Posted on

Announcing Timothy Brahm’s Resignation From ERI

by

Published May 9, 2019

It is with a heavy heart that I announce the resignation of Timothy Brahm as Director of Training, which became effective on May 3rd, 2019. Tim feels that God is leading him somewhere else, and we wish him the very best. We temporarily delayed making this announcement more public (i.e. an email blast, Facebook post, etc.) to give Tim time to personally inform his supporters.

Having co-founded ERI with me, Tim did amazing and breakthrough things for the pro-life movement, and Tim was integral to the successes ERI shared. Tim is leaving ERI, but everyone agrees that his imprint won’t leave the organization. Tim should be proud of what he accomplished at ERI. He co-founded a great pro-life organization with some of the best pro-life writing and philosophical work in the entire movement, and none of that goes away just because he’s not working in the office. Even the ideas that Tim was still in process on with the rest of our Philosophy Team are things that will continue to be developed.

On behalf of myself, our board, and our staff, I wish Tim the very best in his new endeavors.

Josh Brahm (left) and Timothy Brahm (right)

While Tim’s contributions will be missed, ERI will continue to be a strong organization for the future. From a desire to develop a strong team of philosophers several years ago, diversifying the group by hiring Rachel Crawford and Andrew Kaake are two of the best decisions we’ve made since we launched ERI. They are ridiculously smart and will continue to see problems and work on solutions in the same way we always have. If you love the philosophical work we do, none of that is going away. Rachel Crawford is taking over leadership of the Philosophy Team, and it’s been incredible to see her rise to the challenge.

I greatly look forward to seeing how God continues to work through this organization as we grow our staff and expand our projects. Our current focus is on completing the sidewalk counseling course, using our new video studio to expand the Equipped for Life Course and create great YouTube videos, and relaunch the Equipped for Life Podcast.

Josh Brahm
President and Co-Founder

ERI-Dialogue-Principle #7

Can we stop treating people like formulas for a second and remember that they’re people, and that people have different needs?

For more of the context of this quotation, read the full article here:

ERI-Dialogue-Tip #2

We should ask lots of questions so we can engage with the person in front of us and not a straw man.

For more of the context of this quotation, click here to read the full article:

Posted on

Roe’s Savior: The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

by

The Equal Rights Amendment is one of the most polarizing topics in American politics. Ostensibly, the purpose of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is to ensure that men and women are guaranteed the same rights by law. The core text of the ERA is short and simple:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes.
Picture: The United States Senate chamber where the ERA will be debated.

United States Senate chamber. Public domain image.

The text alone doesn’t seem harmful. If interpreted properly, it could be helpful, as it is obviously wrong to unfairly discriminate against women. Unfortunately, rather than addressing legitimate discrimination grievances, this clause has instead been interpreted as granting a right to abortion. Pro-choice advocates are using the ERA as a Trojan horse to sneak the right to abortion into the U.S. Constitution under the guise of “gender equality.” [Tweet that!]

Adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires two things: Congress must pass the amendment, and 38 states must ratify (pass) it. After Congress passed the ERA in 1972, the states had 10 years to meet this ratification quota. 35 states ratified the ERA within five years, and the amendment was initially very popular. However, this popularity was present because many states did not believe abortion to be a “right’ protected in the ERA, as Roe v. Wade had not been decided yet when the ERA passed. Consequently, five states rescinded their ratification in the years following Roe. The Constitution does not specify whether a state may rescind its ratification of an amendment, and the Supreme Court will likely have to make a ruling on this, which could be a long and controversial process.

As of now, 37 states have ratified the ERA at some point in time. The initial ten-year ratification deadline has expired; however, if one more state ratifies the ERA, the amendment could still be added to the U.S. Constitution if it is passed by Congress again. While the current Republican majority in the Senate would likely block the ERA, this is not a long-term solution. Pro-choice Democrats who support the ERA will almost certainly regain both chambers of Congress eventually, so if a 38th state ratifies it and the Supreme Court determines all of those ratifications to be valid, it will only be a matter of time until the ERA becomes the next amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

Posted on

Does Your Image Need a Face-Lift?

by

Image: Man choosing from multiple face options.

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes.

“Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Socialism”

“Don’t Apologize to the Mob”

Do titles like this sound familiar? Sure, the content inside might be entertaining to those who agree, but if you spoke like that in a conversation, would you convince anyone?

It’s really easy to forget the “relational” part of “relational apologetics,” especially when interacting online. It’s hard to remember that there’s a person on the other end of your comment or tweet. In dialogue, it’s critical to treat others with respect, even to give them a more-than-fair hearing. [Tweet that!] It’s the right thing to do, and it also makes you stand out if you treat people charitably in spite of deep disagreement.

Of course, this is hard to do, especially when you’re passionate and you believe your cause is just. You probably know “that guy” who knows all the arguments—he’s got personhood nailed, he has a whole magazine of bullets to bite for sovereign zone objections, and he’s memorized the entire De Facto Guardian paper—and he can’t wait to destroy the weak points of the opposition! It sounds funny to read, but too many people get excited about fighting for truth and justice against the new American way and forget that people normally have to want to talk to you in order for you to help them change their mind.

I don’t want to spend too much time here arguing against the destroy approach—I’ll just say that it’s somewhat fun but not helpful and please don’t do it—because I want to focus on a different question.