Sword of Peace

When God designed creation, He didn’t just aimlessly speak objects into existence. He didn’t spout out a string of creative language just to see what He could do. He didn’t babble gibberish and marvel at the result. In His six-day generative extravaganza, God crafted and chose with deep care the words He spoke, the objects He created, the infinitely detailed flora and fauna He promulgated across the expanses He made. He did not merely create, He designed.¹ With all the intentionality and meticulousness of a supreme, perfect Being, God organized and oriented this universe so that it was exactly what He wanted it to be. He made it; how could it be any less? The Lord of all Creation, in His first (and only such to our understanding) act of cosmic generation, would not have gone about things half-heartedly. When He made it, it was “good” according to Him.

I once argued, in a philosophy paper written over six years ago, that there was something to be said for the fact that God called His creation “good” rather than “perfect”, indicating that it was not perfect because no one and nothing except God can be perfect, but that it was “good”, meaning as good as God could possibly make it. I now recant this position, realizing that when God Himself is speaking, there is no line between “goodness” and “perfection”. Would anything less than perfection satisfy a perfect God? Consider even the words of God’s own Son, when He says “No one is good except God alone.”² Jesus – that is, God – says that no one is good except God. But God calls His own Creation “good.” Meaningful?

If God devoted Himself in all His perfection and wisdom and power to the work of creating this world, then I think it is safe to say that He invested Himself in His Creation. John, in the first chapter of his first epistle, talks about God as Light. The first thing God adds to the formless, void, lifeless, wasteland that was “the heavens and the earth” is light. God’s first brushstroke on this blank canvas is His very essence. He is not only the artist, but the paint itself.

Many more brushstrokes, words, and manipulations shaped the formless void into Creation. But at the end of each day’s work, God looks at what He has made, and in His perfect eyes it is “good.” It is good not (solely) because He made it. It is good because it mirrors Him, it reflects Him, it contains at least traces of His perfect goodness. The detail, the precision, the diversity, the life, the firm land, the refreshing air, the powerful fire, the nurturing water, the innumerable luminous stars, the unfathomable depth of space – these are all reflections whose characteristics show us something of God, because God designed them to reveal Him.

Even if it is a stretch to say that God intentionally invested Himself into His creation, and thus a part of Him is contained in it, we may still consider Moses, whose face came to glow simply because it had been exposed to God. God revealing Himself to a man transformed that man in a physical way, such that anyone who saw Moses’ face could see a lingering of God’s presence. How much more did all Creation glow as God Himself formed it! How much more did His glory linger in its mountains and oceans and forests and birds and beasts and stars!

At this point, you may want to call me a panentheist. I’m okay with that. Panentheism means a belief that God is in all things (do not confuse this with pantheism, the belief that God is all things). At least in terms of the natural world, at the very least in terms of the natural world before “the fall”, I believe God is/was in all of His creation. I do not advocate, then, that we worship creation as God or as part of God. I rather advocate that we worship the God who is revealed through and in His Creation, and that we revere and respect the Creation that reveals Him. (This is why I will continue to capitalize Creation in this discourse, in order to render proper respect to the divinity revealed in it.)

I have argued that God designed Creation as a reflection of Himself, imbued with His very essence. Perhaps another way to phrase this would be that Creation is made in His image, according to His likeness. As it turns out, He used those very words in describing the last piece of His Creation. It is humankind, according to God, that bears His image, that is made in His likeness. Male and female He created them.

Why does God say “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness”? Is it an early foreshadowing of what we will come to call the Trinity, indicating that God is somehow plural in character? Maybe.³ Here’s another possibility: “we” in this statement could refer to God and His thus-far-completed Creation. God could be identifying the world as He made it as part of Himself, an extension of Himself. We could explore this possibility in a more scientific or philosophical manner by considering ways in which humans are a microcosm of the whole of Creation, but I don’t want to do that. I really just wanted to throw that hat into the ring; feel free to reflect on it or reject it at your leisure.

In any case, God (plural) creates humankind, male and female, and then gives them a single command: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Memorize this, because I will probably return to it regularly. Multiplying and filling the earth cannot be misconstrued; the command is clearly to procreate. What good is a whole world for two people to live in? With the perfect Designer as its architect, certainly this fresh planet’s carrying capacity was higher than single digits. Subduing the land, on the other hand, is up for discussion.

Here are some definitions of “subdue” according to dictionary.com: 1. “to conquer and bring into subjection”; 2. “to overpower by superior force; overcome”; 3. “to bring under mental or emotional control, as by persuasion or intimidation; render submissive”; 4. “to repress”; 6. “to reduce the intensity, force, or vividness of (sound, light, color, etc.); tone down; soften”. Yikes.⁴ If you are familiar with the commonly-used system of Arabic numerals, you might notice I skipped a number. It’s because finally, down at definition 5, I found something that I think actually remotely fits the context of this declaration. The fifth definition offered is “to bring (land) under cultivation”. Aha! Be fruitful, procreate, and farm! After all, as this small start-up group “multiplied”, they were going to need food. I think “being fruitful” covers this category as well; it should not be treated as synonymous with “and multiply” (why would a perfect God’s first statement to humanity be redundant?), but rather as the overarching theme of this command. Being fruitful entails both multiplication and cultivation (almost sounds like the roots of civilization…but we’ll get to that). It means “do something”!

Then God orders humans to rule over animals and eat fruit. Dominion over animals is not God’s way of condoning exploitation of them any more than a wise and good king should exploit his subjects. A wise and good king would watch over his subjects, show concern for them, commune with them, and act in their best interests. Exploiting subjects for personal profit and disregarding their well-being is not dominion, it is tyranny (suitable for some of the improper definitions of “subduing” the earth). The “dominion” humans are commanded to have over living creatures is certainly not a tyrannical one when you consider how powerless humans are to force their will on “the fish of the sea” and to make “the birds of the sky” their slaves. Humans are clearly not to impede on the freedom of these entities; how can they?⁵ Rather, their dominion over the living inhabitants of Creation is only because humans are, undeniably, the apex of God’s creativity. Extreme animal rights activists aside, it is difficult to argue that humans are not in some sense above the rest of the animals. However, being unable to lean on the crutch of civilized technology as demonstrable evidence that humans are superior, I will not attempt to back my argument that way.⁶ I will simply rely on the Biblical narrative, noting again that once God made humans, He ceased His creative endeavor; that He Himself indicates that humans are made in His (plural) image; and that He Himself speaks the words “rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”⁷

What we begin to see is that God created humankind to commune closely with Himself and His Creation. Humans were not designed to exploit and abuse Creation by razing its forests, breeding its animals, and polluting its oceans. Humans were charged instead with the care of Creation, in terms of its living animals and plants as well as its nonliving lands and waters. I would strongly argue that an even better contextual definition of “subdue” is “govern” or “watch over” or “care for”. Not only was the world made for humans, but humans were made for the world.

I want to revisit my earlier point about God’s immense care and consideration in the crafting of the world to note how perfectly God designed the world for humans. As the culmination of Creation, humans were not an afterthought; humans were in God’s mind as He was developing His masterpiece. It is no accident that the conditions on this planet, and no other to our knowledge, are suitable for life. It is no accident that trees bear fruit that is not only edible, but also nourishing. It is no accident that something so integral and fundamental to life as water is abundantly available. This is another aspect of God’s very essence appearing in nature: providence. God cares for His Creation, and that comes through because His Creation (when functioning as it ought) cares for itself.

For five and a half days, God works on space and celestial bodies, the earth, the oceans, fish, birds, and beasts. This is all “good” to Him, in the deep sense of that term. He likes Creation as it is, and we can safely assume He doesn’t want it all ruined. God is not a toddler building a tower of blocks for the joy of watching it fall.⁸ And yet, after the addition of humankind to this already “good” Creation, God takes one more look – the finishing touches are complete, the masterpiece is done – and He calls it “very good”! A perfect God is somehow even more satisfied with Creation now that humanity is in place.

Men and women are certainly very dear to God. They are special to Him, and as such they serve a special role in His Creation. Their bond with it is intimate. They are the subduers of the land, the rulers of the living creatures, the caretakers of the gardens and the consumers of the fruit. Ultimately, though, their role is to maintain and perpetuate the “goodness” that God saw in His Creation prior to their arrival. God does not say “Oh wow, humankind is very good! Never mind all that other stuff I just wasted time on.” He does not say “Humankind is very good, so whatever they do with the rest of my project is fine with Me.” He actually never says that humankind is very good. After His charge to humans, He surveys His whole Creation, now completed, and this He beholds as “very good”. All things together, in harmony, the way He designed it – earth sustaining man, man conserving earth – is what God calls “very good.” This is what pleases and satisfies our Lord.

I have been drawing thoughts so far from the first chapter of Genesis. In the second chapter, we are retold the story of Creation in a different light. In the first creation story, God creates an unknown number of humans, male and female. The second story gives us more detail about this aspect of Creation. God takes some dust and forms a man (singular), and breathes into him to give him life. Just as He has done with the rest of Creation, God invests a part of Himself – His breath or spirit – in this man. Skipping some more details and a geography lesson, God deems the current state of His work unsatisfactory. This is the first time we are told God is not entirely pleased with Creation. Somewhere in between “good” and “very good”, God decides that a lone man is “not good.” Man needs a helper, someone with whom he can share an intimate bond. Man, appropriately dubbed “Adam,” meets and names all the creatures of the field and sky (unfortunately, he wasn’t able to be introduced to all the fish), but none of these seem to fit the job description of “helper” for him.

So God goes back to the easel one last time. There is one more brushstroke to place before the masterpiece is complete. She is called woman. She is made out of man. She, the female, is the culmination of Creation. She is the last thing God makes.⁹ She is exactly what Adam needs. She is designed to complement him, to complete him, to unite with him, to become one with him.

What is this concept of “becoming one flesh”?¹⁰ She, who we will later find is called Eve, was taken out of Adam, and now they are to become one? They will never become one being; this is physically impossible, and is not God’s intent. But look at the process of Creation so far. God takes a part of Himself and transforms void waste into Creation – light and stars and earth and oceans and mountains and fish and birds and beasts. It is “good”; He enjoys it; He communes with it. Then God takes a part of Creation – dust – and makes man from it. Man becomes integrated with his Creator and with the rest of creation, the gardens and creatures also made by God. Then finally, God takes another part of Creation – man – and makes woman from it. Then, we are told, they are to “become one”. Woman and man are to become one, just as man and Creation are to be one, just as Creation and God are one.

Call to mind the dates of the greatest terrorist attacks in history.

You immediately thought of 9/11, whether you really think it was that bad or not. Maybe you also conjured up 12/7, when Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Many, I dare venture to guess most, of you probably neglected to remember perhaps the worst episode of terrorism ever, which occurred on this day 64 years ago.

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on a civilian center in Hiroshima, Japan. This was done for two major reasons: 1) “obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan” and 2) “making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released”. Put a different way, the bomb was dropped to strike terror in America’s enemy (Japan) as well as the rest of the world.

Mourn and grieve today for the unimaginable decimation of human life that occurred on that day. Pray for the Japanese, who suffered through that nightmare and still suffer its effects today. Pray for the American and international world leaders, who have seen the destruction mankind is capable of, and pray they would never see fit to utilize such means again. Pray for peaceful resolution to global conflicts so that atomic bombs, fighter jets, millenium guns, and battle tanks can be converted into plowshares, combines, and tractors so that we can stop ravaging the land and start replenishing the earth with food for our hungry brothers and sisters all over the world.

The problem of evil is well-documented and analyzed elsewhere; I will not begin by restating it, and will simply launch into my current thoughts on the issue.

Okay, there’s evil. Bad things happen. When something evil happens or is about to happen (read: always), there are three possible reactions:

1. God could do something. It seems to make sense. If God is supremely good and powerful, He SHOULD stop evil (according to our human concepts of “good”, “powerful”, and “should”). A lot of the time, He doesn’t. (Sidenote: nobody really knows, or seems to care, how much He actually might. I didn’t get hit by a truck today, or get shot while riding the subway, or get food poisoning from my sandwich. Are those not acts of God preventing evil? We will never know…) Anyway, does this mean that God can’t stop evil? No. After all, He will. We’ve read the Bible, we see the end of the story – the new heaven and new earth where evil has been vanquished. Why aren’t we there yet? Why didn’t God just put us there to begin with? Why evil in the first place? These are questions most Christians have had to either deal with or ignore, and indeed are questions that have resulted in many Christians renouncing that title.

2. We could do something. This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, we can take steps to stop or prevent evil. Humans make medicines to heal and protect against diseases. Humans make smoke detectors and fire departments to guard against people’s homes being burned down. Humans take down evil (and “evil”) dictators to stop even more violence and evil. But there are a lot of considerations that go into this point. One, which was summed up nicely by N. T. Wright in a lovely (if long-winded, but worth it) article I just read (here), is the problem of second-order evil. Of human attempts to combat evil, Wright reminds us: “One thing leads to another; the remedy offered against evil has itself the germ of evil within it, so that its attempt to put things right merely produces second-order evil.” The development of medicine leads to the evil of the pharmaceutical industry, the assassination of an evil tyrant turns some soldiers into murderers, and (this is farfetched, so sue me – I wanted to come up with something) smoke detectors may inspire carelessness among people who think “Eh, the fire department will help if something lights up”, causing accidental fires that could have otherwise been simply avoided. Human attempts to combat evil ultimately fail to solve the problem, much like sweeping the dirt from one room of the house into another fails to make the whole domicile clean.

This leads to consideration number two, which I actually just stated but which bears reflection. Human attempts to combat evil ultimately fail. I think that God is allowing us to observe this truth in action until we finally get it through our heads. Could God stop evil? Yes, he could. Could we? NO! You and I and all the soldiers, scientists, economists, doctors, and lawyers in the world are ultimately powerless to eradicate evil. The problem of evil is stated as a problem about the nature of God, but what about us? Outside of God, there is NO hope for a solution to evil or for a total victory over it. Given that, if we reach the conclusion that God is somehow unable to win that victory, then we are absolutely without hope. This places us squarely in the pathetic third category of reaction to evil.

3. We could do nothing. We could become cynics and resign ourselves to the fact that evil exists and just find a way to cope with it. We could hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, and never hope for or claim the victory over evil. For non-Christians, this position is bad enough. Most of that group chooses to remain in category 2, believing themselves able to generate some hope and make some progress toward “good” and away from evil. For Christians, however, this position is somewhere between foolishness and blasphemy. Let’s return to the considerations of the previous paragraph. As Christians, we acknowledge that we are sinners powerless to overcome evil because of the evil within us. But as men and women of faith, we reject that we are hopeless in the battle against evil. Rather, we believe that our God alone is able to grant us victory. It’s that first part that I think God wants us to grasp. The problem of evil is not a reflection of God’s impotence, but of ours. Evil cannot be stopped by our inaction, but it can neither be stopped by our action – it can at best be delayed or shifted around. Thus our sole hope is in this God who often seems apathetic, bringing us back to reaction 1, and leaving us STILL asking why God doesn’t do more.

But He has. God is not, nor has He ever been, apathetic toward evil. In fact, God has already solved the problem. God, in the broken form of a man hanging on a Roman cross, gathered up all the evil and suffering and pain and travail of the world past and present, and said “I am ending this, here and now.” The seemingly inactive God has already acted. The evil has already been defeated. This is a glorious piece of the “already but not yet” of the Kingdom. Jesus’ death and resurrection did not stop evil in its tracks; despots still murder, fires still blaze, and I still lost my girlfriend to cancer at the age of 19. Evil isn’t gone. But it is defeated. This is why our Lord said “In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33b)

God doesn’t stop evil because we frail humans are still trying to. We’re still putting forth our best efforts and holding faith in our failing systems rather than trusting what we cannot see and living in the hope that has already revealed itself to us. Sometimes, God still honors that; we know this because the world could easily be a LOT worse than it is. But we by ourselves are hopeless and powerless to stop evil. Even our efforts only point us back to the Creator and His good creation: Who made the plants and compounds from which our medicines are made? Who made the water that puts out the fires? In a world so rife with what we call evil, we find already the good made to combat it. This is why we are reminded by Paul, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” To respond to evil by resigning ourselves to it is to be “overcome by evil”; and similarly, to respond to evil with more evil is the same. But to respond to evil by overcoming it with good allows us to combat evil effectively and simultaneously reminds us of the source of our power to do so. The infamous “problem of evil” is not a problem with God. The problem is with us; the solution is with God.

I’ve been realizing more and more lately that God is beyond all human understanding and description. There’s a certain “part” or “amount” of God that He has enabled us to perceive and comprehend, because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to know Him at all; but in our human finiteness, we are incapable of fully knowing or perceiving God. He is something outside the realm of what our senses and cognitive abilities can get a hold on. We use words to attempt to describe God or parts of His nature, and indeed God uses our words to describe Himself in the Bible, but ultimately all our language can accomplish is to paint a portrait of some shadow of God’s existence.

I am reminded of the passage in Exodus where the Israelites get a glimpse of God’s “back” as He passes by them. I believe it was Rob Bell that pointed out a different translation of the word for “back” more accurately means “where He just was”. We can’t see God, only His trails and shadows and images in this world.

With this understanding that our language and comprehension are limited, how can we say anything about God? The only definition of what God is is what God is. Our words ascribe nothing to Him; He is what He is. Can we even say God is good? What is good? We only know the “good” we have seen. Our minds can’t possibly understand the level of “good” that God is. For this reason, I encourage us to think of God less in definites and more in comparatives.

If anything is “good”, God is better.

If anything is “big”, God is bigger.

If anything is “strong”, God is stronger.

If anything is “lovely”, God is lovelier.

If anything is “kind”, God is kinder.

If anything is “pure”, God is purer.

If anything is “holy”, God is holier.

If anything is much, God is more.

My dad is a card-carrying, sticker-on-his-pickup-truck NRA member. I grew up agreeing with him on the issue of gun control because, well, that’s what I was taught. Turns out I was raised to believe a lot of things that I’ve since rethought. Don’t get me wrong, my dad is a wonderful man and I could not have asked for better parents to raise me; but bless their hearts, the Southern Baptists don’t have EVERYTHING right.

My dad has a gun cabinet full of rifles, shotguns, a pistol or two, and ammunition. Some are for collection, some are for hunting. My dad is an avid deer hunter. (Nevermind how you or I may feel about hunting in general, that’s another subject. And for the record, we do eat the meat – he doesn’t hunt just for sport.) Supposedly, there are three big reasons why gun control laws are a bad idea. One is that people who use guns properly, such as for hunting, should be allowed to do so. Another is that people who use guns improperly, such as for armed robbery, would still get their hands on guns illegally despite legislation. The last is self-defense; some people want a gun around the house for protection in the event of, say, someone (with a gun) breaking in and posing a threat to one’s family.

I’m sorry, does anyone really need to hunt? Venison is delicious, but I can’t justify keeping a stockpile of weaponry in my bedroom – and allowing others who may not be interesting in hunting animals to do the same – just for a hobby like that.

Self-defense could be addressed in a whole other post, but others have done so over the years better than I could. I will summarize by saying that such a mentality, with its defensive and violent nature, is wholly at odds with the teachings of Jesus. A selection of verses to back me up: “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28) “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Matthew 5:39) “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44) “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.’ ” (Matthew 26:52) Also, don’t forget the statistics that having a gun around the house for self-defense more often results in an act of self-offense, such as accidentally shooting someone in the home or a child or teenager “playing” with the gun.

As for the “bad guys” getting their hands on weapons anyway, well, now that we’ve addressed the previous two points, this one’s easy: get rid of guns altogether. Now, in a perfect world, we could say get rid of ALL the guns, but we know that won’t happen. The soldiers are going to have their weapons, and the police offers are going to be armed as well. But we can take measures to get guns out of the hands of the common citizens. No permits, no licenses, NO GUNS. No ordinary person needs a gun for any reason whatsoever. And yeah, for a while, criminals will have their ways of keeping and getting their arsenals. Drugs are illegal, but that doesn’t stop much of anyone. However, with legislation in place to make it illegal for people – including criminals – to HAVE guns, a lot of great strides could be taken, and a lot of intentional and accidental violence could be excised from this world.

Having grown up in a “traditional” church, I sometimes feel that such institutions, despite their noble intents, actually put young and developing Christians at a disadvantage when it comes to seeing the Bible for what it is.

When you attend “Sunday school” every week for years, you get accustomed to hearing an exposition of a small passage of scripture with the purpose of either revealing something about God’s truth or suggesting a means of bettering your spiritual life. Little kids are taught about David and Goliath, Noah’s ark, Jesus feeding the five thousand, and Adam and Eve eating an apple. Somewhat older children might be introduced to lessons from the prophets or the epistles. Then there’s Psalms, which is good poetry; Proverbs, which is good wisdom; some scattered Old Testament books that are about kings and war; and Revelation, which is bizarre and confusing and seemingly vaguely about the end of the world.

They are taught how to read a few verses, possibly in context (but probably not), and figure out what it means for their lives. They then adopt this attitude toward scripture in their personal study of the Bible (if they do even partake in such study), trying to extract big lessons from small morsels of God’s word. In short, we are taught to read the Bible as a loosely cohesive series of stories about God and His interaction with humanity. Because of this paradigm, it is difficult for many lifelong churchgoers to make the leap of taking a step back and seeing the Bible as a closely and carefully woven single story about God and His plan for humanity. Such a realization enables believers to return to their individual stories and begin to tie them together.

The lack of such a realization is what causes many Christians born and raised in Sunday school to reject Scripture in their teenage or early adult years; they cannot see it as one book that tells one story, one narrative, instead of sixty-six (or more) historical tales. They fail to see the beautiful, sweeping romance of God reaching out in love to redeem His fallen bride. They fail to see Jesus as the archetype of Israel, suffering through death and being glorified in resurrection, to demonstrate God’s purpose for His chosen people and eventually His entire creation. They are confused when the New Testament quotes the Old, because they hear not with their ears and read not with their eyes what first-century Jews immersed in their devotion to Scripture heard when the gospel of Christ the King was proclaimed. (Let me also note that the gospel, the good news of salvation, is not restricted to the first four books of the New Testament. The gospel is made manifest all over the Bible.)

Yes, being able to read one chapter and get a significant lesson from it is important. But no author writes a book hoping that its readers will only remember one page when they read it. The Bible is a book, a story, a narrative, and God wrote it so that His readers might see exactly what He is doing. The modern church has unfortunately done well in obscuring its overarching message.

My suggestion is not at all that churches abandon Sunday school; learning Scripture is absolutely vital to building faith and spiritual wisdom. Practically, I believe that any Bible-teaching church should offer a class, perhaps even making it mandatory, for all mature believers – those ready to shift from the milk to the meat – in which the continuity and coherent message of Scripture is taught, a class to help believers previously taught the Scripture in fragments to put the pieces together, to open their eyes not just to God’s plan for them but to God’s revealed plan for all creation. (Indeed, I wonder if many churches have a teacher qualified to lead this class! and indeed, I wonder how many churches would be utterly transformed if the lessons of this class hit home with their members and radiated the coherent gospel throughout the congregations.)

It may have made better sense for me to write this post before the election, but the subject matter is still relevant even after Obama has been decided as the next figurehead of america’s government.

It amazes me how many people vote based on one issue or a small number of issues. This is especially true of conservatives in general and even more true of conservative Christians. Their favorite topics are popularly known to be abortion and gay marriage, and how utterly wrong and morally disastrous both of these things are. Close friends of mine have said they could not vote for a democrat simply because of the abortion issue. I agree with them; but I also cannot vote for a republican because of a number of other equally important issues. Voted based on any single issue is incredibly irresponsible. If you are going to vote, you have to examine the whole stance of a candidate on every issue, and then you have to believe that enough of his or her stance is correct to merit your support. No candidate in any party qualified as being worthy of my vote this year.

But I digress, that was a bit sidetracked from what I wanted to talk about. I want to hone in on the very important subject of abortion. I want to express some views that myself from 3 or 4 years would be very surprised to hear my current self saying.

It is increasingly becoming my perspective that we as Christians do not have a right to speak of the immorality of denying babies a chance in this world when we are doing such a poor job of taking care of the people who are ALREADY HERE.

People who oppose abortion are referred to as “pro-life”. That is a very, very strong term. Being a proponent of life means much more than ensuring that fetuses get a chance at life. Being pro-life means ensuring that everyone who HAS a life is getting by well enough. It means making sure that the sick can get healing, the hungry can get food, the inner-city children can go to school, the elderly don’t waste away isolated and lonely in nursing homes, the vagrants have a place to rest their head, the immigrants have a place to call home, the arab-americans aren’t automatically looked at like terrorists, the foreign women and children who have done no wrong can go to sleep at night without being terrified of not waking up, and that no one is denied any of these privileges because of any facet of who they are.

Now who’s pro-life?

The party who wants to let babies live, and wants to bomb our enemies?

The party who wants education reform, universal healthcare, and the redistribution of wealth such that everyone has enough?

The correct answer, of course, is neither one. Neither party is truly, totally pro-life. For an example – perhaps the only example – of someone who was TRULY pro-life, look at Jesus of Nazareth. The whole purpose of His life, He claims, was that everyone around him might “have life, and have it more abundantly.” He was all about making life better, and showing others the way to make life better for everyone. His message was something over and beyond what can be found in any modern-day political message.

If you are a republican, I want you to think long and hard before you refer to yourself as “pro-life”, and make sure you can live that term out. If you are a democrat, I want you to know that a vote for Obama is not a vote for change. A vote is change is what happens when YOU go out and be “pro-life” by helping people and making their lives better. If you are neither, then I thank you; you already get it.

So remember Jesus, and remember what it actually means to be “pro-life”.

By the way…how many times did Jesus talk about abortion and gay marriage?