Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) And The Bills That Ban Them

California is in the news because of AB 2943, a bill which bans the business of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE). The state's argument is that the claim to be able to change sexual orientation constitutes fraud. This bill is not limited to the professionals who offer it; anyone who advertises and offers SOCE in exchange for money is guilty of fraud.

There are lots of questions worth asking about this move to outlaw SOCE itself rather than simply prohibiting licensed professionals from offering it. Will conferences that promote this or bookstores that sell related materials now also be engaging in fraudulent business practices?

I'm sure we will find all this out in the lawsuits that are sure to follow. Meanwhile, this bill got me interested SOCE and legal battles surrounding it. I offer the following points as a reflection of my attempts to think clearly about this. If I am missing something, feel free to offer your clarification in the comments section.

The Sky Is Not Falling: Truth, Peace, And Integrity In Times Of Distortion And Fear

A popular online news source recently posted an article that asked how long we will be allowed to remain Christians.  It was a serious question the author had received from a friend. I don't question his friend's sincerity, but I do wonder what has led him to believe there is a legitimate reason to fear that Christian faith will be outlawed. We will get to some particular cases that have been in the news, but first the big picture.

• Every president has claimed to be Christian (or at least to have a belief in God)
• Over 70% of Americans claim to be Christians
• There are churches everywhere - literally, everywhere
• Christian colleges, schools, and non-profits flourish
• The "prophets" of the NAR have the President's ear 
• The evangelical voting block flexed its political muscle this past election 
• We open sessions of Congress with prayer, and Presidents - even Obama! - issue Easter and Christmas proclamations that are blatantly Christian
• Presidents - even Obama! - issue proclamations for the National Day Of Prayer
•  Congress claims to be 91% Christian, which has been pretty steady for about 60 years 
• Check out Wikipedia's list of Christian charity groups 
• Google "Christian schools" or "Christian companies in the United States." There's a lot. (Did you know Forever 21 was a Christian business? And that Chick-Fil-A is delicious?)
• "A 2014 Pew Research Center survey asked Americans to rate groups on a 'feeling thermometer' from zero (as cold and negative as possible) to 100 (the warmest, most positive possible rating). U.S. adults gave atheists an average rating of 41, comparable to the rating they gave Muslims (40) and far colder than the average given to Jews (63), Catholics (62) and evangelical Christians (61)." (Worth noting: the configuration shifts dramatically across age groups.)

In spite of this, you would think the sky is falling on the church and on Christians in the United States depending what news sources you have been reading. It's not - I'll get to that in a moment - but what if it was?

Ready Player One: Community, Power, And True Winners

As a movie, Ready Player One probably deserves both the kudos and criticism it’s been garnering. Yes, it’s a visual feast. Yes, the 80s references are a lot of fun. Yes, it gives only a “meager emotional charge.” It’s also “a cautionary tale about burying ourselves in pop culture while the world burns,” but even that message comes across more clinically than experientially. As The Christian Science Monitor noted, “the message derived from it – that in our cyber age, we desperately need to spend more time in the real world – doesn’t resonate because Spielberg is much better here at virtual reality (VR) than reality.” Yup.

In spite of the mixed reviews, I enjoyed Ready Player One. The book was better – aren’t they always? – but RPO is an entertaining popcorn movie if you go into it expecting no more than that. If you are expecting something to deeply move you, choose another film. 

This is good for what it wants to be: a feel-good, pop culture homage validating our nostalgia for the years when technology was new enough (or we were young enough) that it felt like magic, the years when a screen of any kind could transport us into another world where we could escape from the frustrations and failures of the real world and be the person we always wanted to be in a world that made more sense to us than this one.

But that's not what stood out to me the most.

What Is Wrong With Humanity?

The Times once asked famous authors to respond to the question, “What’s wrong with the world today?” G.K. Chesterton responded simply, “Dear Sir, I am. Yours, G.K. Chesterton.”

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Pogo 

“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts." - Alexander Solzhenitsyn

It's pretty obvious: a lot of things are broken in the world. The headlines of gun violence, human trafficking, #metoo, corporate greed, cyberbullying, terrorism and abusive sex cults remind us that something about the human enterprise is clearly failing on an ongoing basis. For every area in which we make progress, we seem to offset that by regressing in some other way.



"Etcetera #18: What's Wrong With The World?"

In this episode of a podcast I host with journalist Beth Milligan, I take a look at the brokenness the permeates our lives. The headlines of gun violence, human trafficking, #metoo, corporate greed, cyberbullying, terrorism and abusive sex cults remind us that something about the human enterprise is clearly failing on an ongoing basis. For every area in which me make progress, we seem to offset that by regressing in some other way.

So, what's the problem with humanity? Is it our biology, our environment, or our souls? Has our DNA doomed us to dance to its tune? If not nature, have the forces of nurture forced us to become who we are? Are our spirits or souls (qualia, for all you philosophers) the problem? And depending on what we conclude, what is the best course of action?

Spoiler alert: I think we have to look at all three possibilities. If we want to find the right cure, we need the proper diagnosis.

A Defense of Missouri's Proposed Abortion Restrictions

Considering all the noise about Missouri's attempt to outlaw abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy, I figured it is worth taking the opportunity to look at more closely at how the facts of fetal development argue for more restrictive abortion limits in the interest in protecting unborn human persons.

First, what is that thing inside the womb that it impacted by abortion? Is it a clump of cells or a baby? I will let pro-choice advocates give their explanation of what an abortion does:

• ''In 1970, an editorial in California Medicine noted: “Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra-or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.” 
• Former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone would question these basic scientific facts. “This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge,” he wrote in his book Life in the Making. (A. Guttmacher, Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation, New York: Viking Press, 1933, p. 3.)
• A Planned Parenthood brochure in 1963 noted, “Abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous to your life and health.”
• Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president Planned Parenthood, told Ms. Magazine: “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.”
• Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, in an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in 1974: “There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy…”

Note that the issue is not whether or not abortion ends a developing human life. The question is about who gets to make the call about what happens to that growing human life, and why. The Supreme Court has weighed in on that very issue. According to lifenews.com:

"Viability... is an important mark in the abortion debate. In Roe v. Wade and the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the U.S. Supreme Court argued that states do have an interest in protecting an unborn baby’s life once they are viable. Viability at the time was considered to be about 24-26  weeks [22-24 is more commonly cited now]..."  

Paul Barnes, special assistant to the attorney general of Missouri, argues that Missouri's stance is in line with the Supreme Court standard:

"The viability line is constantly moving. When viability is the issue, then the state’s interest trumps the woman’s interest. It’s always moving in favor of the state’s authority, it’s never moving the other direction. The more developed the fetus is, the state’s interest is stronger in protecting unborn life.”

Since I don't think legal necessarily equals moral, I believe there is an important question worth asking: is viability the right line to draw when it comes to the protection of unborn human life? Perhaps a better phrasing: Must human beings be viable in order to be human persons and thus deserving of the moral status that would rightly be accorded to them?

First, there is good reason to think the 'viability' line is a philosophically tenuous position:

Here is the Court's entire argument in Roe v. Wade for using the viability criterion: 'With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb.' 

That's seriously the entire argument... It is, of course, circular reasoning. Viability is important, the Court says, because that's when a child can live outside the womb (the definition of viability). Viability is important, that is, because it is viability.

"[T]he Court's defense seems to mistake a definition for a syllogism," noted the eminent Yale law professor John Hart Ely (who personally supported legalized abortion). Indeed, "scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds have recognized," writes University of Georgia law professor Randy Beck, that "Roe literally provided no argument in favor of treating viability as the controlling line, much less an argument grounded in constitutional principles..."

If we do take this to be an "argument," it is a fallacious one, as Francis J. Beckwith writes: 'For the Court to make its argument valid, it would have to add to its factual premise [the fact of fetal non-viability] the normative premise: whenever a human being cannot live on its own because it uniquely depends on another human being for its physical existence, it is permissible for the second human being to kill the first to rid the second of the burden.'

The Court assumed that premise in both Roe and Casey. The Court has never argued for it.

So the first point is that the Supreme Court is not infallible, and may, in fact, build their rulings on a discouraging lack of reason at times.

Second, there is good reason to think it is a morally problematic position given the nature of the unborn. Perhaps the following walk through the weeks of fetal development during pregnancy will make this second point more clear. I encourage you to watch the videos as you read (they are not 'gotcha' videos about abortion).

The Biblical Commands Concerning Aliens And Strangers (Refugees And Immigrants)

Fellow Christians, let's talk about refugees and immigrants, legal and illegal.

This is not about the laws of America. They are fallible; they may be just (they often are) or unjust (sometimes that too). Empires make mistakes, and let's not kid ourselves - America is an empire of mankind, not the kingdom of God.

This post is about the biblical language surrounding those who are 'other'; specifically, what our hearts should feel and our hands should do in response to immigrants and refugees, legal and illegal.

I have an opinion as an American citizen under a Constitution, and I assume you do too. That's fine.  But if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, you cannot avoid what the Bible says about this issue. And if you feel a tension between the laws of the land and the laws of God, you must go with following the heart and mind of God as revealed in the Bible, not the heart and mind of people revealed in laws.

Obviously,  there is a tension here. We are to honor those in authority. The Bible is clear on that point.  Government is ordained by God; they are part of his plan to (ideally) keep the world from devolving into chaos and war. If we are properly and righteously obedient, it's a witness to the world around us. However, we are also to honor all people, and honor God above all else. Sometimes, these things will be in tension. These points are biblically indisputable (see my previous links).

Fellow Christians, we must have a biblical conversation about the church's response to immigrants and refugees that simultaneously attempts to honor the laws of our land while beginning and ending in God's heart and mind as revealed in the scripture we claim as authoritative. Yes, I know the Old Testament verses are about Israel, which was a theocracy in the Ancient Near East, and is obviously different than our current situations. I'm asking you to think about what is revealed about God's heart in His commands to His people that should be applied today in a way that is appropriate to our situation.

Black Panther

The new Black Panther movie has been a global phenomenon, poised to break a billion dollars worldwide. Its success is probably due to a combination of being well made and well timed. Hollywood is riding a wave of filmmaking that is bringing those who have been historically disenfranchised (women and minorities) into the spotlight, offering bigger-than-life tales of heroes with whom many can more directly connect than ever before (check out #WhatBlackPantherMeansToMe on Twitter).

Black Panther has much to offer that is worth celebrating*. As far as Marvel movies go, fan response is mixed. In some ways it still fits Marvel’s paint-by-number storytelling, but it has a more serious tone than the Avengers, and it deeply embeds itself within the beautiful tapestry of African culture and history (specifically Kenya, Namibia, and South Africa). It also avoids a lot of the moral ambiguity of other Marvel heroes (I’m talking to you, everybody but Captain America and Iron Fist) by offering a hero of virtue and nobility for whom we have good reason to cheer almost without reservation.

Here, in no particular order, are eight things that stood out to me.

Our Guns, Our Culture, And Our Hearts

Like everyone else, I am bothered by the prevalence of gun violence in the United States. Most conversations I have witnessed have devolved very quickly into emotional outbursts and meme-level talking points. This is my attempt to offer a meaningful addition to the conversation. Though I have attempted to do my homework, I don't expect you to substitute this for your own research. I welcome any thoughtful comments or links you would like to add to this conversation.

Let's begin with some statistics.

• The  United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) records that the Americas (North, Central and South combined) lead in murder rate by region (16.3 per 100,000); Asia holds the lowest rate (2.9 per 100,000). If you compare by countries, the U.S. itself is 93rd (though the list does note 14 countries where there is war or significant civil unrest). According to NationMaster, the United States is 10th in firearm deaths (though 2002 is the last year for which they have posted data).
• In a list of the top 50 most violent cities (population of over 300,000, not in a combat zone, and who actually submitted data), the U.S. contributes four: New Orleans (32nd), Detroit (28th) Baltimore (19th), and St. Louis (15th).
• Safearound.com lists the United States as 55th out of 160  countries in their safety index. Other lists aren't so generous, ranking our overall crime index the Unites States is 35th.  The United States is not unusually more prone to crime in general than other developed countries, according to a study out of of the University of California, Berkeley. Violent crime in American is simply more lethal because, well, guns.
• We have had a 40% drop in homicide rates in the past 15 years. In the early 2010’s we were lower than only one other time in U.S. history (the late 1950’s).  For some reasons, 1990 to 1997 were bad, and violent crime overall increased in both 2015 and 2016. Still, “The five-year and 10-year trends show an increase from 2012 (up 2.6 percent) and a decrease from 2007 (down 12.3 percent).” Why the fluctuation? Speculation abounds: longer prison sentences, economic changes, a cultural shift away from violence, an influx of immigrants (which, contrary to popular belief, usually correlates with a drop in violence and crime), and birthrates (the more 18-25 year olds, the more crime).

In the face of the reality of gun violence in the United States, there seem to be three primary solutions: limit access to guns, address unhealthy cultural dynamics, or change the people who use the guns. In the wake of the tragic Florida shooting, I've heard a lot of conversation about the first, but not so much about the other two. I don't think that's going to work. We should be talking about the weapons, sure, but we must also talk about the reasons people use them for such evil ends.