When Does Life Begin? Still above his pay-grade?

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.

Deafening Silence & inconvenient truth:

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.

The Fault-line that ruptured some families:

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.

Absolute surety about absolutes:

I remember decades ago being at a meeting that was set up as a interface for counselors--not only of the Christian variety--and clergy.
Ironically, I was in the city where the one-day meeting was being held because I was visiting a church member who was in a psychiatric hospital, receiving care that I could not in good conscience all-together endorse.
One of the participants in the meeting said something that has stayed with me: "You need to be absolutely sure, that you absolutely sure about your absolutes."

On another occasion I shared with a friend what is, for me, somewhat of a credo:

• An absolute commitment to the absolutes of God.
• A commitment to meet the needs of others.
• Everything else is negotiable.

My friend replied, "Yes, but some of what you regard as negotiable I regard as absolute."

Which puts us back to the first comment.

If there is no external, objective standard then we are simply left with dueling opinions.

Today, one can hardly read or listen to the news without the word "bipartisan" jumping out all over the place. That word has a wide range of meaning, however, depending on what one regards as absolutes, and what one is willing to negotiate. I can be very bipartisan about the use of my wheelbarrow. I regard who is allowed to kiss my wife in a highly partisan manner--Me and not you! In our world those who refuse to participate in bipartisan endeavors are frequently labeled as obstructionist, stubborn, or as those who place personal agenda above greater good.

I am of the opinion that absolutes ought to be as few in number as possible (Make sure you understand that word "possible" before you jump on me for that statement.) How about weighing-in on what Bible believers ought to regard as absolute. Feel free, in good taste, of course, to challenge any entry. We might help one another to identify those principles about which we must be "mono-partisan."

A Culture of Life:

For longer than most of you who read this have been alive--36 years--Roe v Wade has been the law of our land. There are some technicalities to the law, but essentially--after courts give their very liberal interpretation to "health of the mother"--Roe v Wade provides for abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy. That is confirmed by observing the opposition by pro-choicers to laws limiting late--as in immediately before birth--term abortions.
I was surprised to read recently, in World Magazine that abortion is not a new issue. The later half of the 19th Century, in America, was marked by a very high rate of abortions. 2,000 years ago the Romans practiced infanticide, leaving newborns out to die. The early Christians rightly opposed that practice and rescued many of these little ones. Today, we Christians ought to act with equal compassion and dedication to what is right.

Unfortunately, in recent decades, something that ought to be a discussion about life has become a point of political strategy. Ted Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and Al Gore, all switched their position on the question of protecting the life of the unborn. The case can be made that all the changes were politically driven, rather than being based on matters of conscience. This is one reason that the church needs to continue to speak to this issue. I intend to do so this Sunday, 1/25.
We ought to speak with such clarity on this matter that no politician would be able to say that answering the question as to when life begins is above her/his pay-grade. There was a time when it would have been politically expedient to dodge answering the question concerning the full humanity of people from Africa. Obviously, to do so now, would show that a person is either a bigot or an idiot, clearly not qualified for public office. Our goal ought to be to change the hearts of people, so that everyone knows that babies are worthy of society's protection, whether born or yet unborn.

Speaking of changed hearts, here is an article about God's power to transform. It is the story of "Roe," as in Roe v Wade.
http://www.hausvater.org/mccorveywonbylove.php

They done good. Amen:

I have attempted to join the voices of fellow Christian leaders who have emphasized the Biblical mandate to pray for our new president. I am pleased that several of my colleagues are leading us in this regard. Often at a church service or other public event someone will be called on to lead in prayer. Just reading a prayer, or listening to one, is not praying. If I allow the words of another to lead me in praying from my own heart then I am praying. Though it is often maligned as a practice of back-woods Fundamentalists or Pentacostal enthusiasts, the practice of saying, "Amen!" when another is leading in prayer is something we ought to think about--in more ways than one.
Granted, often, words like "Amen," "Praise the Lord," or "Right on," are just rhythmic responses to a prayer or message, not unlike a drum-beat. If thoughtfully spoken, however, these words can express this prayer from the heart of the one who is being led in prayer. Amen is a word of agreement--it is like saying to the Lord, "Lord you heard what that lady just prayed. I am praying that too. That's two of us on that one, Lord." It doesn't necessarily need to be done out loud, we, the led, need to be mentally and spiritually active when others are leading us in prayer.

Here are three of my fellow servants of our great God who are leading us in prayer. I encourage you to let them lead you. And, I added a brief prayer of my own.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3i9Uu1PJg
• http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php (January 20)
• http://apps.facebook.com/causes/152437?m=8c3a5226&recruiter_id=26134421

Lord, bless our new president with wisdom and courage. May he lead us in the right way. May those of us who proclaim Your word speak with such clarity, power, and compassion, that the word will reach His ears. As he reads Your word, Lord, and hears the truth coming from voices that truly honor You, may President Obama respond with obedience.
Protect his family.
Keep our nation great.
In Jesus name,

Amen

A good description of today's youth:

I just read an article--see the links to the right, Why Today's Youth Don't Get It--about young people today.
I have worked with and loved teens for my whole career as a pastor. Even though I have gray hair and stiff knees, I'm still trying to make a difference with the up-and-coming generation.
I encourage you to read the article.
I'd appreciate hearing your comments.