Gail was still laughing about it, some fifty years later.
Fresh from college and seminary, Gail had arrived in Columbus, Mississippi, to be interviewed for the position of director of the Baptists’ college ministry. She would be the BSU director for the local campus of Mississippi State College for Women, now called Mississippi University for Women, or MUW. Since the position was paid by the First Baptist Church, Pastor S. R. Woodson was interviewing her and would be her primary supervisor.
After the interview, Dr. Woodson wanted to show Gail the nice center on College Street, some half-dozen blocks away.
The question was how to get her there without the two having to sharing the automobile. A man alone in a car with a woman not his wife was unthinkable.
“I walked the entire six blocks,” Gail laughs. “With him driving his car alongside to make sure I was safe.”
Changing times? You bet. These days, almost every pastor I know would have said, “Come on and get in, and I’ll run you over there,” and not given it a second thought.
Changing standards? That’s another question altogether.
In today’s Clarion-Ledger, CNN news analyst Kirsten Powers has a column titled “‘Fetal heartbeat’ laws will hurt women.” In her rambling, pro-abortion attempt to claim the moral high ground–which is simply impossible–she says:
Recently, I followed the outrage over a New York abortion law, which conservatives claim allows abortion even as the woman is giving birth…. Many defenders of he redundant ‘Born Alive’ act claim that if even one baby is not provided medical care after surviving an abortion, it is reason enough for the law. But when it comes to far more American children being murdered by guns, many of the same people provide only ‘thoughts and prayers,’ not legislation. I’m struggling to see the moral consistency here.
Yes, it’s clear to see that Ms. Powers does have trouble identifying moral consistency. If she did, she would see that to support abortion on demand (aka, the right to kill the unborn) and to want to protect children in schools is as morally inconsistent as it’s possible to get. Okay to murder them before they’re born, but not afterwards.
Btw, she makes the mistake of thinking because someone is prolife, they are against all gun control. Fully half the Christian conservatives I know while supporting tough anti-abortion legislation also want tighter gun control laws. You don’t hear them because the Second Amendment and NRA advocates suck all the air out of the room and frequently shame those who try to be the voice of sanity here.
Personally, I resent our Clarion-Ledger presenting such a skewed and unworthy column.
I’ve been thinking about cartoonists, abortion, and theological liberals lately.
My friend Annie was sitting in a doctor’s office the other day when a young woman came in to ask about an appointment. She wanted an abortion, she said, because she had plans for Labor Day weekend and wanted to get this done.
After a quick conversation with the receptionist, she left. Annie sat there in shock and then the tears began to flow.
Annie and her husband Mike are in line to adopt a baby due to be born in a month or two. To say they are excited and prayerful does not begin to describe them. Seeing the callousness with which that young woman wanted to be rid of her baby because “I have plans for the weekend” left Annie broken-hearted.
At this point, some in our audience will quit reading. They already “know” where it’s going and know they do not wish to go there.
That’s why there is little authentic conversation about abortions today.
And, may I say, I understand that.