Jim Wallis's group, Sojourners, is like the ACLU in one regard: In theory, they stand for something I generally agree with -- yet in practice: not so much.

A "sojourner" is a visitor in a far-off land, an alien, a temporary resident living away from his or real home. Thus the name derives from the biblical concept that Christians are "in" this world, but should not think of themselves, ultimately, as being "of" it (that is, of being too comfortable here, and conforming too much). And indeed, Sojourners' front page announces they are a group of "Christians for Peace and Justice" (though I often think "Unitarians for Peace and Justice" would be a more accurate title).

So, in theory, we have a non-partisan group, advocating "the biblical call to social justice." [1] Yet, like many of my Democrat-supporting Christian friends, that claim of "nonpartisanship" boils down to supporting whatever the Democratic Party does or offers, while pretending to protest about it's stance on abortion. I say "pretending" because I've never before seen Sojourners mention abortion as a problem -- yet Jim Wallis uses this alleged opposition as a large part of his claim to nonpartisanship.

Until today, that is, when I was researching abortion statistics, and encountered a Sojourners article about abortion. I was initially surprised: "Sojourners actually concerned about abortion? Maybe I've misjudged them." Then reality set in, and I noticed their angle...

Pro-life? Look at the fruits

I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world.

I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency... Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.... Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed.

Unsurprisingly, given the context, he cites three factors: poverty (caused by the Bush administration, he implies), breakup of the family (caused, natch, by the previously mentioned Bush-induced poverty), and a lack of health insurance -- a situation which was better "before this presidency" -- as though the Bush administration was the key factor in skyrocketing health costs. (Never mind that the increases began back in the Clinton era.)

Bush-bashing completed, we can now arrive at the handy Sojourners-compatible conclusion:

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.

Right: A consistent pro-life stance requires us to be on the left. Amen.

I could do the usual, and point out that policies Sojourners favors often have the opposite effect (e.g. a high minimum wage raises unemployment), dispute the materialistic tripe that people will be more moral when they're richer -- or at least more equal (an idea promoted most often, ironically, by the left) or point out health care costs are strongly impacted by the cost of lawsuits -- and that Sojo directs people to support the American Trial Lawyers' pet political party (and never notices that cost component, strangely). Etcetera.

But instead, I just marvel at the irony of someone writing to Sojourners about the evils of "hollow" opposition to abortion, pretending to care about it "merely in word", yet never "in deed". And them publishing it.

Was anyone paying attention to Sojo's own record in this area?

People who are sloppy thinkers in one area generally are sloppy thinkers in other areas too. In my experience, moral confusion and myopia are often aided by fallacious understanding of how statistics (and logic) work. And this "bad" statistic got so much play that even factcheck.org (which actually does appear to be non-partisan at times) had to point out it was bunk.

Stassen's broad conclusion wasn't justified by the sketchy information he cited, however. Furthermore, a primary organization he cited specifically as a source for historical data now contradicts him, saying abortions have continued to decline since Bush took office.

The article then cites Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Howard Dean promoting Stassen's half-baked claim, Dean even going as far as to claim "abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was President."

It's funny how pro-life the left can be as long as it's Bush's fault. If it isn't, well, despite Jim Wallis's protests that he doesn't agree with the Democratic Party on this matter, you'll have a hard time finding any protest or rebuke to the massive, powerful abortion industry, and its many political supporters and beneficiaries (including those just named) on Sojourners' "non-partisan" pages and missives.

And regarding the man who originated the myth, Glen Strassen, I think Sojourner's own summary of his influence explains a lot:

Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, and the co-author of Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, Christianity Today's Book of the Year in theology or ethics.

A man who misunderstands statistics, economics, who thinks that God wants a large state, and can unflinchingly write to Sojourners (approvingly!) about the problem of only pretending to oppose abortion is a much-lauded expert on "Christian ethics", shaping the mind of the clergy-in-training at Fuller Theological Seminary.