affirmative as he gave it, it would not be hammering. However, you would not accept that. You continued on. That’s why I called it hammering.
The recent statement of the POTUS and VPOTUS on the 48th Anniversary of R v. W should be sufficient evidence to any follower of Christ who is committed to living by a biblical worldview as to why they are in diametric opposition to the sanctity of life as a basic and fundamental right of the Image Bearers of God.
Take the time and read this and and then tell me voting for the Biden-Harris ticket is superior than having voted for the Trump-Pence ticket.
“Today marks the 48th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade.
In the past four years, reproductive health, including the right to choose, has been under relentless and extreme attack. We are deeply committed to making sure everyone has access to care – including reproductive health care – regardless of income, race, zip code, health insurance status, or immigration status.
The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to codifying Roe v. Wade and appointing judges that respect foundational precedents like Roe. We are also committed to ensuring that we work to eliminate maternal and infant health disparities, increase access to contraception, and support families economically so that all parents can raise their families with dignity. This commitment extends to our critical work on health outcomes around the world.
As the Biden-Harris Administration begins in this critical moment, now is the time to rededicate ourselves to ensuring that all individuals have access to the health care they need.”
This is unjustifiable for any person who actually and faithfully adheres to a biblical worldview. Prove me wrong.
Cannot prove you wrong brother. Right as rain, as you are wont to say. #truth
It is a tortured morality that votes for a woman to a position for which God didn’t equip her…despite her rabid support for that which is an abomination in the sight of God.
The resultant conflicting emotions are inevitable.
God help us.
Hi Randall,
Just a clarification. Are you saying that women aren’t equipped to be VP, or simply that Harris is not equipped?
Randall Cofield, that’s not an unfair question Bill Mac is asking you. Actually, in all fairness, based upon your comment, it deserves an answer.
Both. Isa 3:12ff.
Deborah didn’t get the memo.
She was consigned to leadership for the exact reasons delineated in Isa 3–male abdication and God’s judgement upon the nation.
Could we at least agree on this?: We need to demand better. The last two elections have given us the lowest of the low in terms of candidates, even if ultimately you ended up preferring one over the other. Trump gave us Biden. It was inevitable. I shudder to think what the next cycle will bring. Someone worse than Trump? Someone worse than Biden? Will Christians continue to settle for the dregs the GOP (primarily) keeps sending us? Will our Christian “leaders” be seen taking photo ops with David Duke or Larry Flynt? At what point will we say enough is enough? Will the lesser of two evils ever be just too evil?
OK, Bill Mac, you are right for sure on at least one thing in your comment, maybe more, but I will address the one now.
Trump did give us Biden. Frankly, he gave us Biden in the very first debate.
Bill Mac, you talk about the dregs that the GOP keeps sending – well the reality is that the Evangelicals are now a minority in the Republican Primaries – particularly in the key battleground states of the Midwest, and as a result, Trump appealed to the discontented working class voters who felt that they had been forgotten. In the big picture, the total membership count of the SBC is less than 15 million (in a country of 330 million) with 5 million in attendance on a given Sunday (pre COVID19), so how can you expect that such a small number of voters can determine who will win the Party Primaries in each state? People need to face the unpleasant reality that the U.S. has become a lot more secular country – we are not in the 1990’s when the Clinton’s were saying that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare”. Can you imagine a Democratic candidate saying such a thing now? – when they have changed their policy position and are now in opposition to the Hyde Amendment and now demand that taxpayers pay for abortion throughout all 9 months of a pregnancy. The reality is that as much as Trump has his faults, Ted Cruz would not have been elected in 2016 – He is too much of a policy wonk and would not have appealed to the swing voters who are the malcontent white working class in a Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania – Trump was able to appeal to them , but turned off other voters. The doctrinaire conservative campaign that Romney and Paul Ryan ran on did not appeal to these voters and also, you have to consider that even while loosing, Trump received 13 million more votes than Romney – He received more votes by far than any Republican candidate. Bottom line is that the Evangelical community can demand better, but without the numbers in the voting booth, it won’t matter. There are consequences in the decline of the SBC as well as the overall secularization of the country and we are now seeing them. Just look at the armed groups marching in the streets and rioting and destroying buildings – This past week, Antifa was protesting Biden and damaged the Oregon Democratic Party HQ in Portland. We are now seeing violence as a means of political expression and it is scary – whether it’s… Read more »
We’re a minority, but a Repub can’t win without us.
The genius of an article like this is that we cannot disagree because to do so appears cold hearted. So before I go on, allow me to say that I acknowledge the pain and emotion in the article. Life is hard, and Emily’s pain should bring about empathy. That said, the Bible is against muddying the waters (1 Cor. 14:8). Abortion is evil. This article creates emotional empathy but not moral clarity. Proof of the lack of clarity is Emily’s need to post a follow up stating her pro-life credentials. This article is also an example of evangelical feminism. The last paragraph even refers to the phrase “lean in”. Men cannot understand women, and therefore ladies must be in every room. I wonder if Emily believes women should be in the room when church elders meet? Since God ordains only men into the pastorate, He disagrees with the logic that men cannot deal with women’s issues properly. To believe that women must always be in the room undermines the concept of headship, and places a wedge between pastors, husbands, and men with women. How isolated one must feel when she believes that half the population cannot understand her because of his sex. Standpoint epistemology makes for a lonely world. I don’t have time to go into the dangers of defining justice based on personal experience, but that is where this type of thinking leads. The idea that people, especially men, should listen rather than “talk at” is flawed and reflects secular thinking. Let’s quote Emily in her own words: “actually listening to them instead of talking at and about them-is better”. Again, God disagrees. The entire purpose of preaching is to proclaim rather than listen. This does not mean there is not a time to listen as well. My point is that, at times, one sided communication is approved of by God. Emily gave no qualifiers. I am also surprised by Emily using the term “pro-Kamala”. Voting for the lesser of two evils is one thing, but being pro-Kamala is another. This person is pro-abortion! She supported bailing out violent rioters over the summer. The Vice President supports the Equality Act which would harm religious liberty. I could go on, but to support someone with these positions simply because she is a woman is naive, short sighted, and unwise. A Christian should not be pro-Kamala because of her policy positions.… Read more »
“ The genius of an article like this is that we cannot disagree because to do so appears cold hearted.”
People should be able take your disagreement – I’m sure Emily can. If you aren’t giving a cold hearted response (and your above disagreement is not), then don’t worry so much about that. People (including women) need to speak, learn, receive encouragement when appropriate and correction when appropriate.
Regarding your paragraph about people esp men talking at instead of listening, it doesn’t appear to me that Emily is referring at all to the pastorate.
Be careful with your “God disagrees” statements lest you put words in Gods mouth that He didn’t put in yours.
The Bible shows many instances of men listening to wise women and thanking God for it. Women have been allowed to speak and to instruct. So when she did not speak of the pastorate I don’t understand why you jump to that. You acknowledge there are times for men to listen. Yes, exactly right there are. So your point seems rather a non-point in regards to this article. It’s making an argument about nothing that was actually argued for.
Better off was sticking to the actual issues, such as the pro-Kamala part.
Hi Kimberly, I was trying to address the larger point Emily made about needing a woman in the room. If it were necessary for women to be present in order to receive justice, male leadership in the church would disenfranchise women. How God commanded the church to be led undermines her entire line of thinking. Women are not disenfranchised because the ordained leadership is entirely male. We should seek justice not gender. Standpoint epistemology is dangerous. This viewpoint believes experience trumps standards. If God believed a woman needed to be in the room, ladies would be ordained. Church structure is good because it comes from God. Disenfranchising women is bad. God does not ordain bad structure. This proves that all male leadership is not inherently evil. This also means we should focus on doing justice rather than who is in the room. By teaching our young ladies to celebrate the first woman in this or that, we are inferring that a man can never give them a fair shake. How will this view of men effect their future marriages?
Priscilla was in the room when Apollos was instructed (Acts 18:26). Apollos needed to listen. Women were given instruction on how they were to pray and prophesy so it seems they weren’t excluded from that “room”. (1 Cor 11).
Beyond that, the power and authority behind what is preached ought to be based on that it is the giving of God’s words, not on the basis that God used a man to deliver it. And God has used men and women to deliver his words as seen through Scripture, having both men and women prophesying. This is not a statement about who is allowed to be pastor. This is a statement about where a preacher’s authority comes from. If he is not preaching according to the Word of God as it is given, we are instructed to not listen and accept it. We don’t listen to a preacher because a man has something to say. We listen because we need to know what God has said. Our instruction and justice in that sense is derived from God, furthermore we are given his word and if we think that a pastor is not being just we have the ability to call them on it and bring it to the attention of others because the ultimate authority in our church isn’t the whim of a pastor. Christ is the head of our church and it’s his word that is our ultimate authority.
At any rate, the secular positions and authority are different than the pastorate. And the secular government isn’t making decisions based on what God has said anyway. The appeal to justice and fairness in the secular sense is a different animal. So I still do not think that it has bearing on the discussion at hand.
Celebrating that women can do things doesn’t imply that men are unfair. I can’t even wrap my head around how that makes sense right now. Maybe I will revisit it in the morning and it will make sense then. (Edit: on second thought, I’m probably not going to have time to revisit it— I am going to be super busy this week so hopefully I will avoid the temptation. 🙂 Goodnight and good week. Thanks for the conversation)
I don’t know you, but let me say lest I be ashamed of myself if I don’t; Well stated, Dear Lady. Well stated indeed.
I think it’s important that God’s people not unintentionally incorporate Standpoint Epistemology. There is not religious justice and secular justice, there is only justice. . . with God being the source. Gender, color, and sexual orientation have no bearing on the definition of justice.
I agree with your first paragraph while acknowledging a distinction between informal conversation and Paul’s admonition about women teaching. The second paragraph conflates prophets and pastors. God puts His words in a prophet’s mouth (Deu. 18). To hear a prophet is to hear God speak directly, and the listener is held to account as such. A pastor has authority in the operation of the church as well as teaching responsibilities. We can discuss why women are spared the pastoral burden by God if you wish.
My main point is that decisions made in a room without a women present does not inherently disenfranchise. The article paints an opposite picture. Why are decisions made without a woman in a room problematic? Emily says “But please hear this in love: refusing to see women as whole, complicated people who belong in every room where decisions are being made. . .” God simply disagrees. This can be found biblically in the pastorate, priesthood, and every time Jesus met alone with his disciples. Emily believes a woman not being in a room is unfair, unjust, and rejects her feelings of propriety that women bodily belong in all leadership decisions. This does not square with Scripture.
Lastly, teaching our young women that presence equals power, and lack of presence equals injustice, undermines God’s sovereignty, feminine influence, and justice. The goal is not to get into a room. Trust me, men are also excluded from many rooms too. . . by other men. Self-exhalation is not a solution. Humility, wisdom, and faithfulness open doors. Admission into a room should be based on virtue, not gender. Let me in because I’m a girl is not Biblical process. Psalm 37:34
As mentioned last night my time is quite limited this week, so pardon my brief response. I agree that preaching and prophesying are distinct but both are forms of proclamation. I’m very much familiar with prophecy and I very much understand that being a pastor does not make one a prophet. Nor does being a prophet make one a pastor. As well, I’m aware of the disagreement within the SBC as to whether prophecy continues and if so in what forms and reasons why people deny its continuation. Though my point was that God saw fit to choose women for that task in both the old and New Testament times. Women were not excluded from giving Gods word.
Part of my loose language stems from thinking that while pastors and preachers are often the same people in our local church I think there is a distinction in that function and that it’s not necessarily always the case. So while we discussed the pastor role in passing but also the preaching role was brought up it got a bit jumbled together.
“We can discuss why women are spared the pastoral burden by God if you wish.”
Well feel free to, I’ll read it when I get some more down time, but I’m not arguing for women as pastor here. I can’t promise I will respond because I’ve spent more time here now than I could afford as it is. And really, I don’t want to freak out the bystanders who might think that that is actually what’s being pushed forward here. 🙂
Kimberly, I was afraid you would want to go where angels fear to tread. 🙂 1 Peter 3:7 gives a good explanation. When compared to men, women are a “weaker vessel”. What is a vessel? It is a container that carries something, carries a burden. When a vessel carries a burden too heavy for it, the vessel is damaged. Women have a weaker constitution than men according to the Scriptures. The burden of being a pastor or head of household is too great. This is why widows are to be given extra love and care. Note that there is no similar admonition for care being given to men who have lost their wives. In case some have not noticed, there is an epidemic of depression among American women. Could this be because boys have systematically been taught to never take on the burden of leadership in their homes and churches? Medication cannot cure an overwhelmed constitution. These general ideas are as old as time. Yet in our world of ideology and indoctrination a basic understanding of reality has been lost. Reminds me of the poem “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” by Kipling. It’s so important to read the Bible and old books. It’s the only way to escape the ideological indoctrination that is literally everywhere.
I have never seen where widows have been given extra love and care. Or much live and care at all.
Les, I’m sorry that you have not seen pure religion as described in James 1:27. I would ask your church deacons how they are caring for the widows in your church. According to Acts 6, one of the primary responsibilities of deacons is to take care of widows. If this is not happening, the responsibility for this failure is primarily their own.
“ Kimberly, I was afraid you would want to go where angels fear to tread.”
You just seemed to want to head there so much, I figured I ought to let you get out your thoughts… and they are quite interesting for sure.
I certainly wouldn’t have arrived at that perspective about why widowers would have not been provided for and widows would have .. constitution.. and all this time I had assumed it was because women had less opportunity over most of history to provide for themselves, or that maybe if women had survived childbirth they may would outlive their husband in times where war/conflict was more prevalent.
Now my Granny just passed away a couple weeks ago. We buried her last Friday a week ago. Let me tell you, I do have a hard time imagining women as having a weak constitution and I think anyone with a good southern granny can relate…. sweet as sugar and tough as nails. Goodnight.
Mr. Overton, I don’t want to derail the conversation any further, but I’ve always found this particular interpretation of 1 Peter 3:7 interesting given that women’s bodies were literally designed to bear burdens. The point you’re trying to make with that passage of scripture is not the point Peter was making at all. On the contrary, Peter was championing women, not putting them in their place.
Ashley, how do you define “weaker vessel”?
Mr. Overton, which do you believe is Peter’s point? That believing husbands ought not to lord their strength and authority over their wives as the culture does, but they should regard their wives as coheirs instead of second class citizens (or worse)? Or is it that women are fragile little things whose minds and “constitutions”, if you will, are prone to buckle under the slightest pressures of life?
“Men are to use their strength and authority to serve others. The concept of servant leadership commands all authority to serve and not be served.”
Yes, this is much closer to Peter’s overall point. Although he’s addressing believing husbands, specifically.
I actually believe your understanding of the husband’s role diminishes the role of the wife as helpmeet. Yes, Christ bears every burden of His Bride. Because he is Christ and He is able. However, husbands are not Christ. They can not bear their OWN burdens alone, much less take on everyone else’s – hence, “I will make a helper fit for him”. We bear one another’s burdens. It is not one-sided. In this way, I think you have stretched Ephesians 5 well beyond its intended meaning.
Given the full context, I believe “weaker vessel” refers to the vulnerability that comes with 1) lack of the physical brute strength needed to adequately defend oneself from a serious threat, 2) lack of authority, 3) lack of agency. First, we have citizens and government, then slaves and masters, then wives and husbands.
Peter uses “weaker vessel” much in the same way as Paul did in his writings on unity in the Body. We honor the parts that seem to us to be weaker. We value and handle with care those vessels which are more vulnerable. We don’t abuse them. We don’t think if them as worth less.
One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone takes 1 Peter 3:7 – a passage in which Peter both exhorts and warns specifically HUSBANDS – and they bash women in general over the head with it.
I agree with the guest blogger that Pro Life is larger than the abortion issue but that doesn’t lead me to the same conclusions. The wars started by Bush and Obama lead to an immeasurably larger amount of suffering than the border security measures of Trump. It is those wars that generated at least a portion of the refugees the writer is so concerned about. On that basis alone it could be argued that Trump was a far more moral president than either of his two predecessors. Biden on the other hand was VP when Obama was spreading War all the way from Syria to Tunisia (and by the way, Hilary Clinton was in the room agreeing with and pushing all this). These are wars that have spread into North Africa causing immeasurable suffering. It seems that anyone concerned about the morality of a president should consider the consequences of those actions and the possibility that as a now incoming president he will double down on destabilization and more war as a foreign policy plank.
Iam a woman. I am pro life. I have walked the walk, adopting a child that was unplaceable due to abuse and mental health issues the child was born with.
And I, too, wept, and chose to vote for Biden/Harris. I grieve that they support abortion.
But I voted the first time for Donald Trump, and despite his over the top kudos to himself on his pro life stand, NOTHING CHANGED. Babies were still be slaughtered.
I voted for him because at the time I lived near the southern border, and knew exactly how the cartels were invading, and how criminals were invading, and wanted the border closed. I still do. But it is STILL OPEN and children and adults made in the image of God are now being treated as subhuman.
I voted for him because he stood for making the ballot secure. But then I experienced his wholehearted desire to disenfranchise we older pro life voters in a pandemic my making us choose to risk our lives and vote in person, or be banned from voting.
In short, I realized Donald Trump is all hat and no cattle, a petty little narcissist USING people of faith to further his political career.
I sincerely hope next time I have the choice to vote for a sane pro life republican. But if folks like my senator Josh Hawley and many of those commenting here represent the GOP, I will once again weep.
And vote the Democratic ticket.
Sarah, This is pure politics in your comments which is fine . CRT and social justice will destroy historic Christianity organizations. The First Amendment was not to protect the stare from people of faith but to protect people of faith from government. Again, if your belief system led you to vote a certain way so be it . Your comments are more hat than cattle in my personal political opinion. This is where CRT and social justice preaching has gotten us.
I didn’t end up where you did but this is a very good comment.
I don’t believe a vote for a particular candidate for office necessarily means you support everything in the platform of the party that nominated the candidate. On this issue in particular, the GOP never really seems to get around to doing much, a little puttering here and there, but it’s still legal and I doubt that will change.
This was a choice between the most corrupt president in history, loaded with criminal activity and having lived a life of immorality and spiritual rebellion completely contrary to any Christian values and which didn’t stop during his four years in office, and not having him in office. As Adrian Rogers once said, character matters more.
There are ways to reduce the abortion numbers and not go down the pathway of making criminals out of desperate mothers or endangering their lives. Maybe Christian churches will get around to figuring out how to minister in this way instead of putting their energy and money into politics.
Thank you, Emily, for your courageous, spot-on, well-penned reflections. In an era of limbic-driven polarization, it’s a relief to read a writer who wrestles through the complexity with empathy and insight. May Jesus Christ be our defining passion. P.S. Keep wrestling and writing. Yes, it is painful, but worth it. You have a beautiful gift!
Steve–my comment had absolutely nothing to do with CRT. Nothing. Nada.
It was not politics either. It was a statement based on facts, not conspiracy theories or propping up a favorite politician.
It is just this: the GOP has NOT delivered to the pro life camp. All talk, no diminishing of abortions. Letting the GOP in office means more children like my son murdered. Plain and simple.
I do not for one second believe letting the Dems be in office will result in more children saved either. What I do believe is that the GOP does more harm to the post born child than the Democrats do.
I am about as pro America as you can get. My patriotism runs deep, with family here in this country when the boats from Europe arrived and with family here from Europe that predate 1776, with a father who served in the hell hole of Peleliu.
So this year, with a heart broken for my country, I had to choose between a mentally ill man who was consistently lying to us and demonstrating absolutely no Christian morals, and people who at least seem sane, honest, and making an effort to live moral lives. That means they are not treating other human beings in an inhuman manner WITH THE EXCEPTION of the preborn. They slaughter them, yes. As do the GOP.
I am not happy about this year’s choice. I want, and believe our country deserves, better choices.
But the time has come when the folks that believe they deserve power because they are white and male is over. Period.
The next issue will be can the extra people in the room (women, ethnicities) do any better?
Sarah,
”But the time has come when the folks that believe they deserve power because they are white and male is over. Period.”
Sounds like bitter presumption …of an unhealthy magnitude.
Wow! How utterly despairing to consider oneself as having been perpetually victimized by those matching a specific set of demographics while treading through this earthly pilgrimage as a sojourner.
Carrying that sort of oppressive, internal burden of animosity harbored toward brothers …was never intended by God.
How is this type of “ism” any more noble than what might be overheard amongst a given militant extremist faction?
Satan rejoices in the sowing of bitter seeds that foment discord.
I don’t see anything in Sarah’s comments where she claims to be a victim.
Bologna!
The team member who arranged for this is away, may I suggest that after over 200 comments we move on. This has been an illuminating discussion partly in demonstrating the sexism and insufferability of a minority of commenters. But, that just my opinion. I am familiar enough with being insufferable as a result of years of practice of the same.
While I wouldn’t join the author in some of her article, I appreciate the perspective. I can’t speak for the others but I’ve gotten more positive private communications on this article than any in quite some time.