Tuesday, January 22, 2008

To be a person or not to be - that is the question.


Tomorrow will again mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 court decision that invented and legalized a woman's "right to privacy", including the decision to abort her unborn child. Thirty-five years and untold thousands of aborted babies later, the battle of "choice" or "life" has taken a new turn.

Today's news includes a story from the Washington Post, with the following statement: "The French abortion pill RU-486, on the market since 2000, has become an increasingly common alternative, making abortion less clinical and more private." Now, for about the same expense of an average clinical abortion, a woman can commit infanticide in the privacy of her home. One woman interviewed for the story said, "I chose it because it seemed like a more natural way."

Is there a "natural way" to murder a human being? Apparently so, in the thinking of many who have come to view the unborn child as mere "tissue" in a woman's body. Her body, her choice. So goes the mantra of those who believe this decision to terminate a pregnancy is a "private" choice of the pregnant person. The unborn person, the one that makes the difference between pregnant and not-pregnant, is not part of the decision for the pro-choice position.

And this is so even for many who would not personally want an abortion for themselves or for a loved one. Senator John Kerry, recent presidential contender, expresses this dichotomy of the pro-choice position, saying, "I believe that choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor."

I doubt Kerry would leave the choice of a burglar, standing outside the senator's house, to whatever goes on between the thief and God. I think I know how the senator would interpret the law on that point; and, for His part, God has spoken pretty clearly on the subject of theft, and as well for the personhood of the unborn.

Speaking of Samson, God said, "For behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb" (Judges 13:5) Of the prophet Jeremiah, God said, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5) No legal wrangling or judicial decision can negate the clear authority of God's Word on the subject of who is a person and who is not.

And that's just where the question must hang - on the "personhood", or not, of the unborn child. Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority in Roe v. Wade, comments on the question of the humanity of the fetus as it relates to the 14th Amendment's right to due process. He states well, "If this suggestion of personhood [of the fetus] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." But then Justice Blackmun goes on to state the majority opinion, based partly on their reading of the U.S. Constitution and partly on the legal precedents concerning abortion, that "...the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." The justices preferred to interpret meanings of human law rather than attempt to unravel controversies of religion and culture.

But even with this legal decision, binding as it has been on all subsequent law, the ambiguity of fetal identity remains unresolved in the courts and halls of government. A law passed in 2004 states the legal personhood of the fetus in unmistakeable language. "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence." (Wikipedia.com) Yet, despite the obvious identification of humanity, necessary to be called a "legal victim," the law then goes on to speak of the fetus from the other side of its legal mouth, saying, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution...of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman...has been obtained."

What??? So, it's O.K. for a woman to deliberately terminate her "child in utero", maybe for as little reason as because she simply doesn't want to have a baby, but it's a crime for someone to accidentally take the fetus' life if it's during the act of a "crime of violence." (Like abortion is not an "act of violence", huh?) Even the pro-choice Senator Kerry smelled something rotten in this ruling, saying, "I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and [at the same time] protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."

Our government cannot seem to resist putting human authority, however arrived at in the verbose rulings of judges (and Roe v. Wade is nothing if not verbose!), ahead of the concise and clearly worded statements of God Almighty. The only consolation in this is that all those little persons who were never permitted to exercise their own choice will, I believe, be waiting for us in heaven, already enjoying the presence of a loving God who knew them in the womb.

That raises a lot of questions, I know, such as the age-old conundrums about heaven and about God's sovereign permission of heinous acts of evil in this present world. But we should perhaps first try to solve the question of human legal permission for those who would rob an unborn person of that most human of qualities - making an individual and personal choice to live.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

What place for religion in public life?


“It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

Maybe in the same way we used to want the “big kid” on our team when choosing up sides at the park, there is a division of opinion among religious people and some non-religious ones as to the real nature of George Washington’s religion. Was he an evangelical believer in the sense we use the term these days, was he simply a “believer”, without further parsing of denomination, or was he perhaps a deist, believing vaguely in God, but without specific devotion to Christianity at all.

You can get many opinions from historians and religious people, but you must come away from his Farewell Address with the impression that Washington placed a high value on the place of religion in public life and government in particular. It is said by many students of our first president that he was not in the habit of divulging his personal feelings about specific Christian convictions; it is claimed that he did not refer to the Deity in any way beyond the name of the Bible’s God. But of that much he seems sure, to the point of thinking it impossible to maintain “national morality” and government without a religion founded upon the God of the Bible.

His language may give room for many denominations to claim a place on the stage of public affairs. Indeed, the Muslim may feel that “Allah” and the “Koran” could be substituted for the Christian appellatives without doing violence to Washington’s premise about the necessity of general religion in government. And many commentators on Washington’s religion would seem to suggest that he believed that, not the subjective faith of the believer, but the moral and ethical foundation of religion, biblical or otherwise, is the indispensable component of proper government.

With this conviction of the Father of our country we could add the similar views of many other founders and leaders since their time. And, given that these men are the authors of our national documents, the Constitution and others, which are appealed to by modern architects and reformers of society, it seems incomprehensible that there is so much momentum in the movement to expunge or totally neutralize all references to religion in our nation’s official life. While not yet attempting the removal of religious freedom altogether, so many voices are raised to object to the perceived intrusion of religious convictions and statements into the realm of government.

As a Christian, I cannot apologize for the belief that the country would be far better off if every man, woman and child could come under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, submitting to His authority and knowing His grace and forgiveness of sin. But, though that ideal may not happen, could we at least keep the primacy of religion’s role in government that our nation’s founders so well defended? If the foundation of religion in our public life is abandoned in the name of secular neutrality, is it not just another small step to the public’s belief that religion is quite expendable in our personal lives as well?

You might think that the evident decline in general public morality that we have witnessed over the last 40 years (and please recall it is the same period as prayer has been banished from the schools) would attest to the importance of keeping Washington’s advice. Maybe more must happen in the wrong direction before we will, as a nation, conclude that “morality cannot prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Friday, January 11, 2008

Losing can be winning.

Football legend Vince Lombardi is quoted as saying, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." And there’s something to that. It's hard enough for most of us remembering past winners of Super Bowls, World Series, etc., without trying to recall the other team. For many, “second-place” is just another word for “loser.”

We know that many people can get carried away with the desire to win, maybe to the point of cheating, maybe being overly competitive in everyday life, seeing contests for supremacy where none exist. And even without such excess, losing is never something that people celebrate or look forward to.

So it’s hard for most to think of “losing” as possibly a good thing, to say nothing of being something we can all learn a great deal from. But according to the Bible, certain kinds of “loss” can be quite profitable, even desirable. Let me offer a few biblical advantages of what most of us work hard to avoid.

First, losing can be winning when you accept loss of personal ambitions to share in God's will for your life. Jesus said, "Whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it.” (Matthew 16:25)

Holding on forever to personal agendas, ambitions and dreams can lead to frustration, and may also bring disappointment, even when such dreams are realized. That’s because God has a plan and purpose for every person in the world, but it’s not a plan for personal fulfillment or success. His plan is centered on knowing Jesus Christ as the “Way, the Truth, and the Life.” His plan is aimed at the ultimate redemption of fallen human beings and the glorification of His grace in doing so.

Letting go of personal ambitions can feel very unsettling, but is most often a necessary step toward experiencing God’s purpose for our lives. We don’t by nature yield our plans or life goals to anyone, not even God. And we are much more likely to ask to support “my will be done,” rather than confidently surrendering to “Thy will be done.” But when we choose the life God has planned for us, we truly find life as it was meant to be.

Second, losing can be winning when you accept loss of personal well-being to share in God’s power. After a prolonged struggle with an affliction he called simply, “a thorn in the flesh,” Paul finally heard God’s response to his prayers for its removal. “He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." (2 Corinthians 12:9-10) So convincing was this divine answer that Paul found an insight that escapes most people, saying, “Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am
strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:10)

Holding on to the desire for personal well-being can lead to selfishness and lust, as human beings tend to have an insatiable appetite for profit and power, no matter how much or how little they may have. It seems nigh unto impossible, even for someone like the apostle Paul, to peacefully accept personal weakness and poverty.

Letting go of personal welfare can feel very uncomfortable, but is often a necessary step toward experiencing God’s strength for our lives. God has an experience of true spiritual strength that includes victory over temptation and the ability to manifest consistent character qualities like love, joy, peace and other spiritual fruit, and to do so under conditions that most people would it impossible to do so. When we choose God’s power, even in the midst of great personal weakness, we find power to be fully human as God intended us to be.

Finally, losing can be winning when you are able to accept loss of personal happiness to share in God's blessing. Jesus defined true blessing when He said, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.” (Luke 6:20-21)

Holding on to the desire for personal happiness can lead to much disappointment, as well as strife, envy and resentment, especially if it seems that someone else is better off, and isn’t as “deserving” of happiness as ourselves. Doing without isn’t something that most feel comfortable with, unless maybe they’re deliberately sacrificing things for the sake of spiritual, moral or ethical principles. But martyrs aren’t always the happiest people; some are just principled.

Letting go of personal happiness and prosperity can feel very helpless, but is generally a necessary step toward experiencing God’s blessing for our lives. If Jesus was right (and that’s a safe bet!), then real blessing of the soul comes to those who are content to have whatever this world brings them, even if that’s poverty, hunger and weeping, because they trust in God’s care and provision for them. When we allow God to make us rich in spirit, satisfied in soul and rejoicing in heart, we learn the real meaning of blessing.

In the end, the only “losers” in life will be those who miss out on the chance to experience real life, real strength and real blessing in the center of God’s will for them through Jesus Christ. Compared to that, a million Super Bowl rings would be “chump change.”

Friday, January 4, 2008

How then shall we vote?


To the surprise of many, the delight of some, the dismay of others, last night's first indication of voter preferences revealed that, at least for the people of Iowa, the choice of the people doesn't always swing toward the most experienced, nor to the biggest spenders, nor in favor of the most established in the political game. Two relative newcomers to the national scene came away with clear victories, at least in terms of percentages against a wide field of would-be presidents.

Some are this morning ready to predict, just on the basis of one contest, that the Democratic leader in Iowa's caucuses is the "man to beat", and could well wrap it all up by early February. Things appear less decided among the Republicans, at least for now. But this isn't by any means a political blog, so I won't attempt to comment about trends and messages and momentum and all the stuff of which elections are made. I'll stick to trying to be an interested and hopefully objective observer of this fascinating and sometimes gory process we call Democracy.

Specifically, my interest is in being a Christian, living faithfully under God's benevolent theocracy of the Spirit, while at the same time living properly under the human government of whatever nation or state a Christian happens to call "home." The Bible is clear about this: "Be in subjection to the governing authorities." (Romans 13:1) And again, "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right." (1 Peter 2:13-14)

And this applies equally to the American Christian as to the Russian, the Vietnamese, the Iraqi, the Kenyan and all the other believers in this multi-cultural, multi-political world. We happen to have the tradition and privilege in America to choose our leaders in a democratic fashion. And even that is a modification of the method by which our nation's first several presidents were chosen, when members of the Electoral College had the biggest say about who sat in the Oval Office. So, any way you get there, the path to national leadership is something decidedly human in method and philosophy, and yet God has given His people instructions to "submit yourselves."

I think we must understand that leaders are chosen for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the current political and social climate of the nation, and specifically how people feel about the leadership of whoever happens to be the current president. So it is not surprising that people are often attracted to a candidate who promises little more than "change." What kind of specific change, and how that shall, if at all, come about is not as important to many as simply that it is heralded as the way to go from here. No doubt, each candidate has some specific notions of what needs to be changed, and perhaps some very good ideas, though history shows that there's a lot more to getting a president's ambitions into reality than just "good ideas."

All this being the case (at least in my thinking), for a Christian in America, the chances of getting a competent and effective person into the White House, not to mention one who will be sympathetic to Christian concerns, are much better than in many countries of the world. But it's no guarantee of such an outcome, partly because of the wide spectrum of political philosophies in our nation and also because of the very limited number of people likely to become candidates at any particular time. In any event, Christian voters can do only so much to put someone into leadership who will advocate for policies that promote biblical values and outcomes.

I believe the Bible gives the responsibility to the Christian citizen like any other person to choose carefully among the available candidates for public office. We aren't called to isolate ourselves into some religious compound in the woods, nor to refuse to participate in a clearly human endeavor to select our political leaders, as if that's all too worldly for us. But it is, after all, a human political matter. We're electing a president, not a Savior; a leader, not a Lord.
We should therefore recall, and be thankful that our true Leader, the Lord Jesus Christ, is going to work His sovereign purposes through whatever government we happen to live under, and we will benefit from His leadership regardless of the political climate at the time. At the end of the electoral day, it's still God on the throne, and He isn't subject to term limits.


Thursday, January 3, 2008

New year, same life?


"Hope springs eternal," said the ancient poet. "This is the first day of the rest of your life," says the modern hopeful one. And nothing spurs most of us to renewed hope more than starting the calendar over again, bidding perhaps a fond "adieu" or maybe a "good riddance" to the previous twelve months.

The practice of making resolutions to launch our efforts for a better year is a very old one, going all the way back, according to some historians, to the ancient Babylonians. A survey of popular resolutions reveals that people are ever hopeful of improving the quality of their lives, physically, financially, relationally and mentally. But what becomes of such good intentions? If resolutions could actually improve our lives, we'd do well to enforce the making of such goals among the general public, for there are many lives that need improvement, including my own!

Not that anything's wrong with aspiring to improve onesself and the world around me. But most of us have figured out by now that intentions, no matter how sincere or well expressed, are quite ineffective in making substantive change; and especially so in matters that are the product of some deep, and perhaps stubborn, inner motive or desire. As the apostle Paul long ago stated, "The wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not." (Romans 7:18)

So should we just give up on resolutions and other expressions of our desire to make this year better than the last? Certainly not! But maybe we should approach such improvements as we might any other task. In other words, as the saying goes, "Work smarter, not harder." No problem can be solved or reduced without understanding the problem's cause, and therefore directing our efforts to resolving or removing that cause; or at least managing it more effectively.

To truly improve our lives should always lead us to look first into the realm of the heart, and only the Word of God really provides us with an unbiased and objective view of that territory. No life can be improved to any great degree unless it is first properly centered on God Himself, as the Chief Architect of life and the main Source of power to live it.

Perhaps our first and most formative resolution, therefore, should be to seek the Lord with all our hearts, and then do our utmost, as He gives strength by His Spirit, to to act upon His will. That done, I can predict, if not always a "Happy New Year", at least an improving and more satisfying one.