I can't tell you how many election cycles ago it was, but it was a long time ago. I was talking to a dear, sweet, older lady. This woman was a life-long Democrat. She had probably voted for Franklin Roosevelt. Clearly she cherished the heritage he had established. John F. Kennedy was rightly admired by her.
For most of my friend's life, abortion had been a non-issue. The questions related to the life of the unborn were not something that dominated political and ethical conversation the way it does now. All of that changed with the 1973 Roe v Wade decision. Not only was there a legal ruling, that "discovered" a right that had never been seen in the US Constitution before, but an important semantic shift began--a shift that has led to our current situation.
In the past the dominant word that applied to how a mom and a dad, indeed society at large discussed life in the womb, was "responsibility." All of us were expected to behave differentially toward a pregnant woman. Comments like, "You are eating for two, now," were common. At the very pinnacle of acts that marked an army as barbaric was the bayoneting of babies in the womb. Like sand working its way through an hour-glass, a shift took place. If the polls can be trusted the dominant word in the discussion is now "rights." The ethical weight, as seen by a huge portion of our society, is no longer on the side of protecting a baby's life but on protecting a right--which by the way was only recognized in 1973--of the mother.
Getting back to my older friend: She recognized this shift. In particular, she recognized it in the political party to which she was loyal, and in many ways loved. The trend was underway which has led to the overwhelming commitment to a pro-abortion stance by the National Democrat Party. She saw what was happening. She knew that the unwarranted taking of the life of the unborn was wrong. I can still remember the plaintive look on her face, when she asked, "Isn't there just a little bit of room for it?" In the context there was no doubt as to what "it" referred.
Our current situation brings many of us to the same crossroads where that dear lady stood decades ago. We are pulled, or pushed, or, in some cases, bullied in two directions at once. This crossroads was recently clearly identified by someone I don't think I've ever quoted before, Bill Maher.
I can respect the absolutist position. I really can,” he said on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher.” “I scold the left when they say, ‘Oh, you know what? They just hate women, people who aren’t pro-choice.’ . . . pro-lifers “don’t hate women” and that the opposition “just made that up.
How much of this is shock-jock rhetoric and how much is true conviction? I'll leave that to you. I agree, though, with the point Al Mohler made in a recent article. Maher pretty accurately identified the issue. I unequivocally find Mahar's final conclusion repulsive. I see little difference between what he says and the genocidal practices of some arimies that I mentioned earlier. In a sense, though, his candor is appreciated.
As I write, I see that grandma's face and hear her plaintive voice. I don't remember how I answered her question. Maybe I just let it hang as rhetorical. I'd like to think that she answered it correctly. Today, though, how do we answer? I ask that knowing that this is a case where one thing leads to another. The courageous answer may not seem wise and the wise answer may seem cowardly. It's complicated and it's tough. Clearly, though, I must answer with two realities in mind. Maher almost arrived at the first. For me, I must remove the equivocation. Science and a clear understanding of the Bible indicate that the life in the womb is a human being. Unlike Mahar, I do care. I must care. In the same way that I don't want to live in a world where bike-riding seniors (that would be me) can be run over because they are seen by some as being in the way, I don't want to live in a world where womb-dwelling babies can be killed just because someone finds them inconvenient.
I give Mahar credit. At least he acknowledged the reality. I hear too many trying to give answers as if the reality doesn't exist.
No one who is paying attention at all can doubt that we citizens of the United States live in a very polarized time.
It's not the greatest TV ever produced, but an old Outer Limits episode, "Hearts and Minds," makes a point that we would do well to think about. Our current political situation got me thinking about the old TV show. (You can find the episode on Youtube or find a summary here.)
The Outer Limits episode is a negative utopia piece. The world is locked in a war over fuel for energy, and the soldiers who make up the characters in the video are hard-core, totally committed to their "us or them" battle. It is a war for the survival of humanity. Not only is the video black and white, the cause for which they are fighting is absolute. The women and men who make up the small squad of soldiers are very human. The enemy is a horrid insectoid race of aliens, carrying a deadly-to-humans infection. The soldiers are equipped with an injection system, not unlike the insulin pumps that make life for many diabetics much easier. Only in the futurist dark fantasy, the medication that is injected into the soldiers' bloodstream is an agent that supposedly protects them from this alien infection.
The tragic twist that is revealed toward the end of the episode is that in reality the "juice" is part of a system that makes the soldiers see their enemies--in reality as human as they--as "bugs."
As I say, it is not the best TV programming ever produced, but underneath the heavy-handed, manipulative drama is a very real human tendency that is often exploited by demagogues of various stripes. One of the soldiers expresses it as he confronts a fellow fighter. "You have to hate them." One does not go to war over a trivial disagreement over a minor offense. Over the years I have resisted, and sometimes been captured by this tendency to make ones opponent an enemy, and to go on and make ones enemy something other than human. I succumbed to the "juice."
Someone once said something like (how's that for precision?), "Madison Avenue (the advertisement industry) is in the business of creating desires for things that didn't even exist a short time ago." It doesn't take too deep a dive into our consumerist culture to see dangers with that, but much more problematic is turning that syndrome on its head, and creating hatreds for causes, movements, and groups of people.
Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler if his rhetoric had been, "It seems to me, as I examine the economic trends of post-war Germany that the Jewish community may have reaped a disproportionate amount of profit when compared to other sectors." No, the Feurer was a master of what has come to be known as "othering." In our real-world scenario the "juice" is not injected by an implanted pump, but by rhetoric, alignment with movements, and well-crafted media. On the other hand, I have to admit that Churchill's rhetoric, often strident, led to what I regard as a good outcome. Balance and caution are needed.
I'm struck by the contrast that I see in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. (I'll leave the discussion of the imprecatory Psalms for another time.) Never was there a greater contrast than what took place in the passion of Christ--the absolutely righteous human surrounded by a mob that cried out for His crucifixion. Having accomplished their bloody mission, the totally innocent victim of this supreme othering calls out, while suffering the agonies of death on the cross, "Father, forgive them."
I am not discounting the great importance of the causes that are before us, things like:
The sacrifice of innocent children to the total autonomy of the individuals who make the tragic choice to kill these little people.
The denial of the biological reality of maleness and femaleness, and the demand for total acceptance of, even support for, the futile notion that one can choose ones gender with absolute freedom.
The deep-seated disagreement over the nature of reality itself--"Is this a world of stuff and stuff alone, or is there a spiritual reality all around it, that is, indeed, more permanent than the stuff w walk of, breathe, eat, and with which we clothe ourselves?"
Yes, there are clearly issues that are worth contending for, fighting for, even dying for, but if the fight is to be "the good fight," it must be undertaken on the basis of truth. The truth is that even those who hold to polar opposite views than mine, are, like me, human beings. They are, even though many deny it, the special creation of God. Just like me, they owe their existence to dirt, water, and air--the providential work of God Who causes "all things to hold together." As much as I may want to hate them and as often and loudly as some of my co-belligerents encourage me to hate them, I can't. It is not that I'm not able, I am very capable of that hatred. It is that must not. I am a follower of the one who asked for the forgiveness of His tormentors.
Let me finish with a few suggestions that flow from this thought:
We have to be careful about hyperbole. Is this really the "most important election in our history," or, "the defining cause of our generation, or "a battle for the life of our nation/way of life/freedom/etc."? Perhaps, but be careful.
Is there anything right about the position of the person who holds another view? Is the abortion advocate right about the plight of some women? Does gender confusion cause real heartache for many, particularly young, people? Have some elements of our society been wrongly treated for a long time? I'm not saying that the answers to those questions erase the real issues, but rather that asking and seeking honest answers to those questions remind me that on the other side of the debate stage stands another human, not an "other."
The changing of hearts and minds is a much more long-lasting solution than the wielding of power.
Christianity Today sent this article that features an excellent piece by Most Reverend
Salvatore Joseph Cordileone
Archbishop of San Francisco.
As a conservative, Evangelical Protestant I found the whole compendium of information confirming and helpful. Here are the links to the items referred to in the emailed article from C.T. followed by some quotations I gleaned from it.
”. . . abortion is not a “Christian” or “Catholic” issue:
the dignity of the human person is a value that is, or should be, affirmed by
us all.”
“Because an embryo is a unique and developing human
organism, it follows that she or he possesses an inherent right to life from
the moment of conception. Thus, the violent invasion of the act of abortion
ends a human life.”
“This does not mean that we seek to impose our religious
beliefs on others, but it does mean that our religious understanding of the
human person as created in the image and likeness of God deepens our resolve to
join hands with others, regardless of religious convictions or lack of them, to
serve, teach, heal, and protect the human community, especially those most in
need. We share with others the conviction that human dignity is innate; but we
also believe it is of inestimable value.”
“Our increasingly polarized and uncivil society manifests a
lack of respect for “the other” across a broad spectrum of issues. . . .”
“Formal cooperation in evil is never morally justified. For
decades now western culture has been in denial about the harsh reality of
abortion. The topic is swathed in sophistries by its advocates and discussion
about it is forbidden in many venues.”
“There are important lessons here, to be
sure. One lesson must be this: There will be theologians who seem
ever ready to find a way to subvert the teachings of their church, even as they
seek to remain in its employ and trust. The second lesson is like unto
the first: There will ever be politicians who are looking for political
cover, and will gladly receive this cover from those willing to subvert their
church's teaching. These lessons are by no means limited to the Roman
Catholic Church.”
My observation is that people have grown weary of the abortion issue. Other more popular issues now have taken the place of protecting the lives of the unborn in many Christian's thinking. Being-tired-of is not the foundation of good ethics.
Last week, I did a series of posts over STTA, and some parallels here, on the moral/ethical/political/cultural issue of abortion and the aanctity of life. I finished this round on this subject, over at STTA on Friday. My intention was to do one more post, here. Her it is.
This is mostly some notes from a message I did a while back. Notes, at least my notes aren't intended for general consumption, so I'm cleaning this up some. I figure it will still have that note-ish quality about it.
What Does The Bible Say About
Abortion?
1Is Human Life Unique? Not too long ago this would be a question that would not make any sense.
Today it is a question that cries out to be answered.
I am not in any way encouraging cruelty to animals. We have a responsibility to treat them
properly.
“A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion
of the wicked is cruel.” (Proverbs 12:10, NASB95)
The godly care for their animals, but the wicked are always cruel. (NLT) Peter Singer, of Princeton University is obviously an extremist on the matter,
but he and other philosophers like him are obviously exerting an influence.
. .
In the previous chapter I gave reasons for believing that the fundamental principle of equality, on which the equality of all human beings rests, is the principle of equal consideration of interests. Only a basic moral principle of this kind can allow us to defend a form of equality which embraces all human beings, with all the differences that exist between them. I shall now contend that while this principle does provide an adequate basis for human equality, it provides a basis which cannot be limited to humans. In other words I shall suggest that, having accepted the principle of equality as a sound moral basis for relations with others of our own species, we are also committed to accepting it as a sound moral basis for relations with those outside our own species - the nonhuman animals. (rest of article)
Another writer on the subject, Joan Dunayer, had this to say, “When I was
writing Animal Equality, a friend questioned the book's title. Did I really
mean to say that all animals are equal? Yes, I did. Like human equality, animal
equality doesn't mean equal abilities. It means that all animals have an equal
right to moral consideration and legal protection.”
The position of the Bible is entirely different.
I’ll summarize it by referring to 3 passages of
scripture. Jot them down. All 3 refer to the image or the likeness of
God. The later 2 are after the Fall:
(Gen
1:27 NASB) And God created man in His
own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
(Gen
9:6 NASB) "Whoever sheds man's
blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.
(James
3:9&10 With it we bless our Lord and
Father; and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;
from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things
ought not to be this way.
There are a great many things that we have in common with
animals, we can take great joy from their companionship, and we have a
responsibility to treat them in an appropriate manner and to spare them any
unnecessary cruelty.
But, one of the great gulfs that exist in God’s creation is
the gulf between the value of human life, and the value of the life of animals.
The life of human beings is special—sacred—because of that creation in God’s
image. That great worth is powerfully
made known by the death of God’s Son to redeem us.
You can see this in
the natural realm . . .
In the very act of denying that
there is a difference, people demonstrate that there is.
2When Does
Human Life Begin?
Again let me marshal some Biblical evidence for an answer, and then look at
this in the natural realm. All of the
following, more material is available in the supplement, I referred to.
The Bible indicates that God
oversees the formation of human life within the womb.
“For You formed my inward parts; You
wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and
wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My
frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully
wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as
yet there was not one of them.” (Psalm 139:13–16, NASB95)
The Bible consistently speaks of life as a continuum It is a person in the womb, the same person that is after birth. The Apostle Paul speaks of that continuation
in Gal. 1:15. “But when God, who had
set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was
please to reveal His Son in me . . . ” (Galatians 1:15, NASB95)
Note the interaction of the born and unborn in
Luke 1:39-44 “Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to
a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. When
Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was
filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said,
“Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! “And how
has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? “For
behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my
womb for joy.” (Luke 1:39–44, NASB95)
Modern medical science has made it very difficult to miss this truth.
·18 days from conception, heart begins to
beat, with the baby’s own blood.
·28 days from conception a baby has eyes, ears, and even
a tongue!
·28 days from conception: Muscles are developing along the future
spine. Arms and legs are budding.
·30 days: Child has grown 10,000 times to 6-7mm (1/4”) long.
Brain has human proportions. Blood flows in veins.
·42 days: Skeleton is formed. Brain coordinates movement of
muscles and organs. Reflex responses have begun.
·42 days: Brain waves can be detected, the jaw forms, including
teeth and taste buds. The unborn baby begins to swallow amniotic fluid.Fingers and toes are developing.
·45 days from conception: The unborn baby is making body
movements, a full 12 weeks before the mother may notice such
stirrings. By seven weeks the chest and abdomen are fully formed. Swimming with
a natural swimmer’s stroke in the amniotic fluid, the baby now looks like a
miniature human infant.
·44-45 days: Buds of milk teeth appear, and the unborn baby’s
facial muscles develop. Eyelids begin to form, protecting the developing eyes.
Elbows take shape. Internal organs are present, but immature. 99% of muscles
are present, each with its own nerve supply.
·52 Days: Spontaneous movement begins. The unborn baby then
develops a whole collection of moves over the next 4 weeks includinghiccuping, frowning, squinting, furrowing the brow,
pursing the lips, moving individual arms and legs, head turning, touching
his/her face, breathing (without air), stretching, opening the mouth, yawning
and sucking.
8 – 10 weeks
·8 Weeks: Now a small-scale baby, at approximately 3 cm (1 1/8”)
and weighing a gram (1/30gth oz.), yet well proportioned. Every organ is present. Baby’s heartbeat is
steady. Stomach produces digestive juices. Liver makes blood cells. Kidneys
begin to function. Taste buds are forming.
·8 ½ Weeks: The unborn baby’s fingerprints
are being engraved. Eyelids and palms of hands are sensitive to
touch.
·8- 8 ½ Weeks: Of the 4500 structures in the adult body, 4000 are
now present in the unborn baby. The skeleton of the arms and legs and the spine
begins to stiffen as bone cells are added.
The person known as Howard Merrell
has been changing for the past, nearly 65 years. Most recently he acquired a very
sophisticated new right knee.
In the 9 months prior to that change was much more rapid and profound.
But from the moment of my conception it was certain that I would blue eyes and
a gap in my teeth. There was no doubt
that I would have black hair that would turn to gray.
The genetic predisposition to having big legs with knees that were prone to
wear out was there the moment the cell from my mom and the one from my dad were
united.
From that moment until the present, and indeed for the rest of eternity I am
that person known as Howard Lee Merrell the son of Irene and Audley Merrell.
Is it ever right for one human being to take the life of another?
The most accurate translation of the 6th
Commandment is, "Thou shalt not murder."
All needless taking of human life is to be avoided. When a human takes the life of another
without Divine sanction, it is wrong—grievously wrong.
Not all taking of human life is murder.
·While death resulting from accident is horrible,
it is not the same as what is condemned in the 6th Commandment. Numbers 35 is helpful in sorting that
out.
·The death of another that takes place in
self-defense is not murder.
(Both of these can relate to questions in regard to the death of the unborn.)
·When one takes the life of another in war, or in
the execution of police action . . .
·Properly administered capital punishment. . . .
Abortion as it is currently
carried out in our nation is in almost every instance totally removed from any
of those. Arguing on the basis of the
few possible exceptions to justify the whole is dishonest.
What Should We Do About It?
I put this question forth knowing it is a horribly polarizing issue.
Certainly it has divided our nation
politically.
It divides families and has split
churches.
It has been over 40 years since the
Supreme Court of the US changed our nation’s laws. Many in the Christian community are just
tired of the whole thing. The newer
debate over the definition of marriage has taken up some of the oxygen.
It’s much more trendy to rally for
social justice and to advocate for an end to human trafficking than it is to
uphold the right to life for the unborn.
Those are important, but. . . .
With that in mind, what do I
recommend in 2015? This is something
for you to do . . .
·Keep the main thing the main thing.
This may sound strange in a message in which I am encouraging you to take a
stand for the life of the unborn, but we need to know that the primary message
of the church is not pro-life—for that matter it is not traditional marriage,
or any of the other social issues on which we need to take a stand.
I am not encouraging compromise. I am
saying that we ought to make sure that we don’t do anything to negate the most
important message.
·Be politically aware and use politics properly.
Several years ago I wrote to one of our state politicians. Really a good guy. I don’t remember precisely what the issue was
but it was something in this realm. I
asked him to vote for, and advocate for, a proposal that would move our
commonwealth in the right direction in this regard. He wrote back that what was proposed would be
struck down by the courts anyway. It
would be a waste of effort, time, and most important money. He wasn’t going to support it. Nothing was really said about whether it was
right.
Just about any great social advance ever made, began as a losing battle.
Yes, I want a representative who knows how to get things done, but more
important than that, I want those who lead my nation and state and community to
be dedicated to doing what is right. I
want a representative who will advocate for a losing cause if it is the right
cause.
I didn’t vote for that guy. I’m not
going to tell you who he is or what party he is in, but I don’t think you
should either.
I do not believe that the answer is primarily political, but having said that,
it is incontrovertibly true that the state of things as they currently are is a
result of our having elected representatives with a particular view of right
and wrong who have appointed judges and bureaucrats. . .
Since, as Abraham Lincoln said, ours is a government of the people, I must not
only heed the commands of scripture addressed to those who are ruled. I must heed what the Bible says about those
who are in power. When I vote, or even
more so when I campaign, I am exercising power.
In the same way as a king, or president, or congressperson, or judge
should use their power for good. I
should as well
·I said it is not primarily a matter of politics,
though that is not something we can simply ignore. It is certainly not a matter of force. We must seek to reach the heart. It is not a matter of coercion. It is a matter of persuasion.
·Don’t just talk—especially don’t just yell—do
something.
What are we doing to uphold life?
Adoption
Snack pack (This is a local program that provides food to kids who depend on school breakfasts and lunches. Some of them don't have anything to eat when they aren't in school. This program seeks to help.)
Every week we have the privilege of reaching out to kids who are otherwise
ignored.
James put it this way,
“Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is
this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself
unstained by the world.” (James 1:27, NASB95)
·One more, and this one is especially for people
like me. We need to proclaim grace.
At my weekly gathering with some pastor friends there were four of us last
Thursday, representing two churches. My
colleagues from our sister church addressed this subject last Sunday night. Doug and I knew this message was coming this
AM.
We asked one another, "Do you think anyone was, or will be
present who has been touched by abortion?".
Almost certainly.
Some of you, because of someone close, or maybe even because of personal
experience, find this terribly hard.
Many, perhaps most, abortions take place in the midst of confusion, despair,
depression, and pressure from others.
God loves each of us. He loves you. He loves that person you are close to who has
been horribly hurt.
Come to His love.
The testimony of Norma McCorvey, Roe, is that she found that grace in Jesus
Christ. It wasn’t hard preaching that
caused Miss Norma to change from pro-choice to pro-life and more importantly to
turn to the Lord Jesus. It was the love
of a little girl.
Let us make sure that our message is always one of love, compassion, and
forgiveness.
I don't have much time, but I wanted to post a couple of links.
One of the accusations that is often made toward we prolife folk is that we are only concerned about the life of the unborn child. The claim is we have no sympathy for the life of the mother.
Our rhetoric and political strategy often communicate that. We need to do a better job. That is one purpose of this emphasis at STTA and this blog.
To our credit, many prolifers are putting their money where their mouths are. Below are a couple of resources in our area where moms in difficult circumstances can find help.
I'll post other information that readers provide, if it checks out. We have worked with the above organizations and I trust them.
Beyond that, I'm pleased to have been involved with Covington Bible Church all my adult life. We don't have a Crisis Pregnancy Center or any special program for moms or babies, but we have helped many moms, dads, and others do the right thing and reap the blessing. I promise that if you get in touch with us we'll do what we can to reach out to you with the Lord's help. covbcsecretary@gmail.com
I have been trying, so far unsuccessfully, to foment a profitable argument on this blog.
Many older evangelicals have concluded that a number of their younger brethren bailed out on the prolife issue in order to cast their vote for a candidate that they found attractive, though a self-declared prochoice-er.
Some of President Obama's actions since election have perhaps shown him to be even more enthusiastically prochoice than he appeared as a candidate.
The landslide democratic victory clearly handed the prochoice forces in the House, and only slightly less in the Senate a carte blanche to enact their agenda.
There is no doubt where the next Supreme Court appointment will be on the matter.
Maybe my younger readers (I flatter myself to think that there are some) fear that this is some kind of trap. I assure you it is not. I want to give you a place to seek to enlighten we oldsters. I'm not lobbying to have you thrown out of the Evangelical Club. I do sincerely hope that your choices were made on some other basis than the surface/image/cool-factor/celebrity-mindset that so dominates our culture.
I confess, on behalf of the gray-haired set, that we have not done a good job. While by-and-large remaining faithful to a couple of "litmus test" issues we have often behaved in an ungodly manner while claiming to stand for God. As long as your gripes are not profane or excessively hurtful, I'll be glad to publish them.
To add further fuel or fodder, here is a recent STTA, that speaks to the subject.
President Obama declared, during his campaign, that answering the question about when human life begins was above his pay-grade. Since then he has received a promotion. He is now "President of the United States," many would say, "Leader of the Free-World," and in many ways he is assuming the role of, "Decider for the Life-of-the-Unborn." The problem is he has yet to answer the question: "When does human life begin?"Yesterday I saw a picture of a lovely little girl, alive and well, who was once a frozen-embryo. When did her life begin? If we honestly conclude that there is an age before which people aren't people, then we ought to say so, be prepared to defend our position and make decisions accordingly. If we conclude that life begins at conception (At the least, a very credible conclusion), then the implications are obvious--that is, if we are a civilized society. If, as our president said a few months ago, we don't know, then do we not owe a benefit of the doubt to the ones about whom we are making decisions? And should we not stay on the ethically safe side of such a question? Sometimes ignorance is way too convenient. It's Something To Think About, at least I hope it is.
If a blogger blogs in a forest and no one reads it . . . ? I figure that the lack of any response to my previous post is due to a combination of realities:
Some young evangelicals have already gone on to something else. Deciding who to vote for is just "So yesterday."
In post modern-fashion they don't want to wade into another utterly frustrating argument/discussion with a hopelessly hung-up modernist--you know one of those guys who really holds that there are things like right and wrong, and true and false. I mean, how do you reason with someone like that?
Probably more important than anything else though, is essentially no one reads this blog.
Since postmoderns are supposed to get truth through story let's try this:
Once upon a time there was a kingdom. It was a very nice place to live. High-speed wireless Internet was available even in the most remote points of the realm. The king in his totally awesome benevolence had decreed that access to this network was a right to all citizens and no one was denied. "Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter to all!" was the slogan heard round the kingdom. In the capitol of the land there was a huge sphere named Blogo. All admired it greatly and looked to it for truth and inspiration. On top of this globe the king had erected a throne. on occasions of great import he would ascend there, and the people marvelled. "He gets it. He is one of us!" They cried. Every house in the land had not only plumbing for hot and cold water, but Starbucks was piped in as well, to provide stimulus.
The citizens of the kingdom existed in blissful satisfaction, except for one thing. The totally green, ecologically-balanced, cool-earth landscape had one problem. In many of the yards around the kingdom there were large, brown, cardboard boxes--you know the kind of containers that ozone-friendly refrigerators come in. Some of these boxes were in driveways, making it terribly inconvenient for some young, hip, up-and-coming citizens to make their way to their upwardly mobile, totally fulfilling jobs, in their totally electric vehicles. Others said that for some having a box in the yard might be a good thing, but for me, right now, it just isn't.
Rumors abounded that there was something in these boxes. People heard noises--remarkably life-like sounds--and others who had ventured to bore holes in the side of a box said that they actually saw children living in the boxes. The strongest evidence of all was offered by those who had seen children come out of these boxes--children that went on to live remarkably normal lives. Others, of course, denied all of this. "These products of recycling cannot be fully alive. Certainly, they do not deserve any particular concern from us. Those that are alive after emerging have life because big people want them as their own and say they are alive. Without that magic blessing they lack true life."
Still the debate continued. Some demanded the right to remove the boxes. Others said that to do so amounted to the unwarranted taking of life. The king of the land chose to remain blissfully ignorant. He gave no heed to those who sent him video that showed that children lived in the boxes. He said that such rhetoric and images were devisive, and interferred with the important business of the kingdom. He declared: "I am not an expert on life-in-boxes. To say what is in the boxes requires more knowledge and education than I have." (Some wondered why he did not seek more enlightenment on the matter, but others judged his answer so wise, clever, and post-containerish that they simply let it pass, or applauded him for his wisdom.)
Soon a special day came when the king had the privilege to grant to his subjects some new boon, as if the magnificence of his reign were not already reward enough. Sweeping aside all the evidence offered by those who sought to protect what they regarded as true life in the boxes, he declared that all, everywhere, may burn, shred, or in other ways dispose of the boxes and their contents. Furthermore it was decreed that should anyone not be able to afford the removal of such an impediment to personal progress, that the king would insist that resources be made available from the coffers of the kingdom--coffers made continually full by the joyful contributions of the citizens. Indeed, one of the king's trusted advisers and allies applauded this decree. She announced that it would lead to the further enrichment of the kingdom.
The citizens marvelled at the wisdom of the king. "He chooses not to know what might interfere with our doing what we want to do. Let us all pray for greater ignorance so that we might be more free. Long live the king."
And all in the kingdom lived happily ever after, except for those who lived in boxes. They didn't live at all.
One of the news stories of the recent election was how a number of young evangelicals chose to go contrary to their elders and vote for (now) President Obama. To say that this syndrome created a crisis in some families I'm acquainted with, is probably not too strong a statement. Basically, the division came down to the older folk holding onto the view that support for a pro choice candidate violated their commitment to the sanctity of life. Many of them just couldn't understand how their kids could . . . Though I'm definitely in the Older Evangelical demographic, I think get it, at least to a point.
The youngsters (and some oldsters) look at a history of opposition to Roe v. Wade abortion law, that has lasted longer than they have been alive and say, "What do we have to show for all this effort? Maybe we should try something else."
There was the obvious generational difference. I mean you could play basketball with Mr. Obama. Ladies could see themselves shopping with Michelle. Poor Old John couldn't get his arthritic hands above his head. In our image-conscious world, in a way that lies behind our cognitive, this image is powerful. Mr. Obama looks presidential in a vibrant, youthful way. In that regard he is a young version of Reagan.
Then there are other issues. The younger folk raised a legitimate question. Is the abortion issue the only thing, or the preeminent thing, about which we should be concerned? That is a question worthy of intelligent debate.
Anyhow, now that President Obama is in office, it would be interesting to hear from some of you young evangelicals who supported him. You are welcome to remain anonymous. Did the speedy repeal of the ban on abortion funding disappoint you? Have you been pleased with his efforts to reach-out? Is speaker Pelosi, friend or foe?
I have a post in the works that questions the morality of a person who says that it is above his pay grade to answer the question of when life begins yet sanctions the killing of whatever those things are inside of women when by his own answer, clever though it was, he admits that he isn't sure whether they are human-beings or not. My suspicion is that he knows that they are. His answer was a dodge of that truth. Is avoiding that inconvenient truth acceptable?
Perhaps most important: Since you rejected the paradigm of voting against the friend of abortion, what new framework do you suggest?
I hope to hear from you. If you do choose anonymity, please let us know the general age bracket you fall into.
