Setting Starfish Free

Note: Catherine Wurts served as a JFA Trainer from 2009 until 2017. In this “Classic Reprint” of her June 2014 letter, “Setting Starfish Free,” Catherine tells one of my favorite JFA stories. In the story of “Anthony,” Catherine both makes a persuasive case for the value of unborn children and seeks to help a young man realize his own worth as “one loved by God.” She also illustrates the heartbeat of the JFA community, seeking whenever possible to open a door to deeper reflection on spiritual things, in hopes that starfish will by the Holy Spirit allow our conversations to nudge them to “dive in.” When you support JFA, you support this heartbeat on the campuses and in the churches where we train and conduct outreach across the country. Thank you for considering a special gift to JFA this month to help us train more Christians to “make a difference for even one.” - Steve Wagner, Executive Director

View fullsize

Catherine (right) interacts with a student at the University of Georgia (UGA) in March 2014.

My colleague, John Michener (bottom photo, center), often illustrates JFA’s mission by referencing the story of The Star Thrower, by Loren Eisley:

One day a man was walking along the beach when he noticed a boy picking something up and gently throwing it into the ocean. Approaching the boy, he asked, “What are you doing?” The youth replied, “Throwing starfish back into the ocean. The sun is up and the tide is going out. If I don’t throw them back, they’ll die.”

View fullsize

John Michener (blue tie-dye) engages Arizona State University (ASU) students in dialogue in Feb. 2014. John served as a JFA trainer from 2010 until 2014 and now directs Oklahomans United for Life: www.oklahomansunitedforlife.org.

“Son,” the man said, “don’t you realize there are miles of beach and hundreds of starfish? You can’t make a difference!” At this, the boy bent down, picked up another starfish, and threw it back into the ocean. As it met the water, he said, “I made a difference for that one.”

Who are our “starfish”? They’re the thousands of students streaming by our university Exhibit outreaches on their way to class. Many of them have had or are going to have abortions. Many others are pro-life Christians who are either silent or unloving when the topic of abortion comes up. Many, many of them are blind to the inherent dignity of the unborn – and of born people – because they have no idea how valued and loved they, themselves, are by their Creator. One significant difference between us and the boy on the beach, however, is that our “starfish” have free will. We can take them to the ocean, but they have to choose whether or not to dive in. [Editor’s note: We are not intending here to weigh in on the precise nature and interrelation of human choices and divine providence.]

Meet Anthony (name changed), a “starfish” at the University of Georgia, Athens (UGA). I met Anthony on a very rainy day in front of our Draw the Line kiosk on his campus last fall. He is a pre-med student from Egypt and has only been in the U.S. for a short time. We spoke for a while about abortion – he considered himself generally pro-life but thought abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and other difficult circumstances. We established a lot of common ground about needing to be compassionate to women and to provide resources for them. Also, he said he thought the logical argument I laid out for why abortion is not justified, even in these tough cases, was consistent and probably true.

Then he asked me, “Are you religious?”

“Yes. Why do you ask?”

He smiled as though he’d “got” me. “It seems like everyone I’ve met who’s pro-life is religious.”

“Well, I know of atheists who are pro-life,” I said, “which makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it, if the unborn is a human being? If we think about it, does a person have to be religious to recognize that murder, rape, and child abuse are wrong? The question is, ‘Is abortion a similar injustice against a human being?’ There are atheists who would say that it is.” *

Anthony agreed this made logical sense. He went on to explain that he’d been raised in an Orthodox Christian home in Egypt, but when he came to the States he put all of that behind him. He had started to think that morals are relative and that perhaps God doesn’t exist.

We talked for a while, him sharing some of his disillusionment with Christians, and me sharing that I’d had similar doubts and concerns when I was in college. I told him I admired him for asking the tough questions he was asking. Then I challenged him to look more deeply into the claims that Christianity makes before rejecting it – and before rejecting Christ. I suggested he begin by reading C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity. He said he would, but I thought, “How many times have I intended to read something and never gotten to it?” Then Anthony left for class. I guessed he wouldn’t read the book, and felt sure I wouldn’t see him again.

Come March of this year, I found myself in the same quad by the student center at UGA standing in front of the JFA Exhibit. I was talking with another student who was sharing very similar things with me to what Anthony had shared, but this student was decidedly more antagonistic, sarcastic, and unwilling to dialogue. All of a sudden, I noticed Anthony standing next to us, listening in! He smiled and when the other student left, Anthony said he’d come to tell me that he’d read Mere Christianity and talked a lot with his uncle. As a result, he had decided to come back to his Christian faith.

He’s started attending an Orthodox church in town and doing some service projects with them. He told me, with a huge smile on his face, “When I met you, I was obsessing about these questions about life and about God. When I would eat my food, I would be thinking, ‘Is there a God?’ Everywhere I went I was worrying over it. But I’m not obsessing anymore! I am happy!” St. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, wrote, “For freedom Christ set us free, so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery.” Anthony, like the little starfish, had been set free. Praise God. Please pray for him as he continues on his journey with the Lord.

- Catherine Wurts, June 2014

* For example, Secular Pro-Life (SPL) is both strongly pro-life and explicitly atheistic. See JFA’s blog post featuring a list of links to SPL posts every pro-life advocate should read: www.jfaweb.org/secular-pro-life.

Which Kind of "Wrong" Is "Right"?

With Dobbs returning abortion policy back to the states and consequently back to the people, pro-life advocates need to actively engage others in dialogue, perhaps now more than ever. In a “Classic Reprint” of a 2012 letter we sent to supporters this month, Joanna Bai illustrates how to listen to understand, make careful distinctions, and challenge people in a gentle way that helps them think more clearly. She also models the humble spirit we at JFA aim to bring to all of our work, being willing to say, “I was mistaken.” It can’t be overstated how important this is to help people feel free to adopt that same humble spirit. “Humble” is one of ten character qualities described in the Ambassador’s Creed from Stand to Reason. Our team reviews this excellent list every year as a reminder, and we heartily recommend it. - Steve Wagner, Executive Director

---

A large group was forming around JFA volunteer Lori Navrodtzke as she spoke with a student named “Julie” at our University of Kansas (KU) outreach last month [September 2012]. Intrigued, I also listened in.

Julie seemed opposed to our attempts to change people’s views about the morality of abortion because she believed that morals are relative. She explained that society sets moral standards based on what it thinks is beneficial for people. I requested permission to ask a clarifying question.

Joanna: From the little I’ve heard of your conversation, it sounds to me like you’ve asserted that we [at JFA] are wrong to impose our standard of morality on others. Is that correct?

Julie: Yes. That is what I meant.

Joanna: If you make that assertion, isn’t that action [of asserting that JFA is wrong] imposing your standard of morality on us? Your view does not seem to line up with itself.

In other words, her claim seemed to be self-refuting. She then agreed there was a problem in her claim, but only as I had presented it.

As she clarified her position, I saw that I had equivocated on her use of the term “wrong.” Perhaps she didn’t mean that it is unjust (morally wrong) to make a moral claim about abortion. Perhaps she really meant that we were mistaken (logically wrong) in claiming that there is any such thing as objective moral truth.

“Maybe she isn’t making a moral claim at all,” I thought. What she said next confirmed this:

Julie: You can say whatever you want about your beliefs, but those beliefs don’t make it bad for someone else to do something contrary to them.

Sensing that I had been missing her intent, I asked another clarifying question.

Joanna: Do you reject the idea of objective truth in general, or do you only reject the idea of objective moral truth specifically?

Julie: I only reject the idea of objective moral truth.

Clarifying this was extremely helpful to our conversation. In doing so, I realized she actually believed in truth and falsehood – just not truth and falsehood regarding moral claims. She believed there are such things as false beliefs, and she believed that one of my false beliefs was that there are objective moral wrongs (such as abortion). In other words, she believed there is an objective truth that morality is subjective.

She continued to clarify her thoughts.

Julie: I do believe in objective truth. Truth is that which can be proven empirically.

Now we were getting somewhere. She believed that truth is only that which is empirically proven (observed using the five senses). While my concern about self-refutation missed the mark with her previous statement, it was clearly appropriate now. I attempted to help her see the problem.

Joanna: Julie, can you empirically prove the statement you just made?

(In other words, “Can your statement hold to its own standard?”) Her statement about empirical proof would have to be proved by philosophical means, not empirical – but the statement itself didn’t leave room for any philosophical statements to be taken seriously!

This conversation clarified a number of things for me. First, while the denial of objective truth is self-refuting, the denial of moral truth is not necessarily self-refuting. Sure, if Julie had meant, “It is morally wrong to say any action is morally wrong,” that claim would have been self-refuting because the act of making the claim would violate the meaning of the claim itself. But Julie didn’t make that claim. By using the word “wrong,” she made it possible for me to confuse her meaning. She had actually meant that we were “mistaken” rather than morally wrong.

“We need to be careful to try to understand what people mean before we accuse them of holding contradictory points of view.”

As it turned out, Julie did have a view that was self-refuting – the very common claim that truth is only that which can be empirically proven. That’s a claim that can’t live by its own rules. So, unlike the claim, “You’re wrong (incorrect) to think there are moral rules,” (which is false for other reasons), this claim, “Truth is only that which can be proven empirically,” actually is self-refuting because one can’t know that the statement itself is true through empirical means. If the statement is true, then it is also false. Now, that’s a problem!

In talking with Julie, I experienced the importance of “listening to reflect,” rather than “listening simply to refute.” We need to be careful to try to understand what people mean before we accuse them of holding contradictory points of view. When I asserted that Julie’s initial claim was self-refuting, I was assuming I understood what she meant by “wrong.” When I stepped back and listened more carefully, it became clear I had misunderstood her. This further listening proved to be providential. By listening to understand her view clearly, I was able to ask better questions, which put us on the path of finding truth together.

---

Joanna Bai served as a JFA trainer from 2012-2022. This story was originally published in Joanna Bai’s October 2012 newsletter (“Which Kind of ‘Wrong’ Is ‘Right’ - How a Conversation at KU Taught Me to Listen”). See also Joanna’s “One Central Question Helps Change a Mind” which we featured in March of this year. Read many other excellent letters by Joanna and other alumni trainers JFA has had the privilege to employ over the years at the link below.

Featured Image (Steve Wagner): Walkway near the Governor’s Palace at Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia.