Today, I stand in solidarity with the Russian, feminist, punk-rock, art collective known as “Pussy Riot.” And as I do so, I do it as one who professes faith in Jesus Christ and as one who stands in defiance of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Allow me to explain. Read the rest of this entry »
Today, on a day when we pause to remember the towering legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I want to tell you a rather tragic story – a story about the intentional efforts to eradicate the black race.
It all begins back in the late 1800s and the early 1900s, a time when America was undergoing tremendous social change. As a nation, we were riding high on the crest of the Gilded Age, a time when the United States economy grew at an unprecedented rate, and real wages, accumulated wealth and capital formation all exploded. During this time, many within the social and academic elite were beginning to question the historical doctrines of the church. The publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species had convinced many that man was nothing more than the unintended by-product of evolutionary forces that had been at play for millions upon millions of years. And all of this contributed to the thinking of a small, but influential group of people beginning to dream of a new utopia – a world with few ethical boundaries.
Margaret Sanger, Found of Planned Parenthood
Enter Margaret Sanger. Sanger was an American socialist who dreamed of a world in which women had absolute power over their own bodies. As a sex educator, nurse, and birth control activist, she spent her life in the pursuit of a dream: the establishment of the American Birth Control League, which later became known as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. To many men and women in contemporary society, Sanger is a cultural hero, remembered much in the way that we remember Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. But there is a much darker side to Sanger’s story. For you see, Margaret Sanger was not simply an early feminist seeking to protect the rights of her oppressed sisters. Margaret Sanger was a disciple of Thomas Malthus, a 19th century cleric and part-time political economist. Listen to the words of Thomas Malthus:
“All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. Therefore … we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too-frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns, we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.”[1]
Much like her teachers, Malthus and Adolph Hitler, Sanger was a eugenicist who believed that we must seek to eradicate the “human weeds,” which she defined as “feeble-minded, syphilitic, irresponsible and defective stocks” that “bred unhindered.” And who were these “defective stocks?” They were the Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and anyone who wasn’t white and wealthy. Consider Sanger’s own words:
“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists and Christians] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”[2]
Now, lest the reader think that this was an aberration in Sanger’s thinking, allow me to share a few more choice quotes from some of Sanger’s other writings:
“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”[3]
“Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”[4]
While there is no doubt that these are wicked ideas masked by the language of freedom and choice, perhaps most despicable of all is Sanger’s contemptuous plan to enlist the aid of African American ministers in the genocide of their own people.
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”[5]
This, of course, brings us back around to the subject of Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1966, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America inaugurated the PPFA Margaret Sanger Award, which is given in recognition of “excellence and leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights.” How ironic is it, that on May 5th, 1966, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received the award named on behalf of a racist who sought to deceive the black clergy of America so as to further her agenda of racial purity. How ironic that he would issue these words:
“Recently, the press has been filled with reports of sightings of flying saucers. While we need not give credence to these stories, they allow our imagination to speculate on how visitors from outer space would judge us. I am afraid they would be stupefied at our conduct. They would observe that for death planning we spend billions to create engines and strategies for war. They would also observe that we spend millions to prevent death by disease and other causes. Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain.”[6]
Dr. King believed that the billions we spend on the “engines of war” made us a race of “insane men.” I wonder how he would feel today knowing that we spend hunderds of millions every year – in the United States alone – on the planned termination of infants.[7] I wonder how he would feel knowing that even today, 64% of all abortions are performed on women of color? I wonder how he would feel knowing that 69% of the women who abort live just above or even below the poverty line?[8] Is this the “mountaintop” of racial equality that Dr. King envisioned? Or is this Sanger’s mountaintop of racial purity?
[1] Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population. (McLean, IndyPublish: 2002).
[2] Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.
[3] Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
[4] Margaret Sanger, “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
[5] Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
[7] The average cost of an abortion in the United States is $413. If 1.21 million were performed in 2005, that means that Americans collectively paid $499,730,000 to terminate babies that year.
As many of you know, several days ago, a friend of mine posed a question on his blog in which he asked: “Is Tim Tebow a Hypocrite?” What could only be ordinarily described as a “sleepy little site” was suddenly alive and booming with internet traffic. And for two days, his “hit count” went through the roof as many evangelicals sought to defend Tebow and his “platform.”
As I watched that little scenario unfold, I began to think about putting up a post on this site asking the same question. Only, my interest was not so much an examination of Tebow’s actions in light of Matthew 6, but an examination of why celebrity drives evangelicals in the same way that it seems to drive others in society. I had a genuine concern that when we elevate gifted young celebrities to a position of spiritual authority, we run the risk of their personal stories running afoul, as did the story of Ben Roethlisberger. Not surprisingly, my post ignited this blog, much in the way that my friend’s post had done on his site.
Today, as I continue to ponder this issue, I want to approach my initial concern from another angle. I want you to look at this recent ad for Nike and I want you to tell me what you think.
For me, two things jump out almost immediately. First, this ad is part of a larger group of ads that feature some of the very best athletes of our generation. From LeBron James to Dwayne Wade to Manny Pacquiao, this campaign is built on the idea that we are witnessing extraordinary athletes that are doing things worthy of our attention and adulation. And than there is Tim Tebow. Tim currently has a regular season quarterback rating of 72.9, which establishes him as the 27th best starting quarterback in a league with only 32 starters. Clearly, he is not featured in this campaign because of his enormous talent. He is not Payton Manning. He is not Tom Brady. He is not even Aaron Rodgers. Tim is in this campaign because he is an enormously polarizing figure, whose popularity and notoriety stems from the fact that he is an outspoken evangelical Christian. So there is an undeniable sense in which his “platform” for Christ is opening doors to lucrative contracts. This alone should give us pause to think.
The second thing I notice is that the language and imagery being used in this campaign is undeniably Christian. “We are witnesses” is part of what we call the core “Christian kerygma.” In other words, of all the things that are said in the earliest Christian sermons found in Acts (and elsewhere), “we are witnesses” is one of the six most common themes[1] that are being preached as the Gospel is being brought forth into the world.[2] But here, the language and imagery of the Christian faith is not being used to testify to the work of Christ. It is being explicitly co-opted for the sake of buying and selling products. Consider, if you will, the following ads for Manny Pacquiao and Tim Tebow. You will need to click on them to read the fine print.
Are you comfortable with this? Are you comfortable associating sacred language and imagery with an advertising campaign designed to generate money for a transnational corporation?
Perhaps you are. Perhaps you are not. But what about when this Christian language and imagery is used by a company that has a prolonged history of utilizing underpaid labor – and even virtual slaves – in human sweatshops to produce its goods?
This is what I’m talking about when I am questioning the wisdom of giving a young, Christian celebrity a spiritual “platform.” Today, on January 11th, the day we set aside to focus on the human trafficking pandemic, we pause and force ourselves to ask tough questions. For the Gospel must be good news for all, including those in this recent 2008 video who were forced to labor under atrocious and inhumane conditions.
[1] In cases where the exact words are not used, the concept is captured by similar language.
[2] Acts 5:32 and Acts 10:39 are excellent examples of this language.
Two days ago, a friend of mine put up a provocatively titled new post in which he dared to ask the question: is Tim Tebow a hypocrite? Now most of you probably know who Tim Tebow is, but on the chance that you do not, let me take a moment to fill you in. While there are many Christians in the National Football League (NFL), Tim Tebow has made a name for himself by regularly dropping to one knee in a moment of prayer. He does this so often and so publicly, that “Tebowing” has actually become a word in common use. To “Tebow” is “to get down on a knee and start praying, even if everyone else around you is doing something completely different.”[1]
So why am I sharing this with you? Well, I want you to look at something. My friend’s website is actually a very small blog, much like this one. And on a typical day, a new post by my friend will attract an average of 9 readers, only 1 of which will take the time to comment. But on the day that he posted this question about Tebow, 149 readers were drawn to the article, and 27 comments were made.
Why? Because he dared to question an “evangelical icon” in light of Matthew 6:1, 5-6, which reads:
“Be careful that you don’t practice your religion in front of people to draw their attention. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. When you pray, don’t be like hypocrites. They love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners so that people will see them. I assure you, that’s the only reward they’ll get. But when you pray, go to your room, shut the door, and pray to your Father who is present in that secret place. Your Father who sees what you do in secret will reward you.”
Now, today, less than 24 hours after Tebow’s victory[2] over the Pittsburgh Steelers, I am seeing something else that is worthy of note. When Tebow comes to town, evangelical fans of the home team are finding themselves in a bit of a quandary. Many have become so attached to the emerging legend that is Tim Tebow that they actually find themselves torn as to who they should support. Do they root for Tebow and his “platform”[3] or do they root for the team that has occupied their hearts for many years?
Today, as we consider this phenomenon together, I want to ask several questions – many of which are particularly poignant in light of Tebow’s defeat of the Steelers. For you see, the Pittsburgh Steelers are also quarterbacked by a famous individual; and like Tim Tebow, this individual entered the league talking about “platforms” and “evangelization.”
Have you ever heard of Ben Roethlisberger? If you have, it’s probably because of the allegations of sexual assault that have been made against him, not once, but twice. And while neither incident has been prosecuted due to a lack of compelling evidence,[4] there seems to be little doubt in the “court of public opinion” that Roethlisberger is guilty of “something.”
But take a look back at his rookie year? What was his first infraction of the NFL code of conduct? Not binge drinking. Not sexual indiscretions. No, Roethlisberger’s first infraction came when he tried to write “PFJ” on his football cleats? And what does “PFJ” mean? It means, “play for Jesus.” That’s right. When Roethlisberger first entered the league, he, like Tebow, wanted to be known as a man who stood for Christ. In fact, in a 2005 interview that aired shortly before the Super Bowl, he was quoted as saying:
“Sometimes you’re handed an opportunity to speak that you don’t even know you’re going to have. Only God could have brought me from third team as a rookie to a starter and Rookie of the Year … You don’t have to listen to what I have to say, but I will always have the opportunity to glorify God in all that I do.”
Later, in 2005, on the heels of being disciplined for the “PFJ incident,” Roethlisberger went on to say:
“I had to be a little more careful after that, but I’m always going to express my faith. Guys express all kinds of products here in the league, so I’m going to keep expressing my faith … It’s not tough be grounded in your faith, when the Lord is helping you. He has brought me through some tough times and I know His hand on me won’t slip.”[5]
Really? Do you think Roethlisberger would still say that today? Do you think he still believes that “It’s not tough to be grounded in your faith?” I ask because when I look at his picture to the right, nothing jumps out at me speaking of the ease of faith. So, as I said earlier, this brings me to a host of questions that have been bothering me all season long:
[2] Another part of the Tebow phenomenon is the media’s insistence that every win or loss be discussed almost exclusively in terms of Tebow’s performance, and rarely the performance of the Denver Broncos team as a whole.
[3] Another feature of the Tebow spectacle is his consistent use of the word “platform.” Tebow sees football as a means of evangelizing the world. Inherent in that word “platform” is the idea that he has been given an elevated status within society.
[4] On April 12, 2010, district attorney Fred Bright announced that Roethlisberger would not be charged, by saying: “Looking at all the evidence here, I can not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”. “D.A. Fred Bright Transcript plus the Post-Statement Interview”. National Sports Review. 04-12-2010.
