The Place of Honor

It seems that the American woman has been called every name in the book over the past several weeks. It also seems that much of the recent American political debate is focused on womens issues. However, at the same time, there has been a lot of verbal rhetoric and disparaging remarks made about women, from conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and liberal television personality Bill Maher (to name the most notorious personalities of recent days). We are rightly appalled as we hear the toxic language used when describing women in our society.

            There has been an ongoing battle in this country about the role of women. Our media inundates us with images of women that should make most people blush. Our commecials, our television programs, our magazines, our music, and our news media outlets create an image of today’s woman that is often demeaning and belittling. We criticize female executives. We caricature female politicians. We devalue the stay-at-home mother. Our daughters are told that their role in this world must either be as a opinionless prude or as a radically outspoken loose woman. Our little girls are presented with indecent clothing options in retail stores that make them look and feel like there are at the mercy of men.

            As a Christian man (who has a wife, a sister, a mother, a daughter, a mother-in-law, a sister-in-law, and many female friends), I am alarmed by the objectification of women in our society. When a radio host, a television pundit, or a musicican calls a woman a four- or five-letter ephithet, he is allowing for my wife, my daughter, or my mother to be called the same name. There used to be boundaries of decency which humorists or artists did not cross. Not so anymore, and it is at the expense of our women. Now please do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that those persons should be prohibited their constitutional right of free speech. The American government and judicial system have firmly established a right to free speech. However, as a consumer of the media, I can make a choice to take to task those people who say and do things that are clearly wrong. I can call for an end to their vitriolic words. On this issue they are wrong. Do female politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Palin, and Hillary Clinton open themselves up to more scrutiny because of their public roles? Certainly. But, do they deserve derogatory name-calling because of their public roles? Certainly not. We must be wary of those that would say it is acceptable to subject these women to toxic words, because soon, it will be acceptable to call any woman a derogatory name.

            What can we do? We can stand up and object to the continued use of this type of language. Yes, stop listening, stop buying, stop watching. Let those people who promote such language know how much we dislike the choices they are making. We can counteract the negative influence with a positive influence. Make a pledge to treat and speak of women with respect.

            Looking at the issue from a biblical perspective, I would argue that the language and objectification of women in our culture is contrary to God’s design. From the beginning, God created man and woman in His image. In the garden, God tested Adam in order for Adam to recognize his need for a soulmate. As Adam watched the animals pass by him in pairs, he realized that there was not a suitable helper for him, at which point God created Eve. She was not created as an afterthought. And she was not created as a lesser person. She was created to be the soulmate and companion of Adam. In fact, you could say that in Eve, Adam found the one who “completed” him. She was his complement. In another Old Testament text, the noble wife of Proverbs 31 is an entrepreneur, a philanthropist, a teacher, a mother, and one who is wise.

            In the New Testament, we see many indications that women are to be treated with respect and honor. Jesus was a friend to Mary and Martha and was supported during his ministry by many women. Jesus also heals many women (including Peter’s mother-in-law) and speaks to many women with compassion (including the woman at the well who was in an adulteress relationship). Paul writes that gender is not a deciding factor in who may receive the salvation and favor of God. Paul also writes that men and women are to be subject to each other (Ephesians 5:21), that the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25) and that he is not to be harsh with her (Colossians 3:19). Peter tells men to be considerate and respectful of their wives (1 Peter 3:7) since they are the weaker partner. Some misunderstand what Peter is saying when he calls a woman the weaker partner. His language and imagery is beautiful. He is not saying that the woman is weak and less than a man, but that she is precious. His imagery suggests that she is the prized possession of the house that deserves the place of greatest respect and honor. We might say that Peter says the woman is the finest china that we place in our curio cabinets and take out for the most special of occasions. She is not common. She is not our everyday dinnerware, she is the most special thing in the household. God tells us clearly to honor the women in our lives.

            There is no denying that the genders are different. Men have more physical strength but women have a stronger threshold for pain. Men are more driven by performance and work, but women are more driven by relationship and connection. As a result, men’s brains physiologically operate in ways different from women’s brains. Scientific research has shown more interconnectedness in a woman’s brain than in a man’s brain, resulting in women being more intuitive and aware of danger and dishonesty. This is how we are designed by God. However, our society has shamefully disparaged the differences in women and inappropriately demeaned the value and worth of women with disparaging remarks and course jesting. Let’s rise above this inappropriateness.

Please Hear Me

            There has been a lot of discussion lately concerning the White House policy requiring religious organizations to supply birth control to employees, even if this requirement violates that religious organization’s basic doctrine. I have remained silent on this issue, although it is an issue that is very near to my heart. I have seen and heard many of my friends make comments regarding the unsophisticated stance of those religious leaders. I have heard the jokes that a bunch of middle age white men are making decisions regarding a woman’s body. At the risk of sounding like one more neanderthal middle-aged white man, may I be given an opportunity to express my opinions on this subject? You do not have to agree with me, but I ask that you listen to me.

            First, I think we must be very clear that the White House strategically chose when and how to announce the mandate to religious organizations. While they claim that they were surprised by the reaction of religious leaders, I find those statement duplicitious. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Helath and Human Services, made the initial announcement on January 20, 2012. That is the anniversary date of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade  decision that leglaized abortion in this country. It is highly suspect to suggest that the announcement was made innocently on that date. The Obama administration has used that date more than once to announce decisions that upset the pro-life proponents in this country.

            Second, let me state that in my mind, this is not a Democrat versus Republican, or a liberal versus conservative issue. By choice, I do not speak publically about political issues. But, this is not a political issue. This is an issue in which the Federal Government is legislating people to perform in ways that directly violate their conscious and religious sensibilities. This is an issue regarding my core beliefs regarding the sanctity of life in all its forms. I would find this decision objectionable no matter who was in office. Our government is asking people to violate core beliefs and religious convictions. The government should in no way be allowed to force a person to violate basic beliefs. Don’t we object when the North Korean government forces its citizenry to violate their core beliefs?

            Third, the issue is not about birth control. While many religious leaders who are objecting to the law are opposed to all forms of birth control, that is not the case of all Christians. There are many Christians who do object to all forms of birth control. As a whole, all Christians do not find contraception to be wrong. The issue, is however, about some forms of birth control, and the facts regarding their use as an abortifacient (which is any method used to terminate a pregnancy after conception). While some may argue that woman should have access to birth control, the fact is that some of those forms of birth control the government would ask religious organizations to provide, include abortifacients. Yes, the Morning After Pill (RU 486) would be one of the forms of birth control covered under the policy. While the media has labelled this as a simple argument about birth control, it is much more than that. We are not debating who is for or against birth control. We are not debating whether birth control is right or wrong. The issue is about certain forms of birth control that are abortifacients.

            Fourth, I am not trying to legislate a woman’s sexuality or sexual practice. I think Christians are quickly depicted as anti-sex and prude. While I may not agree with all of your choices, include sexual choices, this is not an issue about legislating sexual practices.

            Fifth, many forms of birth control, including “the Pill” and others can be abortifacient. The scientific evidence is inconclusive in this area. While it is likely that most forms of birth control prevent conception, it cannot be proven scientifically that the Pill and other birth control methods prevent conception every time. One of the other purposes of these birth control pills is to thin the lining in the uteran wall so that if an egg is fertilized, it will not be able to implant in the uteran wall. That means, that one can conceive, but because of the birth control method, be unable to sustain that pregnancy. This is what is at issue in this debate.

            Let me tell you what I believe fundamentally, in the core of my soul. I believe that life begins at the moment of conception. I believe this because of my religious beliefs and I believe it to be true at every level of my being. So, I find it unconscionable that a life may be formed and then prevented from maturing because it cannot grow in the mother’s womb. It is a life, and taking away the environment for that life to survive is murder. It is, in my conscious, no different than the killing fields Cambodia, the mass exterminations of people in Nazi Germany, the Cultural Revolution of Maoist China, or the genocide in Rwanda. I believe that, at a fundemantal level, we all know that life begins at conception. That is why we celebrate the announcement of a pregnancy, looking forward to the baby to be born. That is why nobody ever tells someone grieving a miscarriage that they should not be emotional because they were carrying a mass of tissues rather than a life. That is why people have been convicted of double murder for killing a pregnant woman. But, my government is now telling me that I must provide something that violates my beliefs and conscious at the most base level. How is that right? How is that admirable? Most religious organizations and leaders in this country will share a similar view and stance on conception and abortion. That is why they have objected so vehemently to this government mandate.

            But, you say, that woman working for a religious orgnaization does have a right to birth control. I can truly understand that position and belief. And I do know that there are some women who receive medical benefits from birth control, including a elimination of ovarian cysts, etc. In fact, some dear women in my life have been prescribed the Pill in their early teens to prevent medical complications. So, shouldn’t they have access to those medical benefits? Certainly. But why does it have to be provided through a religious organization? Couldn’t the federal government provide a way for drug manufacturers to provide these medically necessary prescriptions at low cost, or no cost, to women who need them? If people can receive blood pressure medicine at next to no cost, couldn’t the same be provided to women without those birth control pills being provided through the religious organization?

            The government is mandating that religious leaders like me and many of my comrades do something that is morally objectionable to us. Why is that acceptable? The government does not mandate that someone who objects to the public education system place their children in that same system. The government does not require a pacifist to put on army fatigues. The government does not mandate that one opposed to hunting buy deer tags for a hunter.

            This is a personal issue for me. My wife and I have used various methods of birth control, including the Pill. However, when we read and were told by her OBGYN that we could not be completely confident that the pill prevented conception, we chose other forms of birth control based on our conscious. God forgive us if our uninformed choices destroyed a life. Ultimately, when we realized the toll taken on my wife’s body during her two pregnancies, we knew that we needed an effective form of birth control because I was unwilling to have my wife go through the pain she experienced with pregnancy. So we chose for me to have a vasectomy. I know that some Christians would find our decision objectionable, stating that we should not prevent the possibility of conception. It was a decision that best met with our consciences. If for some reason, God blesses us with another conception, then we will go through the process again. But, I could not morally face the possibility that conception occurred and that our child was lost through a method of birth control.

            I realize that I do not speak for all Christians. Also understand that all Christian voices in this debate do not speak for me. Rush Limbaugh does not speak for me, nor does any other radio personality (conservative of liberal). Hear my voice, and please do not label me as a religious fanatic, or misogynist, or bigot, or puritan, or any other moniker you might be tempted to place on me. This is a serious issue that requires serious thought and discussion. I am disappointed that we are so quick to label someone and thus dispel their argument. I do not condemn those who use birth control. I do not hate those who have had abortions. I am, however, troubled that those who have beliefs similar to mine are ridiculed and discounted as backward and a threat to national welfare. Please hear me, and respect what I feel is a violation of my core beliefs and morality.