On 10 June, Wesleyan Methodist minister and blogger Francis “Frank” Ritchie penned an article criticizing pro-lifers for their reactions to the Green Party’s extreme new policy to decriminalize abortion.
“Before I begin, allow me to affirm that I am pro-life,” are his opening words of the article. But while he states he is pro-life, the purpose of Ritchie’s article appears a very thinly veiled attempt at defending the Green Party, making a number of excuses for their disturbing abortion policy.
This article will not discuss the questionable reasoning found in Ritchie’s article. Brendan Malone critiques Ritchie’s article in a piece entitled, “Being Frank about the Greens and Abortion: 8 Questions for Francis Ritchie.”
Instead, this article draws attention to the fact that, until recently, Frank Ritchie was a committed member of the Green Party.
In March 2011, after many years of consideration, Frank Ritchie made the decision to sign up as a member of the Green Party. He describes this decision,
“After dwelling on the idea of joining a political party as a member for many years and struggling to decide where to place myself – the Greens in the last week became my choice. I chose the Greens because it is the political party that most reflects my own values as a human being, citizen of planet earth, husband, father, Christian, Kiwi and a worker in the NGO community serving the world’s poorest. No one political party will ever do it completely, but the Greens get the closest to who I am and the vision being played out by the party is a long term one rather than a short one based on the political cycle and the political game. The Greens give the sense that the political apparatus of our nation is simply a tool to achieve a greater aim and it’s that greater aim of a better, healthier world that we share. The more people grasp that bigger picture and long term thinking, the more the Green movement will gain traction in the political arena.”
In 2012 he took a job as a minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand. Before he took the cloth, he cancelled his membership of the Green Party, stating,
“I do not believe that party membership and my role as a Minister are compatible.”
Ritchie thus revoked his membership of the Green Party out of necessity. However given his “dwelling on the idea of joining a political party as a member for many years and struggling to decide where to place” himself, there is no reason to think that Ritchie does not still identify most strongly with the Green Party.
And yet in a post on their Facebook page encouraging people to “seek out balanced commentaries” on their new abortion policy, the Green Party suggested Ritchie’s article as one such “balanced” commentary.
In the interests of a robust and open debate, shouldn’t Frank Ritchie have begun his article, “Before I begin, allow me to affirm that I was until recently a paid-up member of the Green Party, and that I identify most strongly with the Green Party and their Values”?
Thank you for sharing your concern.
It is no secret that I was a Green Party member for a short time (which is why you were able to easily find the info that you have) and that I have not been since before my ordination in 2012. It was also not something I gave up out of necessity but out of a strongly held view that the role of a Christian Minister is to be as nonpartisan as possible. It should also be pointed out that my role as a Minister is not a ‘job’ but something much deeper.
It should also be noted (as I have stated abundantly) that I disagree with the current abortion policy being put forward by the Green Party and if I were in a position where I was evaluating possible party membership now (which I will not be), it would cause me to not pursue such membership with the Green Party.
This is not something I have tried to hide. As stated in a comment I made in response to someone on my own post:
“I’m no longer a member of any political party and haven’t been since before my ordination in 2012. For me personally, I do not believe that party membership and my role as a Minister are compatible. Also I am not ‘in such circles’ – my friends and those I associate with come from across the political spectrum. With that in mind I don’t believe I am having to ‘reconcile’ anything I believe with any political party as I am independent of any party. When it comes to voting there is no one party I agree with on everything so with some things it’s not about reconciling, it’s about choosing which I think can best serve the big picture of New Zealand and in doing that choosing I, as will many New Zealanders, will have to accept that whoever I vote for is going to hold views and do things I don’t agree with at times.”
I am not ashamed of my former party membership, nor do I think it has much sway on my evaluation of the current policy that I openly disagree with.
Oh, also, I am a Wesleyan Methodist Minister, not a Methodist Minister – it may seem like a small distinction, but for those who are aware of such things, it’s rather large.
This post is another in a disturbing trend of posts playing the man rather than the ball. To suggest that every blogger must disclose all past associations with political groups, corporate interests etc etc is an unrealistic expectation and a thinly veiled attempt to find a conspiracy where there is none. There are many half truths in this post:
(a) The post does not defend the Green Party – it expresses agreement with some aspects of the policy, disagreement with other aspects and a pretty clear pro life commitment
(b) The point of the post was respectful engagement on the issues not an apology for the Green Party
(c) Frank is clear in his engagement on this issue that as a minister he does not see his role as extending to endorsing a particular political party – to clarify his position as you suggest would have the reverse impact of why he left the party membership in the first place – you have found a conspiracy where there is none
(d) Frank is not a Methodist minister (check your sources)
(e) Frank does not work for the Methodist church (check your sources)
(f) The Green Party describes it as a balanced commentary – inherent to that description and the actual content of the post is significant disagreement with elements of the Greens policy
(g) Frank does welcome a public debate on the issues – by having a policy rather than confining the issue to a conscience vote, we all have the opportunity to bring this issue into the public sphere
I am really unsure why one pro life voice is so vehement in its villifying of another – it seems self-defeating to me and a distraction from the real issues of speaking up for the rights of unborn children and their families.
Well said Brett.
Seems like you are trying to start a fire where there is none for your own agenda. Poor form. I’m not sure what your stance is on abortion as your ‘message’ seems to have gotten lost. Surely one should respect alive human beings as well as those unborn.
What Brett said.
This post is an exercise in slander. The headline “Why didn’t Frank Ritchie Disclose his Green Party Membership?” strongly implies that Frank is a current member of the Green Party. It is only in the fourth paragraph we read that Frank was “until recently” a member of the Green Party, which implies his membership expired last week, and it is only at the end that we read that he resigned his membership in 2012. In case you hadn’t noticed two years is a long time in politics! In any case Frank has made no secret of his previous Green Party membership, as as he points out you found it easily. The fact that someone is or has been a member of a political party does not imply agreement with all their policies. We all know that there are divisions within all our political parties. This is even more so in the US where apparently you currently live, despite the regular occurrence of school massacres President Obama has been sadly unable to pass effective gun control measures because of opposition from some Democrats as well as Republicans.
Frank is not promoting the Green party policy, indeed nowhere does he say that he agrees with it. He is expressing concern about the tone of the reaction against it, especially the invective which emerges from some Christian sources. His aim is to thoughtfully provide a pastoral response on a subject on which his readers may have a range of opinions and indeed personal experiences.
Your post also fails to recognise that the Greens’ abortion policy is just one part of their overall Women’s Policy – Valuing Women. This includes comprehensive specific policies on economic justice and support for women and families, education, specific needs of wahine Maori, comprehensively addressing sexual and intimate partner violence, addressing honour based violence and forced marriage, and sexual and reproductive health. If these policies were implemented it would undoubtedly drive our abortion rate down (it is steadily falling anyway). Indeed your blog derives its name from Proverbs 31:8 but there is no evidence of any recognition that “the speechless . . . all who are appointed to die. . . [and] the poor and needy’ surely must refer to a far wider range of people than the unborn. I would question what is your support for the living poor and needy, whom Frank has dedicated his life to serving? If you are “pro-life” as you are living in the USA what is your attitude to the death penalty? What about effective gun control? Do you actually support a consistent life ethic (see http://www.consistent-life.org/) or does “pro-life” simply mean “anti-abortion”?? Because I fear that many of those “pro-life” supporters expressing outrage against the Greens, and directing their invective against Frank, seem to have adopted the definition of life made famous by Barney Frank, that life begins at conception and ends at birth.
This whole article reads like a mud slinging fest.
I find it utterly disappointing to read such drivel.
Do you honestly think that writing like this is somehow building Kingdom of God?
Who are these Holier Than Thou fundamentalists Prats? I’m a committed Christian attending a Vineyard Church and a signed up Green Party member. Even more I’m elected as a Green Party member to Auckland Council. I’m sorry I haven’t yet posted my position on the Green Party Abortion Policy which has been manipulated by the right wing in an attempt to undermine Christian support. Be clear the Green Party wants the abortion rate to be reduced, and is the most pro-life ( in the proper sense of the phrase ) pro-justice party in Parliament . More to come. Kia Kaha Frank.
Hi Andy?
Can I call you Andy? I would use your whole name in large letters but I can’t seem to find your last name on your blog. Don’t worry, Jill isn’t my real name either. Not all of us are as brave as Frank Ritchie.
But I have some questions:
1. Do you believe that someone can change their opinion? Maybe, I don’t know, after ‘seeing the light?’ People do change or leave political parties without there being some secret agenda behind it. What party are you? I think it is only fair you reveal your party and your country of origin. And your last name. You do understand Frank is in New Zealand right?
2. Do you think it was wrong of the Apostle Paul (aka Saul) to mislead people as to his recent past of holding the clothes of those who murdered Stephen? Seems like he was covering something up changing his name and all. Since his opinion changed, maybe we should throw out all books written by Saul? I mean once a murderer, always a murderer. So out you go half the New Testament.
3. Maybe you don’t like the New Testament… You seem to like the Book of Proverbs. Who did write that book? Was it Solomon or one of his 1,000 concubines? Or maybe it was his father King David, you know the adulter who murdered his lover’s husband to cover up his affair? And then married yet another wife (he already had a few) and she gave birth to Solomon. Great family values showing up there.
Just so you know, I happen to be a Christian. And I am pro-life. And I have earned my pro-life protest badge back in the day. I also know Frank personally and you got it all wrong mate.
What did Jesus say? “Those who are not against you are for you.”
Maybe you should spend a little less time reading blogs and a little more time reading your Bible. Because even though most of the people in the Bible were not perfect, actually most were pretty messed up, some of them had some good things to say.
And although it is very hard to get a clear “Thou shall not kill the preborn” out of the Bible. I think it is implied in “love your neighbour as yourself.” That is why I am pro-life. Oh… And the fact that a baby can be born and survive somewere between 20-30 weeks of gestation outside the womb. And because a heart beats at about 7 weeks gestation. You know all the scientific reasons which are pretty good.
So you, me, Frank, we are all on the same side. So lay off Frank. Ya got it all wrong mate.
Well written
This policy flows naturally from the left like the greens. I mean, who is really surprised that they the greens end up with this policy? Just look at how different parties have voted on: prostitution, smacking bill, etc etc …
I find it interesting that Frank Ritchie has been totally honest about who he is and his previous membership of the Green Party. Likewise Rachael Goldsmith has been totally honest about her involvement with writing the Greens abortion policy and her connection with ALRANZ. In contrast a link to this blog was posted on the Facebook page for Pro=Life Action NZ. On the Pro-Life Action NZ timeline there is no mention of who is involved in this apparent group, and the link to the URL http://www.prolifeaction.org.nz/ goes nowhere. It is only by going to the “about” page for Pro-Life Action NZ that we learn that the administrator for that page is one Andy Moore, presumably the same as the author of this blog. I see that the link to this blog has been removed from the Pro-Life Action NZ Facebook page, however it remains here and on the Andy Moore Facebook page. Therefore I am wondering how you explain the comment in the thread following this link on the Pro-Life NZ page (now removed) “I didn’t TITLE the link”.
As this blog post is still here I will make the comment I was about to post when the link was taken down, in response to some of your comments in that thread:
I’m not sure what you are basing your outrageous emotive comments about abortion being a “big proft (sic) business machine” on, as in New Zealand abortions are provided in DHB funded public hospitals, supplemented by a couple of small not-for-profit organisations, and performed by salaried medical staff, so there is no profit whatsoever.
No one, but no one, is promoting abortion as a good and desirable thing. The Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand is probably the strongest “pro-choice” lobby group in NZ, if you bother to look at their website you will find that they promote education and the free availability of contraceptives (I realise Catholics will object to that but most Protestants and others won’t) and that abortion should be available in cases of contraceptive failure. Note that I am not saying I agree with them, just asserting that respectful discussion/debate should be based on an accurate representation of the other’s position.
It is clear that you haven’t actually read the whole of the Greens’ policy for women so I’ll post the link for you https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/womens-policy-valuing-women . I reiterate that if these comprehensive policies were implemented the abortion rate would be driven down even further, you may not be aware that the abortion rate in NZ has been steadily declining for the last 10 years (as it has been also in the USA throughout Barack Obama’s presidency). You are perfectly welcome to comment on any post on the Green Party Facebook page, although I hate to think what venom you might write there. I add that I am not a Green member, and like Francis Ritchie I don’t necessarily support their abortion policy, I just think this issue should be engaged with rational and accurately informed discussion rather than misinformation and emotive invective.
You might also like to explain in a rational manner what you mean by your statement that “The abortion industry’s ‘god’ is Molech”.
Update: Pro Life Action New Zealand has removed the link to this post noting “…we are not interested in slandering people, we seek the truth regarding Abortion and those who promote it directly and indirectly.
We are also not above apologising or putting something right, if it is within our power or responsibility to do so.”
Kudos to Pro Life Action New Zealand. You can read the status update and comments regarding this on their Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/ProLifeActionNZ?fref=ts
Yes, good on Pro Life Action NZ. In comparison interesting that this post is still on this blog, considering that this author is also a page admin for Pro Life Action NZ.
I can’t see where Frank Ritchie has been anything other than completely honest and up front. I find this to be a slanderous piece of drivel, if I’m honest. Frank has always been open about his views, and to imply, as you have done, that he is currently a member of the Green Party, is very misleading to say the least. You do, eventually, mention that he’s stopped his membership, but you mention it very quickly, and almost seem to be hoping nobody would have noticed?
Just a thought here, but why not write about something that actually matters? Labour and National both seem to think it’s alright to backtrack on campaign promises, to the point of outright lying. Why not right about that? Instead of having a go at a very Christian, upright member of society, who isn’t actually saying what you’re accusing him of saying. I read the original blog by Frank, and found it easy to read, as well as informative.
Translation? Get a life.
I see this slanderous post is still here 3 days after the link was removed from the Pro-Life Action NZ Facebook page.
Actually as this slanderous post is still here I am wondering if you subscribe to the tactics of the Susan B Anthony List, a US anti-abortion group that is petitioning the US Supreme Court to uphold the right to make false statements in political campaigns?? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/10/supreme-court-susan-b-anthony-driehaus-_n_4577932.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037
On 15 June I published an article entitled “Why didn’t Frank Ritchie Disclose his Green Party Membership?”
Many appeared to be very upset at my article as you can see in comments on the original post, and on my Facebook post.
Some claimed that I had incorrectly stated that Frank supported the Greens’ policy. I did say that Frank made “a number of excuses” for the policy. However I did not say, and do not think that he supports it in its entirety. Here are four examples of how I think Frank made excuses for, or softened the unpleasant truth about the Greens’ policy:
Another criticism was that the headline implied that Frank is a current member of the Green Party. When seeking to construct a concise headline, it is impossible to include every relevant clause and detail. While the headline “Why didn’t Frank Ritchie Disclose his Green Party Membership?” was technically correct, I have updated it to clear up any confusion it may cause. The new new headline reads: “Why didn’t Frank Ritchie Disclose he was until recently a Green Party Member?”
Finally – in a comment Frank made on my original post, he stated that – were he to consider membership of a political party in the future, the Greens’ new abortion policy would cause him to not consider the Greens as a party that he would join. I highly commend Frank for making this commitment.
Andy, thanks for your response. Clearly we’ll disagree on some points, read some things differently and have clear differences in our approach – but that’s the nature of dealing with the big issues. I wish you all the best in your endeavours to make a difference and to demonstrate the deep, abiding love of Christ in the process.
Hi Andy Moore,
Ok I was wrong, Andy is your real name. And you are originally from New Zealand. But you are not being forthcoming with the fact you do not live in New Zealand anymore. You moved to the USA and correct me if I am wrong, campaigned for more than one Republican. Therefore I can only assume you are a Republican (please correct me
if I am wrong). So why is a Republican (in the USA) judging anyone in the Green party (in New Zealand)? Furthermore, why are you judging Frank who is neither?
Look, I get that the only party in the USA that is sort-of pro-life are the Republicans. But they are also anti-gun control. They are therefore, actively working to keep guns in the hands of teenagers who shoot up schools. The schools your children will one day attend. So there is no perfect political party in any country. There is no party that cares for both the pre-born and the children they become.
But the Republicans could try to work with the evil Democrats and fix that problem. They could for example try to mimick New Zealand’s gun control laws (which only allow people who prove they have gun safes, who understand gun safety, and who are registered own guns.) But the Republican party doesn’t care to do that. Because they are partly paid for with big gun money. And it’s ‘un-American’ so the saying goes to be for reasonable control of guns. It’s against the ‘right to bear arms.’ They worship the amendments made by man and ignore their own hearts which tell them letting kids have easy access to guns is wrong.
So who are you really to judge Frank? Why don’t you think about that the next time you slander your brother in Christ? You have made compromises against your own pro-life beliefs. Haven’t you? At least Frank left the party. Have you?
What you need to do is take down this whole post. Because it is full of evidence of one pro-lifer (you) attacking another pro-lifer (Frank). And many New Zealand Christians are not impressed with you (Andy Moore).
That is still sensationalist slander. Frank was not “UNTIL RECENTLY a Green Party Member”. His involvement was limited to filling in his membership form and paying his $15 subs in 2011, and resigning his membership in 2012. That is two years ago he resiigned, two years is a long time in politics!!
When it comes to comparing the Greens with the Nazis, well I guess that depends on whether you want to engage in a rational discussion, to present yourself with credibility, and have your arguments taken seriously by those with influence on policy development, or whether you would rather shout emotive slogans from the sidelines and get the applause of your religious right fan base but have no influence whatsoever to bring about change.
Finally like Frank I am not advocating or agreeing with the Greens abortion policy. However instead of being taken in isolation as you do the abortion policy needs to be seen in the context of the Greens overall women’s policy. This includes comprehensive policies for addressing the sorts of issues that may drive some women to seek abortions, including poverty, sexual and intimate partner violence, addressing honour based violence and forced marriage, and sexual and reproductive health. If these policies were implemented it would undoubtedly drive our abortion rate down While I guess purist anti-abortionists won’t see any value in anything except a total legal ban on abortion, I would say that anything which reduces abortions has to be good.
This whole dialogue, from woah to go, really puts me off Christians and Greens. All condescendingly pushing their own self-righteous barrows of fetid left- and right-wing agendas. Why anyone would want to align themselves with either of those groups is a mystery.